CAR_Public/991220.MBX                 C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Monday, December 20, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 224

                                Headlines

ALLEGHENY HEALTH: RICO Claims against Bankrupt Foundation Continue
ALZA, ABBOTT: Merger Deal Collapses for Antitrust Implications
AMWAY ASIA: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit in New York
AMWAY ASIA: Milberg Files Lawsuit Alleging of Buyout at Unfair Price
AMWAY JAPAN: Milberg Files Lawsuit Alleging of Buyout at Unfair Price

AUTODESK INC: CA Superior Ct Dismisses Suit against Co. & Directors
BAKER HUGHES: Berger & Montague File Securities Suit in Texas
BAKER HUGHES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in Texas
BAKER HUGHES: Weinstein Kitchenoff Files Securities Lawsuit
BANK ONE: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Illinois

BECTON DICKENSON: Vigorously Defends MDL Suits on Latex Gloves
BECTON DICKINSON: TX Ct Says Class over Needle Sticks Is Appropriate
BECTON DICKINSON: Will Defend Vigorously TX Antitrust Suit Re Syringes
BERGEN BRUNSWIG: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Suit in California
CENDANT CORP: Former Cendant Auditor Ernst & Young to Pay Shareholders

FARMERS INSURANCE: Le Parc Homeowner Files CA Suit Alleging Bad Faith
FIRST NATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in West Virginia
GST TELECOM.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in Washington
GUN MANUFACTURERS: DOJ Reined in Cuomo on Litigation, Legal Times Says
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Poland Welcomes Increased German Compensation Offer

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Review of Responses to the Deal Before Allocation
INSPIRE INSURANCE: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in Texas
LASER TECHNOLOGY: Announces Terms of Shareholder Litigation Settlement
LONGS DRUG: Calls Employees Managers to Avoid OT Payment, Lawsuit Says
M.H. MEYERSON: Aggressively Defends Suit on Underwriting of Optomedic

MICROSOFT CORP: A Portrait of Microsoft Mediator Chief Judge Posner
MITCHAM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Amended Securities Complaint in Texas
MONSANTO: St. Louis Post-Dispatch Says What Cts May Not Do Re GM Foods
MONSANTO: The NY Times Blames Lack of Label for Resistance to GM Foods
NAVIGANT CONSULTING: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Suit in Illinois

NETWORK ASSOCIATES: PA. Pension Fund Gives up Lead to Retain Law Firm
NYLCARE HEALTH: TX Ct Denies Class Status to Physiciansí Suit over Ad.
SAFEGUARD HEALTH: Berman, DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
THREDBO LANDSLIDE: Compensaton May Be Resolved Before Inquest Ends
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Activists Charge Sellers Over Display Of Ads.

TYCO INTíL: Berger & Montague File Securities Suit in New Hampshire
TYCO INTíL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in Florida
TYCO INTíL: Schatz & Nobel File Securities Suit in New Hampshire
XEROX CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in Connecticut
XEROX CORP: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in Connecticut

                              *********

ALLEGHENY HEALTH: RICO Claims against Bankrupt Foundation Continue
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has refused to dismiss a class action civil RICO suit
against 16 former and current executives and trustees of the
now-bankrupt Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation brought
by a group of doctors and researchers who say they joined the hospital
group based on false promises that it was financially sound. In a
24-page opinion handed down on December 16, U.S. District Judge Ronald
L. Buckwalter found that the plaintiffs had cleared the first hurdle on
every essential element of a RICO claim.

But Buckwalter dismissed a state law claim for civil conspiracy after
finding that Pennsylvania requires proof of malice a term that courts
have interpreted to mean that the defendants must have joined forces for
the sole purpose of harming the plaintiffs. Since the doctors and
researchers allege that the executives and trustees also acted to
benefit themselves, Buckwalter found it would be impossible for them to
prove that the defendants acted with malice solely to injure them.

The ruling is a victory for a team of plaintiffs' lawyers Nicholas E.
Chimicles and Michael D. Gottsch of Chimicles & Tikellis; Joseph C. Kohn
and Michael J. Boni of Kohn Swift & Graf, and Ellen Meriwether of Miller
Faucher Cafferty & Wexler.

The suit accuses former Allegheny CEO Sherif S. Abdelhak and other top
executives, including general counsel Nancy Wynstra, of operating AHERF
as a racketeering enterprise. It alleges that the executives passed
Allegheny off as a financially strong, state-wide, integrated
health-care system that was second to none, and that they propped the
organization up and lined their own pockets with millions of dollars
taken unlawfully from funds donated to Allegheny for charitable
purposes." Defendants' representations to Plaintiffs of [Allegheny's]
financial viability and strength were 'smoke and mirrors' with financial
weaknesses deliberately hidden by a complex corporate organization and a
bravado corporate culture characterized by extravagance and waste," the
suit says.

Abdelhak is described in the suit as a financially irresponsible leader
whose excesses led to AHERF's collapse. "Abdelhak's stewardship of AHERF
was characterized by lavish spending on corporate 'perks' such as
glittering black-tie parties, expensive cars, foreign travel and
corporate jets," the suit says. He also surrounded himself with a huge,
overpaid staff whose bloated salaries assured him "absolute loyalty,"
the suit alleges.

In addition to Abdelhak, the suit names as defendants current CEO
Anthony Sanzo; former Chief Executive of Allegheny University's
Philadelphia-area hospitals, Dr. Donald Kaye; former Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer David C. McConnell.

The named plaintiffs in the suit are three doctors and one researcher
affiliated with AHERF's Allegheny-East hospital and medical school
system who want to represent a class of doctors who were full-time
members of the faculty at MCP Hahnemann Medical School, those who had
sold their medical practices to Allegheny and became employees of
Allegheny, and doctors who practiced at or were affiliated with
Allegheny's Philadelphia-area hospitals.

The case was originally stayed due to Allegheny's ongoing bankruptcy,
but the stay was lifted to allow the defendants to file motions to
dismiss.

As Judge Buckwalter described the allegations in his opinion: "The path
to bankruptcy began in 1988 when, under the leadership of Abdelhak,
AHERF began to create the Allegheny East network with the purchase of
the Medical College of Pennsylvania. The rationale behind this move was
to affiliate Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh with a teaching
hospital in order to continue the stream of federal money that AGH had
been receiving to train medical interns. "Throughout the 1990s,
Allegheny East continued to grow by acquiring hospitals in the
Philadelphia area. It also began purchasing the private practices of
physicians. However, by early 1998, Allegheny East was losing a great
deal of money, up to $ 1 million a day. Although several attempts were
made to salvage the division, they all ultimately failed." Therefore, on
July 21, 1998, AHERF filed under Chapter 11 for itself and Allegheny
East. The hospitals operated through the Allegheny West subsidiary were
exempted from the bankruptcy.

"Defense lawyers first challenged the plaintiffs' standing to bring this
suit, saying they failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that
the racketeering activity was the "proximate cause" of their injuries.

Buckwalter agreed that courts do not allow RICO claims by those who are
only "indirectly" injured by the alleged racketeering scheme. But he
found that the doctors and researchers passed that test by alleging that
the racketeering acts were directed towards them. "They claim that the
defendants, as a necessary part of the fraudulent scheme, defrauded them
in order to profit from plaintiffs' businesses and professional
reputations. Following the current pleadings as now alleged, a trier of
fact could trace the cause of plaintiff's loss directly to defendants'
actions," Buckwalter wrote.

Since the plaintiffs allege injuries to both their property and
reputation, Buckwalter said, the injury is sufficiently direct.

Buckwalter also rejected the argument that standing was lacking because
none of the plaintiffs would have been injured if AHERF had not become
insolvent. "Plaintiffs allege that their injuries would have resulted
even without the insolvency of AHERF and Allegheny East," he wrote.
"This helps distinguish this case from many other cases where plaintiffs
incurred losses only as a result of an entity's insolvency."

But in his next paragraph, Buckwalter equivocated on that point, saying
"in the long run, plaintiffs may not be able to prove direct damages
unrelated to the insolvency of AHERF and Allegheny East. The facts may
clearly show that plaintiffs' injuries resulted only from the demise of
the entities that provided their income. If that becomes the case, then
their injuries would be derivative and their RICO claim would have to be
dismissed because of a lack of standing. "But for now, Buckwalter said,
based purely on the allegations, "the court cannot find that there is no
set of facts under which the plaintiffs could prove that their injuries
are directly related to the alleged fraud perpetrated by the
defendants."

                        Enterprise Challenged

Defense lawyers challenged every element of the plaintiffs' substantive
RICO claim, including their theories of enterprise and pattern. But
Buckwalter found that on each prong, the plaintiffs cleared the first
hurdle.

The plaintiffs pleaded four alternative enterprises, he found, including
one alleged to consist of AHERF and Allegheny East, formed and operated
for the common purpose of benefitting the individual defendants and
AHERF's western operations. Buckwalter found that RICO liability "is not
limited to those with primary responsibility for the enterprise's
affairs, and while defendants must have participated in the enterprise's
affairs, the level of that participation need not be substantial."

The "predicate acts" alleged in the suit are all mail fraud, wire fraud
and money laundering, Buckwalter found. And while plaintiffs must plead
such fraud claims with "particularity," Buckwalter found that it was not
necessary to plead the exact date, time and place of each alleged fraud.
"The rule is satisfied where some precision and some measure of
substantiation is present in the pleadings," he wrote.

The defense lawyers also argued that the alleged mail frauds were not
connected to the alleged scheme since the plaintiffs allege only that
their paychecks were mailed. Buckwalter agreed that the plaintiffs did
not explain how mailing or wiring their salary checks furthered the
fraudulent scheme. But that didn't create a fatal void in the suit, he
said, because "for purposes of the motion to dismiss .... the plaintiffs
do not need to further explain how the mailing or wiring of checks
contributed to fraud." The law of the 3rd Circuit, he said, "suggests
that if plaintiffs received any mail or interstate wires which are
remotely connected to a concurrent scheme to defraud, the predicate acts
of mail and wire fraud are met."

                         Scienter Adequate

Buckwalter also found that the plaintiffs adequately plead scienter by
alleging facts that show a conscious or reckless behavior to defraud.
"The major purchases engaged in by AHERF during the 1990's were
important transactions and the precarious state of the foundation's
finances were facts critical to such transactions," he wrote.
"Therefore, each of the officer defendants, all of whom are alleged to
have played a key role in the operations of AHERF and Allegheny East,
could probably have attributed to them the knowledge of the fraud
alleged by plaintiffs, as could many of the trustee defendants." (The
Legal Intelligencer December 17, 1999)


ALZA, ABBOTT: Merger Deal Collapses for Antitrust Implications
--------------------------------------------------------------
Palo Alto's Alza Corp. on December 16 called off its troubled merger
with Abbott Laboratories, sending Alza's stock price down 30 percent in
after-hours trading. In an announcement after the close of trading, Alza
chief executive Ernest Mario said the deal was scuttled because Federal
Trade Commission investigators had concerns about the antitrust
implications of the merger. "It became pretty clear that we could not
meet the requirements of the FTC," Mario told analysts in a conference
call.

The official explanation glossed over the fact that the deal had been on
the rocks ever since Abbott revealed, one week after the merger
announcement, that its manufacturing processes were the target of a Food
and Drug Administration investigation.

That startling revelation prompted a series of class-action lawsuits
alleging that Alza shareholders had been duped, and sent the stocks of
both firms into a swoon that steadily whittled away the value of what
had been touted as a $7.3 billion transaction.

Alza said it would take a $10 million to $15 million charge to cover a
payment it will have to make to Abbott for canceling the transaction.

Trading in Alza had been halted earlier in the day after its shares
started to tumble on speculation that the troubled merger had finally
fizzled. Alza was pounded in after-hours trading, plunging $12.25, to
$27.38.

In contrast, Abbott shares rose 12 percent to $40 in late trading after
the news broke.

Like Alza, Abbott maintained that the deal was canceled because of
antitrust issues and had nothing to do with the fact that Abbott
recently paid a $100 million fine, the largest civil penalty of its
kind, to end the FDA's investigation into its diagnostic device plant in
Illinois. "Together with Alza, we have worked diligently over the last
five months to successfully resolve the issues with the FTC but could
not reach a solution that was in the best interests of our
shareholders," Abbott chief executive Miles White said in a statement.

Now a question mark hovers above Alza, one of the Bay Area's largest and
oldest drug discovery firms. Best known for its NicoDerm anti-smoking
patch, it remains one of the region's few profitable drug firms, with
1998 earnings of $ 112.3 million on revenues of $585.5 million. Alza
employs 2,000 people, including about 1,300 in Palo Alto. "They're a
wounded company," said analyst David Steinberg with Deutsche Banc Alex.
Brown in San Francisco. "Morale has got to be low and they're going to
need a new management team to come in and bolster the troops."

Steinberg said Alza still has the resources to try a turnaround on its
own, but speculation on Wall Street will be that having been left at the
altar by Abbott, it will look around for a better match. (The San
Francisco Chronicle December 17, 1999)


AMWAY ASIA: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued December 16 by the law firm of Abbey,
Gardy & Squitieri, LLP and Krislov & Associates, Ltd.:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a class action has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons who held shares of Amway Asia Pacific Ltd. ("AAP")
(NYSE: AAP) (ASX: AMW) common stock on November 18, 1999, and their
successors in interest (the "Class Period").

In brief, the Complaint charges that AAP, New AAP Limited, and certain
of their officers and directors, and Goldman, Sachs & Co. violated the
federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that the November 18,
1999 tender offer materials filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") and publicly disseminated in connection the tender
offer by New AAP Limited for the outstanding shares of AAP's common
stock at $18.00 per share, were materially false and misleading. Among
other things, the tender offer materials presented the $18.00 per share
as fair to the AAP minority shareholders despite defendants' failure to
consider the impact on AAP of a November 15, 1999 breakthrough agreement
pursuant to which the U.S. is supporting China's entry into the World
Trade Organization ("WTO"). As stated in the Complaint, AAP's business
is greatly influenced by Chinese business and Chinese business
conditions.

Simultaneous with the tender offer for outstanding shares of AAP, N.A.J.
Co., Ltd., offered to purchase the outstanding public shares of Amway
Japan Ltd. (NYSE: AJL) (TOKYO OTC:9821). Plaintiff seeks an injunction
or to recover damages on behalf of himself and all other Class members,
excluding the defendants and their affiliates.

Contact: Jill S. Abrams (jabrams@a-g-s.com), Nancy Kaboolian
(nkaboolian@a-g-s.com), ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP, 00-889-3701 (toll
free) or 212-889-3700 or Clinton A. Krislov at mail@krislovlaw.com or
William M. Sweetnam at mail@krislovlaw.com


AMWAY ASIA: Milberg Weiss Files Suit Accusing of Buyout at Unfair Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com)announced on December 17 that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of the holders of Amway Asia
Pacific Ltd. ("Amway") (NYSE:AAP) common stock against Amway and its
directors arising out of defendants' efforts to complete a
management-led buyout of Amway at a grossly inadequate and unfair price
and to provide certain insiders and directors with preferential
treatment at the expense of, and which is unfair to, the public
shareholders.

On November 15, 1999, Amway announced that its President Douglas DeVos,
its Vice Chairman Richard DeVos, Jr. and its Chairman Stephen Van Andel
together with New App Limited had submitted an offer to the Amway Board
(which is controlled by Stephen Van Andel, Richard DeVos, Jr. and
Douglas DeVos, ("Management Buyers") who control approximately 85% of
Amway's stock) to purchase the outstanding shares of Amway for$18.00 per
share (the "Acquisition").

In pursuing the unlawful plan to cash out Amway's public stockholders
for grossly inadequate consideration, each of the defendants violated
the applicable laws by directly breaching and/or aiding the other
defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care,
independence and good faith and fair dealing. Instead of attempting to
obtain the highest price reasonably available for Amway shareholders,
the Individual Defendants spent substantial effort tailoring the
structural terms of the Acquisition to meet the specific needs of the
Management Buyers.

Contact plaintiff's counsel, William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Milberg
Weiss at 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at wsl@mwbhl.com


AMWAY JAPAN: Milberg Weiss Files Suit Charging Buyout at Unfair Price
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com)announced on December 17 that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of the holders of American
Depository Shares and holders of Amway Japan Limited ("Amway")
(NYSE:AJL) against Amway and its directors arising out of defendants'
efforts to complete a management-led buyout of Amway at a grossly
inadequate and unfair price and to provide certain insiders and
directors with preferential treatment at the expense of, and which is
unfair to, the public shareholders.

On November 15, 1999, Amway announced that its General Counsel,
Secretary and director, Gary Sumihiro, its Chairman and director Richard
DeVos, Jr. and its Vice Chairman and director Stephen Van Andel together
with N.A.J. Co. Ltd., had submitted an offer to the Amway Board (which
is controlled by Stephen Van Andel, Richard DeVos, Jr. and Gary Sumihiro
(collectively, the "Management Buyers") who control approximately 76% of
Amway's stock) to purchase the outstanding shares of Amway for $7.07 per
share.

In pursuing the unlawful plan to cash out Amway's public stockholders
for grossly inadequate consideration, each of the defendants violated
the applicable laws by directly breaching and/or aiding the other
defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care,
independence and good faith and fair dealing. In fact, instead of
attempting to obtain the highest price reasonably available for Amway
shareholders, the Individual Defendants spent substantial effort
tailoring the structural terms of the Acquisition to meet the specific
needs of the Management Buyers.

Contact: plaintiffs' counsel, William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Milberg Weiss at 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at post@mwbhl.com


AUTODESK INC: CA Superior Ct Dismisses Suit against Co. & Directors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 7, 1999, the Superior Court in Marin County, California,
dismissed the purported class action lawsuit against Discreet and its
directors with prejudice as to all defendants named in the Amended
Complaint, with each side bearing their own expenses, costs and fees.
Under the Dismissal Stipulation, no consideration is to be paid to
plaintiffs or the proposed class.


BAKER HUGHES: Berger & Montague File Securities Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 15, Berger & Montague, P.C. (http://home.bm.net),filed a
class action on behalf of an investor and a class of persons who
purchased the common stock of Baker Hughes, Inc. (NYSE: BHI) during the
period May 3, 1999 through December 9, l999, inclusive ("The Class").
The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, in Houston, alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants are
Baker Hughes, Inc. ("BHI") and several of its senior officers.

Plaintiff alleges that during the class period defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that BHI's Inteq unit, which represented over 20%
of BHI's business, had materially overstated its earnings due to
violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principals. This
overstatement of Inteq's earnings enabled BHI to report improperly
inflated earnings on a consolidated basis during the class period. In
turn, plaintiff alleges that the price of BHI common stock was
artificially inflated during the class period. When BHI announced that
it would restate financial results for historical periods because of the
accounting violations at Inteq, the price of BHI common stock declined
precipitously. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for herself and all
persons who purchased the common stock during the class period at prices
inflated by defendants' fraudulent scheme.

Contact: Todd S. Collins, Esq., Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq., Kimberly A.
Walker, Paralegal, Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000, Fax:
215-875-5715, by e-mail at InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit Website:
http://home.bm.net


BAKER HUGHES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel hereby gives notice that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Baker Hughes Inc. (NYSE: BHI) common stock during the
period between May 3, 1999 and Dec. 8, 1999 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges BHI and an officer and director with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BHI services the oil and gas
industry, providing reservoir-centered products, services, and systems
to the worldwide oil and gas industry, provides products and services
for oil and gas exploration, drilling, completion and production, and
manufactures and markets a variety of roller cutter bits and fixed
cutter diamond bits.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants reported
favorable earnings and represented that there were no accounting issues
at the company, which caused its stock to trade at artificially inflated
levels. On 12/1/99, BHI announced it expected 4Q 99 earnings to be short
of expectations. Then on 12/8/99, Baker announced it might restate its
past results due to accounting issues in its Inteq unit that would
require charges of $40-$50 million be taken. On these disclosures, BHI's
stock declined as much as 26% to as low as $15 on volume of 28 million
shares. As a result of the defendants' false statements, BHI's stock
price traded at as high as $36-1/4 during the Class Period.

Contact: Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 210
West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106, by telephone
at 888-643-6735 or 215-625-9999, by facsimile at 215-440-9475, by e-mail
at Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's website at
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


BAKER HUGHES: Weinstein Kitchenoff Files Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato & Goldman Ltd. announces that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Baker Hughes, Inc. (NYSE: BHI), between May 3, 1999 and
December 8, 1999 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges BHI and its president and chief executive officer
("defendants") with violating the federal securities laws by materially
misstating BHI's financial statements resulting from improper accounting
practices at BHI's INTEQ drilling unit. The complaint alleges that
defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing that BHI's reported
financial results were misstated. As a result of the misstatements,
BHI's stock price was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

Contact: either Paul Scarlato, Esquire, or Mark Goldman, Esquire toll
free at 888-545-7201 or by e-mail at pscarlato@wksg.com or
msgoldman@wksg.com


BANK ONE: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The following was released on December 17 by Wechsler Harwood Halebian &
Feffer LLP:

Notice is hereby given that on December 14, 1999, a securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Bank One Corp. ("Bank One")
(NYSE:ONE), First USA, and certain officers and directors of Bank One
and First USA on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
stock of Bank One during the period October 22, 1998 and November 10,
1999, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements in press
releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
concerning, among other things, the business, financial condition,
earnings and prospects of Bank One and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
First USA. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Bank One achieved
its financial results from First USA's improperly recorded revenues from
late fees, penalties and interest by failing to post credit card
payments on time.

After a series of partial disclosures beginning on August 24, 1999, and
ending on November 10, 1999, the facts concerning defendants' conduct
became widely known, including a report that First USA was the target of
an investigation by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the
stock price of Bank One plummeted from its Class Period high of $63.563
per share to close at $34.625 per share on November 10, 1999.

Contact: Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP, New York Robert I.
Harwood, Esq., Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq. or Frederick W. Gerkens, III, Esq.
Telephone: 1-877-935-7400 (toll free) or Wechsler Harwood's Shareholder
Relations Department Shannon Cooper, e-mail: scooper@whhf.com or BULL &
LIFSHITZ LLP classlaw1@aol.com Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Peter D. Bull,
Esq. Phone: (212) 869-9449 or (888) 893-1844 (outside New York State) or
GARWIN, BRONZAFT, GERSTEIN & FISHER, L.L.P. Scott Fisher Phone: (212)
398-0055 or BULL & LIFSHITZ LLP classlaw1@aol.com Joshua M. Lifshitz,
Esq. Peter D. Bull, Esq. Phone: (212) 869-9449 or (888) 893-1844
(outside New York State) or GARWIN, BRONZAFT, GERSTEIN & FISHER, L.L.P.
Scott Fisher Phone: (212) 398-0055


BECTON DICKENSON: Vigorously Defends MDL Suits on Latex Gloves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson & Co. along with a number of other manufacturers, has
been named as a defendant in approximately 310 product liability
lawsuits related to natural rubber latex that have been filed in various
state and Federal courts. Cases pending in Federal Court are being
coordinated under the matter In re Latex Gloves Products Liability
Litigation (MDL Docket No. 1148) in Philadelphia, and analogous
procedures have been implemented in the state courts of California,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. Generally, these actions allege
that medical personnel have suffered allergic reactions ranging from
skin irritation to anaphylaxis as a result of exposure to medical gloves
containing natural rubber latex. In 1986, the Company acquired a
business which manufactured, among other things, latex surgical gloves.
In 1995, the Company divested this glove business. The Company is
vigorously defending these lawsuits.


BECTON DICKINSON: TX Ct Says Class over Needle Sticks Is Appropriate
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BD, along with another manufacturer and several medical products
distributors, has been named as a defendant in eleven product liability
lawsuits relating to health care workers who allegedly sustained
accidental needle sticks, but have not become infected with any disease.

The case brought in California under the caption Chavez vs. Becton
Dickinson (Case No. 722978, San Diego County Superior Court), filed on
August 4, 1998 was dismissed in a judgment filed March 19, 1999 which
has been appealed by plaintiffs.

The Case brought in Florida under the caption Delgado vs. Becton
Dickinson et al. (Case No. 98-5608, Hillsborough County Circuit Court)
filed on July 24, 1998 was voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiffs on
March 8, 1999.

Cases have been filed on behalf of an unspecified number of health care
workers in nine other states, seeking class action certification under
the laws of these states. To date, no class has been certified in any of
these cases. The nine remaining actions are pending in state court in
Texas, under the caption Usrey vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No.
342-173329-98, Tarrant County District Court), filed on April 9, 1998;
in Federal Court in Ohio, under the caption Grant vs. Becton Dickinson
et al. (Case No. C2 98-844, Southern District of Ohio), filed on July
22, 1998; in state court in Illinois, under the caption McCaster vs.
Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. 98L09478, Cook County Circuit Court),
filed on August 13, 1998; in state court in Oklahoma, under the caption
Palmer vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. CJ-98-685, Sequoyah County
District Court), filed on October 27, 1998; in state court in Alabama,
under the caption Daniels vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. CV 1998
2757, Montgomery County Circuit Court), filed on October 30, 1998; in
state court in South Carolina, under the caption Bales vs. Becton
Dickinson et al. (Case No. 98-CP-40-4343, Richland County Court of
Common Pleas), filed on November 25, 1998; in state court in
Pennsylvania, under the caption Brown vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case
No. 03474, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas) filed on November
27, 1998; and in state court in New Jersey, under the caption Pollak
Swartley vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. L-9449-98, Camden County
Superior Court), filed on December 7, 1998; and in state court in New
York, under the caption Benner vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No.
99-111372, Supreme Court of the State of New York) filed on June 1,
1999.

Generally, these remaining actions allege that health care workers have
sustained needle sticks using hollow-bore needle devices manufactured by
the Company and, as a result, require medical testing, counseling and/or
treatment. Several actions additionally allege that the health care
workers have sustained mental anguish. Plaintiffs seek money damages in
all remaining actions.

In June 1999, a class certification hearing was held in the matter of
Usrey vs. Becton, Dickinson et al., which was first filed in Texas state
court on April 9, 1998, under the caption Calvin vs. Becton Dickinson et
al. The Court has advised the parties by letter received October 27,
1999 that it believes that it is appropriate to address the issues in
the case by way of a class action under Texas procedural law. The Court
has scheduled a meeting with the parties' counsel in mid-December to
discuss the wording of an appropriate order.

BD continues to oppose class action certification in this and the other
remaining cases and will continue vigorously to defend these lawsuits,
including pursuing all appropriate rights of appeal.


BECTON DICKINSON: Will Defend Vigorously TX Antitrust Suit Re Syringes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BD, along with another manufacturer, a group purchasing organization
("GPO") and three hospitals, has been named as a defendant in an
antitrust action brought pursuant to the Texas Free Enterprise Act
("TFEA"). The action is pending in state court in Texas, under the
caption Retractable Technologies Inc. vs. Becton Dickinson and Company
et al. (Case No. 533*JG98, Brazoria County District Court), filed on
August 4, 1998.

Plaintiff, a manufacturer of retractable syringes, alleges that the
Company's contracts with GPOs exclude plaintiff from the market in
syringes and blood collection products, in violation of the TFEA.
Plaintiff also alleges that the Company has conspired with other
manufacturers to maintain its market share in these products. Plaintiff
seeks money damages. The pending action is in preliminary stages. The
Company intends to mount a vigorous defense in this action.


BERGEN BRUNSWIG: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement on December 16 by the Law Office of
Attorney Alfred G. Yates Jr:

Attention: Bergen Brunswig Corporation (NYSE: BBC) Shareholders

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED A class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California, on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock
(collectively the "common stock") of Bergen Brunswig Corporation
("Bergen Brunswig" or the "Company") (NYSE: BBC), between March 16, 1999
and October 14, 1999, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Bergen Brunswig is accused of fraudulently misrepresenting the Company's
condition, earning growth, financial statements and the Company's
ability to continue to achieve profitable growth in order to inflate the
price of the Company's stock.

According to the Complaint, the Company and its controlling insiders
issued a series of false and misleading statements to the market
regarding the acquisitions of Stadtlander Drug Co., Inc., and
PharMerica, Inc. while omitting to disclose known adverse facts about
the Company's troubled operations, diminished profitability and true
financial conditions.

Defendants' statements were false and caused Bergen Brunswig stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period (March 16,
1999 - October 14, 1999). When the truth about defendants'
misrepresentations became known to investors, the price of Bergen shares
dropped dramatically from a Class Period high of over $25 per share,
reaching as low as $6.44 per share in intra-day trading on October 19,
1999, as the market digested the adverse revelations.

Contact: Alfred G. Yates Jr, Esq., 519 Allegheny Building, 429 Forbes
Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, TELEPHONE toll free at
800-391-5164 or 412-391-5164, or via e-mail at yateslaw@aol.com


CENDANT CORP: Former Cendant Auditor Ernst & Young To Pay Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Plaintiffs' Co-Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP and Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Ernst & Young, the former
auditor of CUC International Inc, agreed on December 17 to a $335
million settlement in the securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders of Cendant Corporation (NYSE: CD), the company formed
through the December, 1997 merger of HFS International and CUC
International, Inc. according to plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, the law
firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine.

This settlement is in addition to the $2.83 billion settlement already
being paid by Cendant Corporation, as announced on December 7, 1999. The
$335 million settlement amount being paid by defendant Ernst & Young LLP
is the largest amount ever paid by an accounting firm in a securities
class action case. The total amount of the two settlements is
$3,167,500,000, the largest cash settlement ever achieved in a
securities fraud class action.

The Settlement successfully resolves all claims of the class against all
defendants in the case. In addition, as announced on December 7, 1999,
the Class will also receive one-half of any recovery obtained by Cendant
and its officers and directors in their lawsuits against Ernst & Young,
which are continuing.

The Class consists of persons and entities, other than defendants and
their affiliates, that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Cendant and its predecessor, CUC International, other than
Cendant PRIDES, during the period from May 31, 1995 through and
including August 28, 1998. In an Order entered on July 27, 1999, the
Court upheld the securities law claims asserted against Cendant on
behalf of purchasers of Cendant securities after April 15, 1998, but
ruled that such Class members do not have viable claims against Ernst &
Young, which made no public statements after that date. Thus, while
Class Members who purchase Cendant securities after April 15, 1998 will
be entitled to receive a distribution from Cendant's settlement payment
into the Settlement Fund, they will not be entitled to any payment from
the settlement monies being paid by Ernst & Young based on post-April 15
purchases.

In a joint statement commenting on the settlement with Ernst & Young,
Max W. Berger, senior partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP and Leonard Barrack, senior partner at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine,
stated: "Under the securities laws, accounting firms must stand as
watch-dogs on behalf of the investing public. The Supreme Court said
many years ago that accounting firms have a paramount role in ensuring
the accuracy of financial reports issued by public companies. Here, a
massive financial fraud took place at CUC, which encompassed three
annual reports, seven quarterly reports and some twenty registrations
statements, each of which included or incorporated fraudulent financial
statements."

The two firms were appointed as Lead Counsel for the Class in October,
1998 by the Honorable William H. Walls, U.S. District Court Judge in the
District of New Jersey. The firms had been retained as counsel by the
three largest public retirement and pension funds in the United States -
the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the New
York State Common Retirement Fund, and various New York City Pension
Funds. The three pension systems were appointed by the Court to serve as
Lead Plaintiffs for the case.

Berger and Barrack added: "The amounts being paid by Cendant and Ernst &
Young constitute the largest recovery ever obtained by far in a
securities class action case. They demonstrate the importance of
institutional investors, like our clients in this case, taking the lead
in securities law class action cases, and the importance of maintaining
the vitality of the federal securities laws."

The parties anticipate that a formal Stipulation of Settlement will be
signed and submitted to the Court by mid-January, 2000, and that a final
hearing the Settlement will occur in April, 2000. The settlement amounts
will begin accruing interest upon District Court approval of the
settlement.

A Fact sheet concerning the Ernst & Young settlement is attached. For
additional information about the "In re Cendant Corporation Securities
Litigation," please visit the Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
web site at: http://www.blbglaw.comin the JUST IN section.

FACT SHEET

IN RE CENDANT CORPORATION LITIGATION

MASTER FILE NO. 98-1664 (WHW) (D.N.J.)

THE CLASS -- The case was brought on behalf of all persons and entities,
other than defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Cendant and its predecessor, CUC
International, Inc. (other than Cendant PRIDES), during the period from
May 31, 1995 through August 28, 1998, inclusive. The Class encompasses
persons and entities who acquired: (a) Cendant and CUC common stock,
including stock acquired in exchange for HFS International common stock
in the merger between HFS and CUC, which combined to form Cendant on
December 17, 1997; (b) Cendant and CUC common stock options; (c) Cendant
5 % Senior Notes due 2003; (d) Cendant 4 3/4 % Convertible Senior Notes
due 2003; and (e) Cendant 3% Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2002.

LEAD PLAINTIFFS FOR THE CLASS -- The California Public Employees'
Retirement System (CalPERS); the New York State Common Retirement Fund;
and the New York City Pension Funds.

COUNSEL FOR THE CLASS -- Lead Plaintiffs and the Class are represented
by the law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, based in
New York and Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, based in Philadelphia.

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On April 15, 1998, Cendant disclosed that it would restate previously
reported financial results for 1997, including reducing 1997 net income
by $100 million to $115 million, because of unspecified accounting
irregularities relating to certain business segments of CUC. Cendant
also announced that the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors had
retained the law firm of Wilkie Farr & Gallaher ("WF&G") as special
legal counsel to investigate the accounting irregularities, and that
WF&G had retained the accounting firm of Arthur Anderson LLP ("AA") to
perform an independent investigation.

On July 14, 1998, Cendant announced that it would restate CUC's and
Cendant's previously reported financial results for 1995, 1996 and 1997,
and all quarters of those years. At that time, Cendant revealed its
finding that a widespread fraud had occurred at CUC that included
improperly recognizing fictitious revenues, falsely coding services sold
to customers and fraudulently manipulating merger reserves.

On August 28, 1998, Cendant filed with the SEC a report prepared by WF&G
and AA and adopted by the Audit Committee, that detailed the fraud they
discovered that had pervaded 17 of CUC's 22 operating units and had
caused CUC's and CMS's operating income to be inflated by approximately
$500 million; income from continuing operations before income taxes by
approximately $297.2 million; earnings per share by $0.61; and quarterly
income in 1995, 1996 and 1997 by $31 million, $87 million and $175
million, respectively.

As a result of the disclosures, starting on April 15, 1998, the price of
Cendant stock fell precipitously. On April 16, 1998, the market price of
Cendant stock fell from approximately $35 per share to $19 per share, on
trading of approximately 108 million shares, which was the largest
market loss in U.S. history. With the announcements of July 14 and
August 28, 1998, the stock fell to nearly $11 per share.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE

Over 50 lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for he District
of New Jersey following the April 15 announcement. They were assigned to
the Honorable William H. Walls, U.S. District Judge. The Court
consolidated all of these cases by order of May 29, 1998.

On September 17, 1998, Judge Walls appointed the New York State Common
Retirement Fund, CalPERS and various New York City Pension Funds as the
Lead Plaintiffs, pursuant tot he Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, which encourages institutional investors to see lead
positions in securities law class action cases.

On October 9, 1998, Judge Walls appointed the law firms of Barrack,
Rodos & Bacine and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, who were
selected by the Lead Plaintiffs to represent them, to be Lead Counsel
for the Class after a competitive bidding process established by the
Court to ensure the best representation for he Class at a fair price.

On December 14, 1998, Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on Behalf of Purchasers and Acquirers of All
Cendant and CUC Publicly Traded Securities except PRIDES (the
"Complaint"), asserting claims against Cendant; certain of its officers
and directors; certain former officers and directors of CUC; and E&Y for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws. At the same time,
Lead Plaintiffs moved for certification of a Class of all persons and
entities, other than defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or
acquired publicly traded securities of Cendant and its predecessor, CUC,
during the period from May 31, 1995 through August 28, 1998.

On January 27, 1999, the Court granted the motion for certification of
the Class requested by motion of December 14, 1998.

On July 8, 1999, the Court heard argument on motions filed by various
defendants to dismiss all or portions of the Complaint. On July 27,
1999, the Court denied all such motions, except that the Court granted
E&Y's motion to dismiss the claims brought against it for purchases of
Cendant publicly traded securities made after April 15, 1998.

On July 27, 1999, the Court also heard oral argument on various motions
to stay proceeding in the class action case pending the outcome of an
investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorneys' Office relating to
Cendant. While permitting the U.S. Attorneys' Office to intervene for
the purpose of moving to stay the case, the Court, with limited
exceptions, denied the motions seeking a stay.

On December 7, 1999, Lead Plaintiffs and Cendant reached an historic
settlement of the claims of the Class against Cendant and its present
and former officers and directors, consisting of a cash payment of $2.83
billion; entitlement to 50% of any recover y Cendant obtains from Ernst
& Young; and significant corporate governance changes agreed to by
Cendant and its Board of Directors.

DEVELOPMENTS LEADING TO THE SETTLEMENTS OF THE CASE

From the outset of the case, Lead Counsel conducted and extensive
investigation concerning the allegations of wrongdoing pertaining to
each defendant, the damages suffered by the Class, and the financial
capabilities of the defendants. They inspected hundreds of thousands of
documents produced by Cendant, Ernst & Young, the individual Defendants
and various non-parties. Lead Counsel further retained Forensic
Economics, Inc., and expert consultant in the field of assessing damages
in securities law cases, and Lazard Freres & Co., LLC, an
internationally renowned investment bank firm, to assist in analysis and
settlement negotiations.

Settlement negotiations were conducted under the auspices of Lead
Plaintiffs and with constant consultation between Lead Plaintiffs and
our two firms. The discussions with Cendant's counsel, which began in
earnest in May 1999, were intense, complicated and arduous. Equally
intense were the negotiations between Lead Counsel and counsel for Ernst
& young, which began in earnest in September While settlement
discussions were occurring, Lead Plaintiffs continued to vigorously
prosecute the case on behalf of the Class, fighting the motions to
dismiss and to stay, and pursuing the extensive factual investigation
and analysis of documents.

TIMING

It is hoped that the formal Stipulations of Settlement can be submitted
to the judge by early January, and approved at a final settlement
hearing sometime in April, 2000. Assuming preliminary approval of the
Settlements by the Court, we anticipate that a formal Notice of the
Settlements will be mailed to Class members.

Contact: Ava C. Thorin of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
212-554-1429; or Leonard Barrack of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine,
215-963-0600


FARMERS INSURANCE: Le Parc Homeowner Files CA Suit Alleging Bad Faith
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A Le Parc condominium owner filed a class-action lawsuit against Farmers
Insurance Group on December 16 on behalf of hundreds of Simi Valley
homeowners saddled by a multimillion dollar judgment. Nanette
Larrecq-Pessano, acting on behalf of 264 Le Parc homeowners, filed suit
against Farmers in Ventura County Superior Court for breach of contract,
bad faith and at least $7.2 million owed an Arcadia contractor.

It also seeks unspecified damages caused by Farmers' alleged failure to
pay the judgment incurred by a former Le Parc homeowners association
during a contract-libel dispute with the ZM Corp. for earthquake repairs
in 1994.

Named in the suit are the Farmers Insurance Group, Truck Insurance
Exchange, Farmers Insurance Exchange and the Le Parc Homeowners
Association.

The action, filed by two Irvine law firms, is the third such complaint
against Farmers among a ream of lawsuits stemming from an arbitrator's
ruling favoring ZM Corp. in July 1998. Since then, dues for maintenance
and utilities have been siphoned off by a receiver to pay down a debt
estimated to cost homeowners up to $30,000 each. Courts have also
ordered condo owners to pay ZM Corp. a special assessment of $166 a
month, or face losing their homes.

The class-action suit demands a jury trial. "I think that there has been
endless litigation going on involving the Le Parc complex," said Michael
Kennedy of Werner Migoya & Abeltin of Irvine, who has joined the law
offices of Gordon G. Phillips in representing homeowners. "The
individual homeowners are the ones who have suffered the most and have
had the least voice," he said. "Hopefully, now they will be able to
express those voices and become actively involved in trying to save
their community and homes."

Neither the Farmers Insurance nor the Le Parc Homeowners Association had
seen the suit on December 16.

Farmers has promised to pay any pertinent Le Parc claims but filed a
motion last year asking the courts to decide. Jerry J. Carnahan, vice
president and state executive director for Farmers Group, based in Simi
Valley, said the company already pays special assessments for 50 Le Parc
homeowners. "What's sad,"he said, "(is) we're probably their best
friend, but we're the only ones they can sue, and we understand that."
Jim Lingl, who represents the Le Parc Homeowners Association, said he
hoped one more lawsuit concerning Le Parc "won't further divide this
community."

On December 15, about 75 Le Parc residents met with lawyers at the Simi
Valley Senior Citizens Center to discuss the ramifications of a
class-action suit. To defray costs, each homeowner was asked to
contribute between $200 and $400. "What people probably don't understand
is this is probably the last opportunity we have," Tom, a Le Parc
homeowner who didn't give his last name, said at December 15's rally.
"As far as I'm concerned, any straw, I mean any straw, we're dying,"
said James Lee, another resident. "People are losing their homes and
Farmers doesn't give a (expletive)." (Ventura County Star (Ventura
County, Ca.) December 17, 1999)


FIRST NATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement by the law firm of Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed on December
13, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of First National Bank of Keystone ("Keystone", "Company" or the
"Bank") (OTC: FRLBE) between September 1, 1996, through September 1,
1999, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges certain senior officers and directors of Keystone
and the Company's outside auditor's during the relevant time period with
violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated
under the Exchange Act, Section 32-1-101 of West Virginia Uniform
Securities Act, common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The
complaint alleges that on or about September 1, 1999, the Bank was
seized by federal regulators because the Bank was allegedly carrying
$515 million in loans on the Bank's books that should have been removed
after the loans were securitized and sold. Subsequently, certain
defendants were arrested on obstruction of justice charges related to
the removal and concealment of thousands of the Bank's records.

The complaint further alleges that in 1998, that the Bank's outside
auditors, Grant Thornton LLP ("Grant Thornton"), audited and certified
the Bank's financial statements for 1997 and 1998, issuing a 'clean'
opinion just five months prior to the Bank's seizure by federal
regulators.

Contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach ("Milberg Weiss"), Steven
G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman at One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor,
New York, New York 10119-0165, by telephone 1-800-320-5081 or via
e-mail: endfraud@mwbhlny.com or visit website at http://www.milberg.com


GST TELECOM.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement from the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on December 16:

The law firm of Wolf Haldensten Adler Freeman and Herz LLP has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of GST Telecommunications, Inc (Nasdaq: GSTX) between Nov. 4,
1996, through Oct. 21, 1998.

The suit, filed in the Western District of Washington, seeks to recover
under the federal securities laws for damages sustained by members of
the proposed Class. GST and six of its former insiders are named in the
suit, which alleges the defendants defrauded GST investors in connection
with the improper diversion of a GST corporate opportunity away from GST
and to a former shell corporation in which the individual defendants had
substantial interests. Persons who are members of the Class described
above have sixty days from October 21, 1999 to move the court if they
desire to serve as lead plaintiffs in the case. In order to serve as a
lead plaintiff, you must met certain legal requirements.

Contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue,
New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735 (Michael Miske,
Gregory Nespole, Esq., via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or
whafh@aol.com or nespole@whafh.com or Gnespole@aol.com or visit website
at http://www.whafh.com
(All e-mail correspondence should referenced GSTX.)


GUN MANUFACTURERS: DOJ Reined in Cuomo on Litigation, Legal Times Says
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Justice Department officials helped scuttle the federal government's
original plan to sue gun manufacturers, forcing the Clinton
administration to scale back its prospective legal attack.

Initially, Cuomo wanted the federal government to sue gun manufacturers
directly, says one DOJ official who asks not to be named. But that idea
repeatedly stalled, says the official - in large part because within the
department "there was unanimous opinion that the federal government did
not have a legal basis to sue."

Justice officials say HUD and the White House came up with the idea of
suing on behalf of the PHAs. Since October 1998, several cities have
sued the gun industry, making product liability and negligence claims.
In the push for a long-term settlement, the federal effort could merge
with that of the states.

                        Reno, Holder Skeptical

"There's a little bit of a split within the department," says the DOJ
official. "There are those who think (HUD's possible suit) is based on a
totally bogus argument, and there are those who say while it's bogus for
the federal government to sue, there's a colorable argument that the
PHAs could sue."

According to two Justice officials, Attorney General Janet Reno and her
chief deputy, Eric Holder Jr., remain skeptical of the administration's
current legal rationale. Justice spokeswoman Gretchen Michael says the
department will be strictly limiting its involvement to a sidelines
policy advisory role. Michael and two other Justice officials note that
the department officially will not comment on the matter because the
PHAs, while largely funded by HUD, are not federal entities. Michael
adds that Justice shares HUD's hope that a settlement can be reached.

White House domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed, who has worked closely
with Cuomo on the issue, would not confirm whether Cuomo initially
proposed having the federal government bring the suit. But he did say
that "since the summer, the only serious discussions about this have
been about PHAs bringing the suit."

HUD officials dispute the notion that some at Justice doubt the merits
of the possible suit. They add that no federal lawyers would be involved
in any potential suit - despite the fact that several PHAs are under HUD
receivership, making them even more directly linked to the agency.

National Rifle Association chief lobbyist James Baker says the planned
suit "is the height of hypocrisy, as far as we're concerned."

Baker says the feds should concentrate on increasing the number of
prosecutions based on existing gun laws, instead of "trying to usurp
legislative prerogatives" by forcing new laws through any settlement or
suit.

Conversely, Josh Horwitz, director of the Educational Fund to End
Handgun Violence, says that "the PHAs' damages are easy to articulate."
In addition to damaging the viability of the PHAs themselves, he says,
guns have significantly diminished the safety of the residents. (Legal
Times December 13, 1999)


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Poland Welcomes Increased German Compensation Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Polish government welcomed German agreement on a 10 billion mark ($
5.2 billion) fund to compensate former Nazi forced and slave laborers.
The Foreign Ministry issued a statement praising ''good and close
cooperation of the U.S. administration'' with Polish diplomats and
expressed ''appreciation to efforts and final decisions of the German
side.''

Poland is home to an estimated half-million surviving Nazi-era forced
and slave laborers, more than any other country.

During further talks on how to distribute the money, Poland will seek to
compensate Nazi victims as soon as possible, the Foreign Ministry said.
''We hope that a just distribution of the fund will contribute to
overcoming the legacy of the past,'' it said.

Agreement on the fund amount was announced on December 17 in Berlin
after months of contentious negotiations. It was proposed by German
companies who used slave labor in the Nazi era, and was partly an effort
to seek protection from U.S. class action lawsuits.

Among Poland's chief concerns was the possibility that many of an
estimated 220,000 Poles who were forced to do farm labor could be left
out of a final deal. German companies have said they never intended to
compensate farm workers in addition to industrial laborers.

The Polish Foreign Ministry made no direct mention of the issue in its
statement. (AP Worldstream December 17, 1999)


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Review of Responses to the Deal Before Allocation
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The AP Worldstream of December 17 tells of the story of a Polish Farm
Laborer during the Nazi-era:

Three years of 16-hour days hauling sacks of potatoes and carrots on his
back as a forced laborer nearly broke Jozef Wolan. He was almost driven
to suicide by brutal beatings that left him deaf in the left ear and
hard of hearing in the right. His spine is chronically stiff.

A half-century later, Wolan, now a 74-year-old retired Polish economist,
hopes finally to get some compensation for his labor and pain. After
months of contentious negotiations, victim groups and Germany have
agreed on a fund of about dlrs 5.2 billion for Nazi-era forced and slave
laborers.

Wolan is not sure how much might trickle down to him there may be as
many as 2.3 million victims who believe they deserve payments but time
is running out. And he may not be eligible at all under the fund's
rules. ''This money cannot compensate for three years of hard toil, but
maybe it will help my daughter,'' he said. ''And we urgently need to
renovate the house, but we have no money for it.'' ''It is better (for
Germany) to give less but soon, than more later which would mean never
for these aging people,'' he said.

Details about who will be eligible were being withheld until a meeting
on December 17 in Berlin. Among those who could be left out: farm
laborers who were not under constant armed guard.

Wolan was just 16 on a cold January day in 1942 when he suddenly found
himself being hustled at gunpoint onto a truck in the village of
Drohobyczka in what is now southeastern Poland. His family knew nothing
of his fate until after the war. Taken by train to Magdeburg, southwest
of Berlin, he was put on display at a ''market,'' where he was chosen by
a local farmer and put to work hauling carrots and potatoes to carts and
train carriages. ''In the first nine months I was near suicide'' because
of repeated beatings by a farm worker named Rudolf, Wolan said. The
worst ended when the German military finally drafted his tormentor. ''I
was beaten severely a number of times on the head that made blood run
from my ears,'' he said.

While he seems certain his suffering makes him eligible for
compensation, the Polish government still worries that victims like
Wolan still might be left out. German companies who proposed the
compensation fund, partly to protect themselves from U.S. class-action
lawsuits, say they never intended to pay farm workers in addition to
industrial laborers.

That is a huge worry in Poland, where 220,000 of an estimated
half-million surviving Nazi-era labor victims suffered on German farms.
''Poland expects the result of negotiations to reflect historical
truth,'' Jerzy Widzyk, Poland's chief negotiator, said in remarks
reported by the daily Rzeczpospolita. ''We will insist that the demands
of Polish citizens be satisfied in a decent way.''

Wolan bristles at any notion that he had it easier than people who
toiled under guard in Nazi factories. He talks of being forced to wear a
''P'' for Poland on his clothes, an open invitation for Germans to abuse
him. He worked 16-hour days and slept in an unheated room in a stable.
He subsisted mostly on thin soup and bread supplemented by whatever
potatoes or carrots he could steal from feed for the farm's pigs. His
pay, never more than 16 marks a month, was barely enough for a few packs
of cigarettes.

Wolan's only consolation, he said, were rare and secret meetings with a
Polish girl named Stasia who worked on another nearby farm. ''We
encouraged and helped each other when we could, and then we traveled
back to Poland together,'' Wolan said. They married in 1947, and have
two children, three grandchildren and one great-grandson.

After the war, Wolan attended night school, eventually graduating from
an economics academy and working at various state companies. But he
wonders what might have been had he not lost three of the best years of
his life. Since retiring in 1990, he has found some solace helping
organize Nazi victims in the Baltic port city of Szczecin, where his
family now lives. He hopes the negotiators in Berlin don't disappoint
him again. ''It is great satisfaction for me that after all these years
here are prospects for a solution,'' he said. (AP Worldstream December
17, 1999)

                   Overall Review and Estimates

An article on AP Online says on December 17, 1999 that despite the
positive mood in the wake of an agreement about how much money would be
paid, negotiators have yet to decide how it will be split up. ''The
central open question is who gets how much from this sum,'' Michael
Witti, an attorney representing victims, said on December 16.

Of the as many as 2.3 million people who could benefit from the fund,
about 230,000 were slave laborers who worked in concentration camps.
Those slave laborers will receive higher payments than forced laborers,
people who were deported from their homes to work in Germany but not in
camps.

But the exact ratio has yet to be determined, participants in the
negotiations say. Once that question is answered, negotiators will need
to discuss how to distribute money among other claims covered by the
fund: children of laborers, victims of the Nazis' gruesome medical
experiments, and people whose bank accounts and insurance policies were
stolen.

Some money will also be used to establish a foundation that will fund
humanitarian and educational projects.

The proposed law that lays the groundwork for the compensation has also
drawn criticism from victims' representatives who say it would actually
deny payments to people who should qualify. On December 16, lawyers said
the proposal would deprive Jewish concentration camp detainees from
getting any compensation.

According to a draft of the law, earlier compensation under other German
restitution programs since World War II would be deducted from payments
to be made for labor compensation. Many of the Jewish victims of slave
labor have received payments from the more than $60 billion Germany has
paid since the war in pensions and other compensation. ''The offset
discriminates against Jewish slave labor claimants,'' U.S. lawyer Ed
Fagan said. Torsten Albig, spokesman for the German Finance Ministry,
which is writing the law, said the proposal was still a work in progress
and should not be viewed as a final document.


INSPIRE INSURANCE: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for Class Plaintiff, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, on December 17
issued the following:

A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased common stock of INSpire Insurance Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq:
NSPR) ("INSpire") between January 28, 1998 and October 14, 1999,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges INSpire and
certain of its officers and directors and its parent company with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. INSpire is a provider
of policy and claims administration solutions to the property and
casualty insurance industry and offers comprehensive outsourcing
services, software and software services. The complaint alleges that
INSpire made false and misleading statements, issued false financial
results and continually announced new contracts, representing that the
new contracts would provide significant "recurring" revenue when, in
fact, the contracts were generally contingent on the profitability of
its customers.

As a result, INSpire's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period. Defendants took advantage of this inflation, completing a
secondary public offering of 3.9 million shares in March 1998, wherein
INSpire sold 2.7 million shares and Millers Mutual, INSpire's largest
shareholder (and largest customer), sold 975,000 shares for $20.5
million. INSpire's chief executive officer also sold 157,000 shares for
$3.3 million in the secondary offering.

INSpire used part of the proceeds from the secondary offering in which
it sold 2.7 million shares for $54 million to purchase another software
vendor, Paragon Interface Inc. Nonetheless, INSpire's software business
continued to deteriorate. In November 1998, INSpire entered into a large
outsourcing agreement with Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Inc.
Defendants told the market that this transaction would generate $35
million in revenue in year one, that it would allow INSpire to expand
geographically into California, that it would add $0.05 to 1999 earnings
and was a "major leap forward" for INSpire.

As a result of these statements, INSpire's stock immediately increased
to more than $30 per share. Several of the defendants immediately took
advantage of this inflation, selling 106,150 of their INSpire shares for
$3.2 million.

Finally on October 15, 1999 INSpire revealed the horrible state of its
business, including the write-off of nearly all its assets associated
with software and lower operating earnings from outsourcing. Analysts
now project INSpire will have EPS of only $0.32 in 1999 (before charges)
and only $0.17 in 2000 compared to Class Period forecasts of $.89 and
$1.20, respectively. Upon these disclosures, INSpire stock dropped to
less than $4 per share. While the Class has suffered millions in
damages, the defendants received substantial benefits from misdeeds. As
the price of INSpire stock soared to as high as $ 35-3/8, the defendants
sold more than 1.5 million shares of their INSpire stock for proceeds of
more than $33.6 million.

Contact: Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager, at Barrack,
Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, at 800-417-7305 or 215-963-0600, fax number
888-417-7306 or 215-963-0838, or by e-mail at msgoldman@barrack.com


LASER TECHNOLOGY: Announces Terms of Shareholder Litigation Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Laser Technology, Inc. (Amex: LSR), a leading designer, manufacturer and
marketer of pulse laser measuring instruments and systems, announced on
December 17 that its financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal
year ended September 30, 1999 will include an accrual for settlement
expenses and legal costs related to the pending settlement of
shareholder litigation.

On October 6, 1999, the Company announced an agreement in principle for
the settlement with plaintiffs of all previously-disclosed class-action
and derivative litigation. A final agreement with the plaintiffs has now
been signed and submitted to the court, and a preliminary fairness
hearing before the court will be requested. The settlement is subject to
court approval.

Under the terms of the agreement, the plaintiffs and their lawyers will
receive $850,000 in cash and 475,000 shares of Laser Technology, Inc.
common stock. The Company has reached an agreement in principal with its
insurance carrier whereby $740,000 of the cash portion of the settlement
will be paid by the carrier. The remaining $110,000 in cash will be paid
by the Company and certain individuals involved in the settlement. The
shares issued in the settlement will become tradable at various times
following final approval by the court, according to a schedule
incorporated into the settlement agreement.

The cost of the settlement, along with projected legal expenses involved
in completing the settlement, will be accrued in Laser Technology's
FY1999 financial results. Including such costs, the Company expects to
report substantial losses for its quarter and fiscal year ended
September 30, 1999. "Fiscal 1999 was a very difficult year for our
Company, and we are eager to put the year behind us and move forward,"
stated Blair Zykan, President and Chief Executive Officer of Laser
Technology, Inc. "Our fourth quarter financial results will reflect, in
addition to litigation-related expenses, additional inventory and
receivables reserves, and severance costs associated with a
restructuring of our management organization. The majority of the fourth
quarter litigation-related expenses are non-cash in nature and relate to
the issuance of additional common stock in accordance with the
settlement agreement."


LONGS DRUG: Calls Employees Managers to Avoid OT Payment, Lawsuit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Longs Drug Stores Corp. is a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit alleging that the Company improperly characterized certain
employees as managers to avoid the obligation of paying them the
overtime premium required for non-exempt employees. The Company has
engaged in discussions with the counsel for the purported class
representatives about the case and the possible terms on which it could
be resolved. It is not clear, as a result of these discussions, that the
case can be resolved short of litigating the substantive and procedural
matters of the case, which process could extend over many months and
years. Nonetheless, if the case were to be resolved short of completing
such litigation, this resolution could occur at virtually any time and
the Company could incur a charge in the quarter in which the resolution
occurs. In addition, the Company may be required to utilize cash to fund
any such resolution. The Company is not able at this time to predict the
outcome of completed litigation of this matter and does intend to
vigorously defend itself in this action.


M.H. MEYERSON: Aggressively Defends Suit on Underwriting of Optomedic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
M.H. MEYERSON & CO., INC., (Nasdaq: MHMY) announced that an action
styled as a class action had been initiated against Optomedic Medical
Technologies Ltd. ("Optomedic"), an executive officer of Optomedic and
against MHMY in connection with an underwriting in June 1998 of
Optomedic securities by MHMY. The action is in a very preliminary stage,
and the time for MHMY to respond to plaintiffs' complaint has not yet
occurred. No class certification application as yet has been made. MHMY
and its attorneys believe that plaintiffs have filed a deficient
pleading, and intend to file a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint.

M.H. Meyerson & Co., Inc. is a full service international financial
services firm, with eight separate divisions: Wholesale Trading,
Correspondent Services, Fixed Income Services, Institutional Sales,
Syndicate, Retail Services, Investment Banking and the e-commerce
division.


MICROSOFT CORP: A Portrait of Microsoft Mediator Chief Judge Posner
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Many who know Richard Posner say he's brilliant. Richard Posner, chief
judge of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, has been asked to determine
the chances of mediating an agreement in the federal government's
landmark antitrust trial against Microsoft Corp. To those who know him,
the decision is hardly a surprise. "Chief Judge Posner is brilliant,"
said Barnes & Thornburg partner John Maley, a former president of the
Federal Bar Association, Indianapolis chapter. "He's regarded as a
national expert on many matters, including antitrust law."

Posner is acting in a private capacity and not in his official role as
chief judge of the 7th Circuit. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson who is trying the case in Washington, D.C. asked Posner
to spur negotiations after earlier attempts failed.

In the absence of a settlement, Jackson would next determine whether
Microsoft violated the nation's antitrust laws. He has already handed
down his findings of fact, a 207-page document that found Microsoft used
monopoly power in the operating system for personal computers to harm
consumers, rivals and other companies.

The findings of fact serve as a starting point for Posner, whose
expertise has always been antitrust law, said Jim Strain, a lawyer at
Sommer & Barnard and president of the 7th Circuit Bar Association in
1995-96. "Plus, because he's the chief judge of the 7th Circuit, he's in
a position to understand the issues most mortals would not," Strain
said. "On top of that, he's an extraordinarily bright man."

Posner, 60, is a New York City native who graduated from Yale College
and the Harvard Law School. He worked for several years in Washington
during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations as law clerk to Justice
William Brennan Jr., as an assistant to Commissioner Philip Elman of the
Federal Trade Commission, as an assistant to the solicitor general of
the United States, Thurgood Marshall and as general counsel of President
Johnson's Task Force on Communications Policy.

He became a judge of the 7th Circuit Dec. 4, 1981, and chief judge Sept.
29, 1993. He teaches part time at the University of Chicago Law School
and has written 30 books and more than 300 articles and book reviews.

Maley has argued before the chief judge several times, and he said the
selection makes sense. "While many are fearful of his questioning, and
he doesn't hold back in his questioning, he gets to the point and he's
not scared to ask what's on his mind," Maley said. He wrote: "A
Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have
charged $ 49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 there is no reason to believe
that the $ 49 price would have been unprofitable but the study
identifies $ 89 as the revenue-maximizing price."

Across the country, consumers have filed class-action suits seeking
damages from Microsoft for overcharges outlined in Jackson's findings of
fact.

Maley said the trial's implications are phenomenal. "Do you cut the
company up?" he asked.

Despite all the accolades, Posner stays focused on his job. In a 1995
interview with The Indiana Lawyer, Posner said praise is bad. "I try to
ignore it," he said. "It's unhealthy because people start to believe
it." Nonetheless, his colleagues continue to heap it on him. In the same
1995 article, Sarah Evans Barker, chief judge of the U.S. District Court
in the Southern District of Indiana, said of Posner: "He has a
formidable intellect. The judiciary is lucky to have him in its ranks to
bring those abilities on knotty issues that confront the court. He's so
widely respected from absolutely every far reach of the country for the
work that he does."

If negotiations fail, Jackson has set out a schedule for the next phase
of the trial. Written arguments were due beginning Dec. 6 and oral
arguments are set for Feb. 22. (The Indiana Lawyer December 8, 1999)


MITCHAM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Amended Securities Complaint in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
On or about April 23, 1998, several class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and its chief executive officer and then chief
financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division. The first-filed complaint, styled Stanley
Moskowitz v. Mitcham Industries, Inc., Billy F. Mitcham, Jr. and Roberto
Rios, alleged violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933. On or about September 21, 1998, the complaints
were consolidated into one action. On November 4, 1998, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint ("CAC"), which seeks class action
status on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock from
June 4, 1997 through March 26, 1998, and damages in an unspecified
amount plus costs and attorney's fees. The CAC alleges that the Company
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in public
filings and announcements concerning its business and its allowance for
doubtful accounts. On or about January 15, 1999, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the CAC. On September 29, 1999, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The Court
granted plaintiffs leave to amend on certain claims, and the Company
awaits an amended complaint on those claims.


MONSANTO: St. Louis Post-Dispatch Says What Cts May Not Do Re GM Foods
----------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Post-Dispatch says on December 16 that Mr. Rifkin's legal
theory is inventive, but it seems unlikely that the courts will venture
into using the antitrust laws to second-guess government decisions on GM
foods.

The paper says that the position that the only good biotech is no
biotech seems rooted more in fear than science or law. Sustainable
agriculture in the Third World and less use of pesticides are two
important goals that can be met with vigorous research. There is much
more evidence that pesticides may play a role in certain cancers than
there is that GM foods have harmed a single human, the article asserts.

The primary area of contention within the multilayered debate is the
adequacy of testing methods. The Food and Drug Administration has just
concluded three hearings on whether it should strengthen guidelines set
in 1992 on genetically modified foods. Given the rising level of
anxiety, the FDA should marshal all the scientific expertise at its
disposal, in the U.S. and worldwide, to see if it needs to step up its
scrutiny. This area of science has progressed dramatically since 1992.
The public is confused, and farmers are caught in the middle, not
knowing what markets will evaporate or what seeds to order.

Court battles are expensive, lengthy and polarizing, and a court process
declaring a winner and a loser eliminates the possibility of compromise
and can stifle useful dialogue, it is opined in the article. If the
government does not respond to the public's fears, with both public
education and adequate regulations, it throws the ball into the courts,
where lawyers will decide, the paper says. The courts have served as our
last and best refuge for curing societal ills that are too politically
polarized to be solved by legislators, but lawyers and judges are the
last people who should chart the future of science, the article says.
(St. Louis Post-Dispatch December 16, 1999)


MONSANTO: The NY Times Blames Lack of Label for Resistance to GM Foods
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seldom in human history has a technology with such exciting
possibilities seemed less popular than genetic modification of foods.
Wall Street is leery, and now class-action lawyers have leaped in with a
double-barreled suit accusing Monsanto, the leading company in the
field, of trying to monopolize a business the lawyers say relies on
foisting possibly dangerous foods on the public.

How did we get to this point? One answer is that the industry's
lobbyists were too successful. They persuaded the Food and Drug
Administration that genetic modification -- which involves inserting a
gene into a plant -- was not very different from the old way of breeding
plants, and that the corn or soybeans were equally nutritious. So there
was no need to call attention to it on labels.

But because there was no need to reassure consumers, there was also no
need to educate them. The marketing efforts focused on farmers and, as
it happened, the early products did more for farmers, with higher crop
yields and resistance to pests, than for consumers, in terms of improved
nutrition. Farmers embraced the technology.

Then the resistance arose, largely in Europe. Who can be absolutely
certain that these products will not have some bad effect on animals, or
plants or the environment? Ask the question that way, and the answer is
that no one can. Ask whether the evidently small risks offset the
potential gains -- in nutrition and in reducing pesticide use, among
others -- and you might get a different answer.

Now European fears are being exported to an American public that knows
virtually nothing about the subject -- and is hearing about it from
people warning of dangers. Farmers are getting nervous about planting
the seeds.

Wall Street, meanwhile, is putting pressure on Monsanto to spin off its
Searle pharmaceuticals business. James Wilbur, an analyst at Salomon
Smith Barney, figures that an independent Searle would be worth about
$38 a share. You can buy Searle, with the rest of Monsanto thrown in,
for less than $41 a share, which gives you some idea just how happy
investors are about agribusiness these days. Since the end of 1997, the
Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is up 46 percent, while Monsanto is
down 4 percent.

It would have been better if Monsanto and its competitors had insisted
on -- rather than resisted -- putting labels on genetically modified
products. Perhaps they could have portrayed the labels as indicating a
superior product with environmental benefits. Instead, they left the
public education to the industry's foes. In persuading regulators that
no labels were needed, the lobbyists won a Pyrrhic victory. (The New
York Times December 17, 1999)


NAVIGANT CONSULTING: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement by the law firm of Weiss & Yourman on
December 16:

A class action lawsuit against Navigant Consulting, Inc. ("Navigant" or
the "Company")(NYSE:NCI) was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of
Navigant securities. If you purchased Navigant securities between
January 1, 1999 and November 23, 1999, your rights may be affected.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that Navigant, its former
CEO, President and Chairman of the Board with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition.

Contact: Mark D. Smilow or James E. Tullman at (888) 593-4771 or (212)
682-3025 or via Internet electronic mail at wynyc@aol.com or by writing
Weiss & Yourman, The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New
York City 10176.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: PA. Pension Fund Gives up Lead to Retain Law Firm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A large Philadelphia pension fund would rather quit its lucrative
position as lead plaintiff in a stock-drop class action than dump a
hometown law firm as counsel.

In an unprecedented move in securities litigation, the Philadelphia
Board of Pensions and Retirement told Northern District Judge William
Alsup earlier this month that it no longer wanted to serve as lead
plaintiff in a massive class action against Network Associates Inc.
Network Associates, a Santa Clara antivirus software maker, was sued by
dozens of investors after it announced in April that it had made serious
bookkeeping errors that artificially inflated its stock price.

Lead plaintiffs have virtually unfettered control over class actions,
deciding when to settle and for how much. Some 90 percent of all
securities cases settle, with the lead plaintiffs lawyers coming away
with the bulk of what are often seven-digit attorneys fees.

The competition for lead plaintiff status in the Network Associates'
case was particularly nasty and contentious. For example, Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach and Los Angeles' Weiss & Yourman traded
accusations of unethical behavior over their respective methods of
finding clients. But both firms apparently lost the contest to control
In re Network Associates Inc., 99-1729, to Philadelphia's Barrack, Rodos
& Bacine when Alsup appointed its client, the Philadelphia pension
board, as lead plaintiff.

But Alsup put a novel twist on the lead plaintiff appointment when he
refused to automatically appoint the fund's attorney of choice and
instead ordered the city to put its representation out to bid.

Alsup's order was a new weapon in the effort to block what lawmakers
have called the "attorney-driven" nature of securities litigation. He
said the bidding process is necessary to ensure that the lead plaintiff
uphold its fiduciary duty to the rest of the class by hiring the best
law firm for the best price.

Philadelphia "may still, after full consideration of all candidates,
recommend the Barrack firm," Alsup wrote in his order, "but it should do
so only after an honest effort to select the highest quality counsel at
the most efficient price."

But it became clear almost immediately after Alsup's order that the
Philadelphia pension fund had no intention of conducting a beauty
pageant to hire counsel.

First, the firm fired off a letter to Alsup on Nov. 24, pleading with
him to allow Barrack, Rodos to run the litigation while at the same time
telling Alsup it didn't agree with his take on the lead plaintiffs'
fiduciary responsibility.
"We prefer dealing with competent and qualified Philadelphia firms with
whom we have developed a good working relationship for the same reason
clients select law firms in other contexts: reputation, reliability,
trust, ease of communications and results," wrote Michael Nadol,
chairman of the fund. " Moreover, without compromising our duty to the
entire class, we prefer retaining qualified and experienced
Philadelphia-based firms, to promote the local economy."

The impasse illustrates how state and municipal officials such as
controllers and comptrollers now play a key role in controlling
securities litigation. At the same time, those same government officials
have come under increasing criticism for hiring plaintiffs firms that
are big political donors.

New York State Comptroller H. Carl McCall, for instance, touched off a
firestorm of criticism when he announced in 1996 that he had hired three
plaintiffs firms to handle all of the state's securities litigation.
Seven months later one of those firms, Barrack, Rodos, contributed
$84,000 to McCall's re-election campaign.

The controversy caught Alsup's attention, and last month he asked the
Philadelphia pension board to comment on the subject.

Nadol replied: "Except as otherwise disclosed to the court, the board
and its members do not know of campaign contributions made to public
officials by any of the lawyers and, for obvious reasons, do not want to
know. Political contributions are never a factor in the selection of
counsel, and they were not in this case."

Further indications that the pension board was balking at Alsup's order
surfaced when New York's Kirby McInerney & Squire wrote the judge a Nov.
29 letter complaining that officials with the Philadelphia fund were
ignoring its request for an interview to make a lead counsel pitch.

Finally, on Dec. 3, the Philadelphia fund officially -- and for the
first time anywhere -- withdrew as lead plaintiff. "We firmly believe,
as a matter of principle, that lead plaintiff should have the right to
choose its own qualified counsel," wrote Nadol, chairman of the fund.
"Moreover, the board presently does not have the necessary time or
manpower to engage in the specific process required by the court."

That same day, Alsup issued a short order granting the withdrawal and
requesting that other plaintiffs who had previously applied for lead
plaintiff status resubmit their applications. Senior writer Paul Elias'
e-mail address is pelias@therecorder.com (The Recorder December 17,
1999)


NYLCARE HEALTH: TX Ct Denies Class Status to Physiciansí Suit over Ad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision that gives some cause for optimism among managed care
plans, a judge on Nov. 30 denied the motion for class certification in a
lawsuit pending against NYLCare Health Plans of the Gulf Coast, Inc.
"This ruling is a victory for consumers," said David Simon, chief legal
officer for Aetna U.S. Healthcare, parent company of the NYLCare plan.

The suit, Kenneth Ford vs. NYLCare Health Plans of the Gulf Coast, et
al., was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
by Kenneth Ford, M.D. on be-half of a proposed class of physicians who
hold contracts with NYLCare (No. 96- 1564, USDC S.D. Texas). It charged
the plan with false advertising under the Lanham Act because NYLCare
failed to inform enrollees of cost containment policies including
capitation, utilization review and case management.

Claims not "typical" of all enrollees: For a lawsuit to be considered on
behalf of a group, the representative party's claims must be typical of
the class. Ford argued that all specialists nationwide should be
included since the plan's policies and marketing strategies are
conducted on a national level.

But Judge David Hittner found that Ford could not prove that the false
advertising claims were typical for all enrollees. "This inquiry
necessarily depends on whether a particular consumer saw a particular
advertisement, whether the consumer was misled by that advertisement,
[and] whether the alleged deception caused consumers to join the HMOs in
question," Hittner wrote. Because these factors vary by enrollee, "each
doctor's claim is unique." Hittner also found that Ford was not a
typical plaintiff since his income declined while others' income
increased.

The ruling "casts considerable doubt on the viability of the claims made
in the re-cent RICO class actions brought against HMOs," Simon noted in
a written statement (MCW 11/29/99, p.1).

NYLCare is being sold to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, a
subsidiary of Health Care Service Corp (MCW 9/20/99, p. 1). The sale,
announced in September, is a precondition to Aetna's acquisition of
Prudential Healthcare (MCW 6/28/99, p. 1). Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc.
and United HealthCare were also named in the suit. (Managed Care Week,
No. 43, Vol. 9; Pg. NA ; 1056-7461, December 6, 1999)


SAFEGUARD HEALTH: Berman, DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP a law firm specializing in representing
shareholders in class action lawsuits, issues the following press
release on December 17:

SafeGuard Health Enterprises, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SFGD)
("SafeGuard" or the "Company") was charged with misleading investors in
a securities class action with respect to the financial condition and
business prospects of the Company. The case was filed as a class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of SafeGuard during the period
February 26, 1999, through and including November 13, 1999 (the "Class
Period").

The action charges that SafeGuard and certain of its officers violated
the securities laws and regulations of the United States by issuing a
series of false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
publicly reported revenues and earnings during the Class Period. After
the close of trading on November 12, 1999, the Company issued a press
release announcing that it believed its revenues, and therefore its
earnings, for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 1999,
which were previously announced on October 21, 1999, were overstated by
a material amount. The Company further disclosed its belief that it may
have to restate the Company's results of operations for the periods
ended March 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999. SafeGuard also warned that that
it expected to restate its financial statements for the years ended
December 31, 1998 and 1997, as well as certain quarterly periods
therein. The Company cautioned that the 1998 and 1997 annual financial
statements and the independent auditors' report thereon should not be
relied upon. The Company had previously restated certain of these
financial results. Thus, the Company announced that it was now going to
restate, restated financial results, in addition to other financial
results. As a result of these revelations, SafeGuard's stock collapsed,
falling from over $3 to just under $1 the day after the revelations.

Contact the lawyers at Berman DeValerio: Michael M. Sullivan, Esq.
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP, One Liberty
Square, Boston, MA 02109, telephone(800) 516-9926, E-Mail:
bdplaw@bermanesq.com or Ritu Patel, Esq. Berman, DeValerio, Pease &
Tabacco 425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200 or visit website at http://www.bermanesq.com


THREDBO LANDSLIDE: Compensaton May Be Resolved Before Inquest Ends
------------------------------------------------------------------
The compensation cases of relatives of the Thredbo landslide victims
were likely to be resolved before the inquest into the deaths wound up,
lawyer Bernard Collaery said on December 17.

Eighteen people died in the Snowy Mountains on July 30, 1997, when they
were trapped beneath rubble after the Alpine Way collapsed, sweeping
away two lodges.

Mr Collaery said he had argued since mounting a class action for the
relatives a year ago that the cause of the tragedy was a burst pipeline
- the argument counsel assisting state coroner Derrick Hand was now
making at the inquest. "I'm willing to say that these cases will
probably be resolved before we have the outcome of the inquest," he told
ABC Radio. "We decided we'd take a line early, get the claims in early
and try to reduce the trauma span for our clients."

Mr Collaery said his case was proceeding smoothly, with medical
assessments of claimants under way, and that the defendants in the
action had filed their defences promptly.

Relatives were claiming nervous shock as a result of the tragedy. Mr
Collaery said the law did not allow claims for "mere" grief. "I know the
expression itself does not sound very kind, but you can't claim for
grief itself. You have to have a recognised psychiatric reaction," he
said. A range of issues had to be weighed up by psychiatrists assessing
the cases.

As well, the families had the enormous further burden of a lengthy
inquest. The inquest, which is still going on, started in August, 1998,
but was delayed for several months when the coroner underwent heart
bypass surgery.

Mr Collaery said people were often reluctant to come forward to make a
claim and acknowledge what was wrong with them. "It's only when other
relatives come forward and say 'Well, they've lost their job; they look
sad all the time'," he said. "You get these economic-loss issues that
arise out of cases like this when someone can't hold a job down because
they can't get the grief out of their minds." (AAP Newsfeed, December
17, 1999)


GUN MANUFACTURERS: The Washington Times Presents Downside of Fd Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Washington Times, the class action suit against
firearms manufacturers by HUD, combined with about 30 lawsuits filed by
various local governments, will subjcet the industry to an all-out
assault.

The stated reason for the proposed lawsuit is that HUD spends $1 billion
yearly on crime control in nearly 3,200 public housing projects and that
gun violence contributes to this expense and the administration claims
they are seeking to stop "irresponsible marketing practices" on the part
of gun makers. HUD also hopes that the menace of federal litigation will
convince manufacturers to throw in the towel and settle the dozens of
lawsuits filed by local governments.

The paper says that as a practical matter, HUD's arguments are absurd.
About the primary goal of changing the industry's marketing practices,
it says that gun makers and/or gun dealers are somehow supposed to keep
weapons out of the hands of criminals, which certainly sounds nice, but
there is the question of how that is supposed to happen? One way,
according to administration officials, is to stop selling guns to "straw
purchasers," people who buy on behalf of felons. Yet, the Washington
Times questions, how are gun sellers supposed to know who is a straw
purchaser? Do they arbitrarily reject buyers with tattoos? Motorcycle
owners? Black people? Spanish-speaking people? Needless to say, the
imposition of such a policy would be a green light for people to engage
in racial profiling and deny sales on the basis of negative stereotypes
and prejudice, the paper says.

Supporters of the lawsuits argue that other restrictions, such as
limiting people to one gun purchase a month, might serve the same
purpose. They also argue that closing down dealers who sell too many
guns that are later traced to crimes would make it harder for criminals
to become armed. In all likelihood, however, these steps would simply
encourage criminals to get guns from other sources, such as the black
market, according to the Washington Times.

And since these steps would increase the costs of gun ownership for
law-abiding people, the likely impact of the proposals is that crime
would increase since criminals would be less worried about victims being
able to defend themselves, the paper says.

But this debate is not - or at least should not be - about gun control;
instead, this is an important battle for justice and the rule of law,
according to the paper. It says that if politicians and trial lawyers
can pervert the law for political and monetary gain by targeting
politically incorrect businesses, it is only a matter of time before
they go after fast-food companies (obesity and heart disease), breweries
(drunk driving and liver disease), bicycle makers (broken bones, fatal
accidents), and swimming pool producers (neck injuries, drowning).

According to the Washington Times, two elementary principles are at
stake in this fight. First, should criminals be held responsible for
their actions or should the blame for crimes somehow be shifted to
society as a whole? More specifically, the politicians who are suing the
firearms industry claim they are motivated by a desire to reduce crime.
Yet, if this is the case, they should increase the punishment of
criminals rather than add more gun control measures to the 20,000 that
already exist, the paper says. The drop in criminal behavior during the
1990s, after all, is directly tied to the tough-on-crime reforms that
began in the 1980s. The Washington Times says this progress could be
reversed if lawmakers succeed in shifting the blame from the person
committing crimes to a fuzzy concept like firearms "marketing
practices." It cites a Syracuse University study which has found
prosecutions of federal gun crimes have fallen by 40 percent.

The second principle at stake, according to the paper, is whether
politicians should be held accountable for mismanagement. HUD is the
nation's biggest slumlord, and it is HUD that should bear at least some
of the responsibility for the dangerous conditions in public housing
projects, the paper says. (The Washington Times December 17, 1999)


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Activists Charge Sellers Over Display Of Ads.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New trenches in the legal war over tobacco advertising are opening up
along the aisles and in front of cash registers in convenience stores
where children gather after school. Anti-smoking activists nationwide
complain that tobacco companies are pumping up ads in the stores and
intentionally exposing children to cigarette packs to get around a ban
on youth-oriented promotions contained in last year's $ 206 billion
class-action settlement. "There's a lot of concern by parents about the
nature of this advertising," said April Roessler, a director at
California's Tobacco Education Campaign. "It seems to have become more
pervasive as California has clamped down on outdoor billboards."

Tobacco companies acknowledge they now advertise more in stores. But
they say promotions neither target young people nor expose them to
cigarettes. "Our company is interested in effectively competing for
cigarette sales among adult smokers," said Seth Moskowitz, a spokesman
for R.J. Reynolds. "Because we are now more limited with our
advertising, point-of-purchase has become more important."

The 1998 landmark agreement between tobacco companies and 46 states bars
tobacco companies from targeting children in advertising. But it gives
few specifics. "That's one of the huge shortcomings of the settlement,"
said Paul Billings, deputy director of government relations for the
American Lung Association in Washington. "A lot of the marketing and
advertising is not talked about, and it's a big concern."

Activists say tobacco companies place in-store ads about three feet from
the floor -- at children's eye level -- to get their attention. They say
companies pay stores to display cigarette packs near candy and out of
sight of clerks to tempt children to shoplift cigarettes -- an
accusation the companies deny. "Those placement fees more than
compensate the shop owner for any stolen merchandise," said Ann Landman,
program coordinator for the American Lung Association in Grand Junction,
Colo.

Placement fees range from $ 200 to $ 600 a month, depending on the store
and the amount of business it does, say store owners and activists.
Paying for prominent merchandise display is called "slotting" and it's
nothing new. Potato chip and soft drink companies also pay top dollar
for premium shelf space.

But its use by tobacco companies has made it more controversial,
particularly in a climate where, despite laws banning tobacco sales to
minors in every state, surveys suggest youth smoking has risen over the
past decade.

In San Diego, the law firm of Blumenthal, Ostroff & Markham is suing the
industry seeking an end to slotting, among other things. "Our goal is
really to have cigarettes enjoy the place that prophylactics enjoyed 20
years ago: behind the counter, out of sight, no ads," said Norm
Blumenthal, who filed the suit on behalf of people who started smoking
as teens.

The American Lung Association, meanwhile, sponsored Operation
Storefront, a California survey in 1995 and 1997 to tally the number of
cigarette ads in stores. Roessler said the survey of more than 5,700
stores found they displayed an average of 25 ads, with stores near
schools showing a slightly higher average of 26 ads. "When you stand
there, you think, 'Oh, cigarettes,' " said Nicole Morrow, a 19-year-old
from Pacific Beach who started smoking at 16 and has joined Blumenthal's
lawsuit. "They're right in front of your face, like, all the time."

Some municipalities have moved to limit such advertising -- with rare
success. In November, the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals overturned
a local ban in Tacoma, Wash., that prohibited indoor tobacco ads that
could be seen from the street.

Activists have had better success with slotting. Five states have
required that cigarettes go behind the counter: Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota,
Texas and Vermont.

                       States Pass Tobacco Laws

State laws that limit access to cigarettes and tobacco products, as of
Sept. 1:

* Idaho

  It is unlawful to sell or distribute tobacco products from self-
  service displays. Customers are not allowed access to tobacco
  products except through the help of the seller. Stores with tobacco
  products comprising at least 75 percent of total merchandise are
  exempt from requiring vendor-assisted sales, if minors are not
  allowed in the store and that prohibition is posted clearly at the
  entrance. Passed: 1998.

* Iowa

  Retailers are prohibited from selling cigarettes or tobacco products,
  in a quantity of less than a carton, from a self-service display.
  Passed: 1998.

* Minnesota

  No person can sell single packages of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco
  in open displays, which are accessible without the help of a store
  employee. This does not apply to retail stores that derive 90 percent
  of their revenue from tobacco and tobacco-related products and which
  cannot be entered at any time by people younger than 18. Passed:
  1997.

* Texas

  A retailer or other person may not offer cigarettes or tobacco
  products for sale in a way that permits customers direct access.
  Passed: 1997.

* Vermont

  Except in contracts existing before March 31, 1997, no person holding
  a tobacco license can display or store tobacco where it is accessible
  to consumers without help from sales personnel. This does not apply
  to: display of tobacco products in stores where minors are not
  permitted; unopened cigarette cartons and smokeless tobacco in
  unopened multipack containers of 10 or more packages; cigars or pipe
  tobacco stored in a humidor. Passed: 1997. (The Detroit News December
  17, 1999)


TYCO INTíL: Berger & Montague File Securities Suit in New Hampshire
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. (http://home.bm.net)announced that on December
16, 1999, it filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal
securities laws in the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire against Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) ("Tyco" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all
persons who purchased Tyco common stock between October 1, 1998, and
December 8, 1999 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges that Tyco violated section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint specifically alleges that Tyco
issued materially false and misleading statements about key
acquisitions. It asserts that the targets of these acquisitions, U.S.
Surgical and AMP, wrote off hundreds of millions of dollars in assets.
Defendants failed to disclose this information before the mergers
closed, giving the market a false impression of the health of these
companies and Tyco's revenue growth rate.

During the Class Period, certain officers of the Company sold Tyco
shares at artificially inflated prices, for proceeds of at least $270
million. Tyco's other shareholders did not fare so well. On December 9,
1999, Tyco disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission was
conducting an informal inquiry into Tyco's accounting methods. The stock
price of Tyco, which had reached $53 during the Class Period, fell to a
low of $22.50 following the announcement.

Contact: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Jill E. Sterbakov, Esq., Susan
Kutcher, Investor Relations Manager, Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622
Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 888-891-2289 or
215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-4604 Website: http://home.bm.nete-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net (Please include a mailing address, telephone
number, and e-mail address with all inquiries so that we can send you
the relevant information as quickly as possible.)


TYCO INTíL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement on December 17 from the law firm of
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP:

A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Southern District of Florida, on behalf of all persons
who purchased the common stock of Tyco International Limited ("Tyco" or
the "Company") (NYSE: TYC) between December 10, 1998, through December
8, 1999, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact, at Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach ("Milberg Weiss"),
Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman at One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th
Floor, New York, New York 10119-0165, by telephone 1-800-320-5081 or via
e-mail: endfraud@mwbhlny.com or visit website at http://www.milberg.com

The complaint alleges that Tyco and certain of its officers and
directors artificially inflated the price of TYCO shares and improperly
manipulated the Company's current and future earnings by recognizing
higher than allowed merger-related charges. As alleged, the improper
charges materially misrepresented the growth prospects for Tyco's
recently completed acquisitions and concealed the Company's declining
cash flows. Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described above
defendants sold over a 1.5 shares of Tyco to the investing public at
artificially inflated prices and realized over$170 million in proceeds.

Contact: BOCA RATON OFFICE Kenneth Vianale Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900 Boca Raton, Florida 33486
(561) 361-5000 or NEW YORK OFFICE Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
LLP Shareholder Relations Dept. E-Mail: endfraud@mwbhlny.com
1-800-320-5081


TYCO INTíL: Schatz & Nobel File Securities Suit in New Hampshire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. announced on Dec. 16, 1999:

Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) ("Tyco" or the "Company") and its
officers sought to inflate results following acquisitions of other
companies through improper accounting methods, asserts a class action
complaint (the "Complaint") filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Tyco between October 1, 1998,
and December 8, 1999, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint, filed by the law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which
focuses its practice on securities fraud litigation, charges that during
the Class Period, the Company and certain of its officers and directors
(collectively, the "Defendants") violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class Period,
Tyco misled investors by using accounting methods upon the acquisition
of companies which was designed to, and did, make the acquired companies
(and therefore Tyco) appear to be healthier and experiencing greater
than actual growth after the acquisitions. The Complaint further alleges
that by making these material misrepresentations, the Defendants
artificially inflated the price of the common stock during the Class
Period.

Contact: Andrew M. Schatz of Jeffrey S. Nobel, 800-797-5499,
sn06106@aol.com of Schatz & Nobel, P.C.


XEROX CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP announced on December 16, 1999:

A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Xerox Corporation (NYSE: XRX) ("Xerox" or the
"Company"), between January 25, 1999 and December 10, 1999, inclusive,
(the "Class Period"), in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

The complaint charges Xerox and certain of its directors and executive
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning declining
demand for the Company's products and services and engaged in a number
of deceptive acts and practices to conceal these trends. As a result of
these misrepresentations and omissions, the price of Xerox's common
stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. Xerox
insiders took advantage of this run-up in Xerox's share price to sell
over hundreds of thousands of their own shares to the investing public
and realize proceeds of over $51.7 million.

Contact: Mr. Mark Punzalan, Director of Shareholder Relations at
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New
York 10016, 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by e-mail at
Mark@bernlieb.com


XEROX CORP: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. hereby gives notice that a class
action complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of a Class of persons who
purchased the common stock of Xerox Corporation (NYSE: XRX) ("Xerox" or
the "Company") at artificially inflated prices.

The complaint alleges that defendants, Xerox and G. Richard Thoman,
violated the federal securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by issuing materially false and
misleading statements concerning the current financial and business
condition, as well as the future earnings expectations of Xerox. As a
result of these misrepresentations and omissions, the price of Xerox's
common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

Contact: Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. Robert P. Frutkin, Esquire
Barbara A. Podell, Esquire 215/923-5400 or (800) 993-3233 E-mail:
sfprpc@op.net


                               *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, DC.  Theresa Cheuk and Peter A. Chapman, editors.

Copyright 1999.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.

Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400.


                    * * *  End of Transmission  * * *