/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/000302.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Thursday, March 2, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 44


AICI CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in Nebraska
AMF BOWLING: Shareholders Eye Goldman Sachs for Additional Recovery
AML COMMUNICATIONS: Reports Settlement of Shareholder Lawsuit in CA
ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in IN
AOL: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Represent NJ Residents Who Have Installed 5.0

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Unruffled by Pittsburgh Corning Verdict
AT&T: Ct Rules against Private Right of Action Under Fed Telecomm. Act
CHARLES SCHWAB: Customer Fairness Hearing Seen by June
CINAR CORPORATION: Shepherd & Geller Announces Securities Suit in NY
DRUG PRICES: Ct OKs Class Vs Bankers Life and PCS for Tomaxifen Co-Pays

FAMILY GOLF: Weiss & Yourman Announces Securities Fraud Suit in NY
FORD MOTOR: Ohio Ap Ct Upholds Dismissal of Claims for Credit on Profit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Moves to Dismiss Hull Antitrust Complaints
JDN REALTY: Berman, DeValerio Announces Shareholder Suit in Georgia
LOLA'S RESTAURANT: Blacks Sue Westside Bar Claiming Discrimination

LOS ANGELES: Civil Rights Lawyers Gather against Police Corruption
MINNESOTA MINING: 3M's Year-End Report on Silicone-Related Litigation
MOBILEMEDIA CORPORATION: Settlement with Goldman Sachs Almost Final
MUNICIPAL BONDS: Underwriters' Motion to Dismiss Sub Judice
ONLINE INFORMATION: Ct OKs Class Brought by Legal Guardian over FDCPA

PATHOGENESIS CORP: WA Ct Dismisses Securities Lawsuits against Drug Co.
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Virginia Joins Other States against Sweepstakes
ROCKEFELLER CENTER: Goldman Moves to Dismiss Remanded Complaint
SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Securities Suit Settlement
SOLOMON SMITH: Ex-Brokers Allege of Being Pressed to Invest in Stock

TRANSWORLD HEALTHCARE: Discovery Continues in HMI Litigation
TRANSWORLD HEALTHCARE: Former Employees' Testimony May Bite Them
VISX, INC.: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Complaint in California
WORLD FUEL: Shepherd & Geller Files Securities Suit in Florida


AICI CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in Nebraska
The law firm Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) gives
notice that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of all purchasers
of AICI Capital Trust ("AICI") preferred securities (NYSE: AIF PrT) from
July 29, 1997 through November 15, 1999, inclusive (the "Class Period").
AICI is a wholly controlled subsidiary of Acceptance Insurance
Companies, Inc. (NYSE: AIF).

The complaint charges AICI, Acceptance Insurance Companies, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors with issuing a false and
misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus for the public offering
of AICI preferred securities.

Contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Bala Cynwyd Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
888/299-7706 (toll free) or 610/667-7706 e-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

AMF BOWLING: Shareholders Eye Goldman Sachs for Additional Recovery
The Goldman Sachs Group, L.P., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and a Goldman, Sachs
& Co. managing director have been named as defendants in several
purported class action lawsuits beginning on April 27, 1999 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuits,
which have been consolidated, were brought on behalf of purchasers of
stock of AMF Bowling, Inc. in an underwritten initial public offering of
15,525,000 shares of common stock in November 1997 at a price of $19.50
per share. Defendants are AMF Bowling, Inc., certain officers and
directors of AMF Bowling, Inc. (including the Goldman, Sachs & Co.
managing director), and the lead underwriters of the offering (including
Goldman, Sachs & Co.). The consolidated amended complaint alleges
violations of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws
and seeks compensatory damages and/or rescission. The complaint asserts
that The Goldman Sachs Group, L.P. and the Goldman, Sachs & Co. managing
director are liable as controlling persons under the federal securities
laws because certain funds managed by Goldman Sachs owned a majority of
the outstanding common stock of AMF Bowling, Inc. and the managing
director served as its chairman at the time of the offering. On December
22, 1999, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

AML COMMUNICATIONS: Reports Settlement of Shareholder Lawsuit in CA
AML Communications Inc. (Nasdaq:AMLJ) announced on February 29 the
settlement of two related securities class actions, filed in March 1998
in state and federal courts in California against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

A settlement agreement has been entered into with counsel for the
plaintiff class, and documents requesting preliminary court approval are
expected to be filed with the federal district court. Assuming the court
grants preliminary approval, notice of the settlement will be sent out
to class members and a final settlement hearing should be scheduled
within the next three to five months. If final approval is granted in
the federal action, the state court case will be dismissed with

Kirk A. Waldron, president and chief executive officer, said the
settlement amount of $2.25 million will be fully covered by the
Company's insurance carrier.

The Company says that it is an ISO 9001 quality certified company, and
is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of amplifiers and related
products for the global wireless industry. The company currently focuses
on the following sectors of the wireless market: cellular telephony,
wireless local loop, personal communications services, two-way paging,
low earth orbit satellite networks, and custom wireless applications.

ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in IN
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Indiana on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Analytical Surveys, Inc. from
January 25, 1999 through January 27, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges Analytical Surveys and certain of its officers
and directors with issuing false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's revenues, income and earnings.

For additional information on this action, you may contact Stuart
L. Berman, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, toll free at 888/299-
7706 or 610/667-7706, via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the
firm's website at http://www.sbclasslaw.com

AOL: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Represents NJ Residents Who Have Installed 5.0
A class action lawsuit was filed on February 29 in The Superior Court of
the State of New Jersey - County of Bergen, naming as defendant America
Online, Inc. (NYSE: AOL). The Complaint alleges that in distributing
version 5.0 of its software AOL, among other things, violated provisions
of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act by failing to disclose that
installation of AOL 5.0 would cause changes to systems settings and
files of customers' computers and interfere with customers' ability to
connect to other internet service providers. Plaintiffs, who are
represented by Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, have filed suit on behalf
of themselves and all New Jersey residents who have subscribed to AOL
and installed AOL 5.0 on their computers.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions or comments
concerning your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel,
Laurence D. King, Esq., Joel B. Strauss, Esq. or William J. Pinilis,
Esq. of Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP at (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
or e-mail to mail@kkf-law.com

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Unruffled by Pittsburgh Corning Verdict
For over 30 years, PPG Industries, Inc., has been a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos. Aggregate settlements by PPG to date have been immaterial, PPG
says in in latest annual report, noting, however, that over the past few
years, the number of asbestos-related claims against the Company, as
well as numerous other defendants, has increased.

At December 31, 1999, PPG was one of many defendants in numerous
asbestos-related lawsuits involving approximately 110,000 claims. In
many of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company should be
liable under various "direct participation" and other theories for
injuries involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products
manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC").
The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50% shareholders of PC.
PPG believes it is not responsible for any injuries caused by PC
products and intends to defend against such claims. PPG has successfully
defended such claims in the past.

In January 2000, for the first time, a trial court found PPG liable for
injuries to five plaintiffs alleged to be caused by PC products. The
Company intends to appeal that verdict. Separately from the claims
against the Company described above, as a shareholder of PC, any loss to
the Company due to losses incurred by PC arising from asbestos-related
claims would not involve a cash payment and would be limited to the
diminution in value of the Company's investment in PC. If such a loss
were to occur, it would be approximately $34 million on an after-tax
basis, based on the Company's investment in PC as of December 31, 1999.

AT&T: Ct Rules against Private Right of Action Under Fed Telecomm. Act
Plaintiffs brought a class action against defendant alleging a violation
of 47 CFR @ 51.217(c)(3) of the Federal Telecommunications Act which
provided that a local exchanger carrier should not provide access to
unlisted telephone numbers. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that plaintiffs had no private right of action to enforce its
alleged violations. The court noted that because there was nothing
expressly prohibiting or providing for a private right of action, it
must decide whether one could be implied. Using the test set out in Cort
v. Ash, the court found that because the act was not made for the
benefit of a special class; and Congress apparently did not intend to
create a private right of action since doing so would conflict with the
broad powers given to the Federal Communications Commission, no private
right of action existed.

Plaintiffs Edward and Eileen Conboy brought this class action against
defendant AT&T Corp. alleging violations of the Federal
Telecommunications Act (hereinafter "Telecommunications Act" or "Act"),
47 U.S.C. @@ 151 et seq., and regulations promulgated under the Act by
the Federal Communications Commission, 47 C.F.R. @@ 51.217 and 64.1201.
They also asserted claims against AT&T under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. @@ 1692 et seq., and New York General Business
Law (hereinafter "N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law") @ 349. Finally, plaintiffs
asserted a claim against AT&T for common law intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Plaintiffs brought this class action against
defendant AT&T Universal Card Services Corp. ("UCS") alleging a
violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law @ 349, and asserting a claim for common
law intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiffs are individuals residing in New York State. They are
customers of AT&T. AT&T is a New York corporation with its principal
executive offices located in New Jersey. Plaintiffs allege that AT&T is
subject to the mandates of the Telecommunications Act and FCC

UCS is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Florida. According to the complaint, UCS was AT&T's credit card unit and
consumers could receive AT&T Universal Visa or MasterCard credit cards
through UCS. UCS was a subsidiary or affiliate of AT&T until April 2,
1998, when AT&T transferred UCS to Citicorp, an entity unaffiliated with

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.
R. Civ. P. In deciding such a motion, the Court must accept as true the
factual allegations set forth in the complaint and must draw all
reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor. See Hishon v. King &
Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232
(1974); Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 321 (2d Cir. 1996). The Court,
therefore, "may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief
could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent
with the allegations." Hishon, 467 U.S. at 73; Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41 (1957).

Judge Ward

CONBOY v. AT&T CORP. QDS:02762116 - Defendants each move pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., to dismiss plaintiffs' Class Action
First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. The court granted the defendants' motions and the
complaint was dismissed. (A discussion of the case is available at New
York Law Journal, February 17, 2000)

CHARLES SCHWAB: Customer Fairness Hearing Seen by June
In the first half of 2000, a federal district court in New Orleans,
Louisiana is expected to hold a fairness hearing on a settlement between
The Charles Schwab Corporation and plaintiffs in two class action
lawsuits. The lawsuits were filed on behalf of a class  consisting of
all individuals nationwide who purchased or sold securities through
Schwab from 1985 until July 1999. These lawsuits alleged that Schwab
improperly retained monetary payments for routing
orders to market makers and other third parties, and did not provide
best execution to customer orders. Schwab vigorously contested the
allegations and had successfully obtained dismissal of many of the
plaintiffs' claims. However, in the interests of avoiding the expense of
further litigation, Schwab agreed to settle the cases on the following

      (A) plaintiffs will dismiss the complaints with prejudice
          in return for certain non-monetary relief from Schwab,

              (1) commitments to implement various systems changes
                  relating to trade handling and execution;

              (2) to adopt certain internal procedures to review
                  order routing arrangements and execution quality;

              (3) to conduct a one-year investor education campaign
                  on trading and execution-related issues; and

      (B) Schwab agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

The settlement would preclude any other claims on best execution or
payment for order flow issues during the class period, except for
claimants who affirmatively opt out of the settlement. Schwab believes
that all claims in four purported class action lawsuits on best
execution issues, consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the federal
district court in San Francisco but in which no classes have been
certified, would be precluded as a result of the Louisiana settlement.

The plaintiffs in the San Francisco cases are opposing the Louisiana
settlement and have moved to transfer the Louisiana case to San

CINAR CORPORATION: Shepherd & Geller Announces Securities Suit in NY
The Law Firm of Shepherd & Geller, LLC announced that it has filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of all individuals and institutional
investors that purchased the common stock of CINAR Corporation
(Nasdaq:CINR) between February 4, 1999 and February 18, 2000, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose
that the Company was falsely representing that scripts for television
productions written by United States citizens were written by Canadian
citizens in order to obtain favorable tax credits and that, as a result,
the Company's financial results were inflated. As a result of these
false and misleading statements the Company's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the class period. The complaint
further alleges that prior to the disclosure of the above mentioned
adverse facts, the defendants took advantage of the inflated stock price
by raising more than $150 million through the sale of CINAR stock in a
public offering. When the truth about the Company was revealed, the
price of the stock dropped significantly.

Contact: Shepherd & Geller, LLC, Boca Raton Jonathan M. Stein,
561/750-3000 Toll Free: 1-888-262-3131 E-mail:

DRUG PRICES: Ct OKs Class Vs Bankers Life and PCS for Tomaxifen Co-Pays
United States District Court Judge Joan P. Gottschall has certified a
national class action lawsuit brought by New Bedford, Mass. resident
Evelyn Morse against Illinois-based Bankers Life & Casualty Co. and PCS
Inc., according to Morse's attorney, Carlin Phillips.

In her ruling, Judge Gottschall defined the class as follows: "All
persons insured by a policy of insurance with Bankers Life & Casualty
Company who obtained tamoxifen prescriptions from pharmacies that are
part of the PCS network and who were charged for tamoxifen as though it
is a brand name drug."

In her lawsuit Morse, a breast cancer victim, claims breach of contract,
breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, civil conspiracy,
and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act.

For three years, Morse's pharmacy has charged her the name brand co-pay
for the prescription drug tamoxifen, at the direction of PCS Inc., the
drug management company that processes prescriptions for Bankers Life &
Casualty Co. According to PCS, tamoxifen is categorized as a name brand
drug, even though Morse's physician said it is a generic drug, which
under her policy requires no co-pay.

Morse bought what is commonly called a Medigap insurance policy from
Bankers Life to cover prescription drugs because Medicare does not. The
policy promises to pay 100 percent of the cost of prescription drugs
that are generic and 80 percent of the cost of brand name drugs.

Before filling the prescription, the pharmacy accesses PCS' system and
determines whether PCS will pay 100 percent of the cost or whether the
policyholder must co-pay 20 percent at the time of delivery. In the case
of generic drugs, the pharmacy releases them to the patient with no
exchange of money because it will receive 100 percent from PCS.

In the case of brand name drugs, the pharmacy must collect 20 percent
from the customer because it will receive only 80 percent from PCS.

Morse enrolled in the PCS system by Bankers Life in 1997. Since then,
she has been charged a 20 percent co-pay for each prescription. To avoid
these co-payments, Morse asked her physician to prescribe a generic drug
rather than tamoxifen. Her physician told her that tamoxifen is a
generic drug. Morse contacted Bankers Life, which explained that PCS
classified tamoxifen as a brand name drug.

Further, Bankers Life told Morse that she should continue to pay the 20
percent co-pay and, if she then contacted Bankers Life, "we will see
that you get the payment for the 20 percent that you paid."

The class action status is important because, while Bankers Life offered
to reimburse Morse for her 20 percent, Judge Gottschall wrote:

"Presumably, numerous Bankers Life policyholders other than Morse are
prescribed tamoxifen. It defies common sense to believe that all of
them, having been required to pay 20% which Bankers Life was
contractually obligated to provide, realize that they have gotten less
than they bargained for and have sought reimbursement. If Bankers Life
had to respond to all this correspondence and issue all those monthly
checks for $18, it can be presumed that dealing with PCS' system's
misclassification would become so expensive that something would be done
about it. It is far more likely that some very large number of the
Bankers Life policyholders needing tamoxifen are paying 20% of its cost
out of ignorance that Bankers Life is contractually obligated to pay
that 20% for them, and that Bankers Life is realizing considerable
savings from PCS' misclassification."

Phillips said, "For years, cancer victims have had to pay out of pocket
for drugs that they bought insurance to cover. Drug management companies
tell breast cancer victims they can either compromise their health or
pay their co-pays. It's the ultimate in strong arm tactics!"

At the same time the Court granted Morse class action status, it denied
the defendants' attempts to dismiss Morse's RICO claims. In deciding in
Morse's favor on the RICO count the Court noted:

"The misclassification of a commonly-prescribed drug, and the decision
of Bankers Life to pay the one complaining policyholder rather than take
steps to correct the misclassification, strongly suggests that there are
a large number of victims and many predicate acts. ... (S)ince Bankers
Life chooses to employ PCS to administer its drug benefit program,
Bankers Life's response to Morse's complaint -- that nothing would be
done to correct the situation -- suggests at the very least Bankers
Life's knowing participation in the operation and management of an
enterprise which results in its receipt of large amounts of money to
which it is not entitled."

Phillips said this is just the tip of the iceberg. "We suspect that
other insurers benefit financially from the misclassification of
tamoxifen because prescription management companies manage drugs for
many large insurers. What's more, we suspect that perhaps millions of
patients are required to make co-payments on other misclassified generic

"We are just beginning to uncover this highly profitable and illegal

Bankers Life policyholders who have paid or still pay brand name co-pays
for tamoxifen are invited to contact the law firm of Gogel, Phillips &
Garcia, 13 Ventura Drive, North Dartmouth, MA 02747, 508/998-0800, Ext.
120 or gpandg@gpandg.com

By March 2, 2000, you can find Judge Gottschall's decision on the law
firm's Web site at http://www.gpandg.com

Contact: Gogel, Phillips & Garcia, LLP Carlin Phillips, 508/998-0800,
Ext. 112 Ken Gogel, 508/998-0800, Ext. 113

FAMILY GOLF: Weiss & Yourman Announces Securities Fraud Suit in NY
A class action lawsuit against Family Golf Centers, Inc. (NASDAQ:FGCI)
and its senior executives was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking to recover damages on
behalf of defrauded investors who purchased Family Golf securities
between July 23, 1998 and August 12, 1999.

The complaint charges Family Golf and its senior executives with
violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the Company's
business and financial condition and failed to disclose material facts
concerning the integration of acquired properties.

Contact: Moshe Balsam, (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025, 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.

FORD MOTOR: Ohio Ap Ct Upholds Dismissal of Claims for Credit on Profit
Automobile security deposits do not constitute collateral or create
security interests in Ohio, especially when the lessor earns no interest
on the deposits nor takes possession of the deposits, remarks Consumer
Financial Services Law Report, January 25, 2000 in its article on the
case Knight v. Ford Motor Credit Co., No. 75593 (Ohio Ct. App.
12/23/99). Such deposits create debts, the article says.

Michael Knight leased a car from Ed Mullinax Ford. Instead of paying
cash or using a check as a security deposit, the dealership gave Knight
225 in credit because of the value of his trade-in. The dealership
recorded the 225 as a refundable security deposit on the lease which it
subsequently transferred to Ford Motor Credit Co. Ford paid the
dealership the cost of the car less the security deposit and the first
month lease payment. Ford listed the security deposit as a liability on
its books. It also added the 225 to its accounts payable for security

Contending that Ford profited from the lease transaction but failed to
credit him for the profit earned on the security deposit, Knight filed a
class action against Ford. Knight claimed Ford violated R.C. 1309.18(B),
based on UCC 9-207, which requires lessors to credit lessees with any
increase or profit. Specifically, Knight alleged that by paying the
dealership only the actual cost of the car less the security deposit
"Ford Credit does not have to borrow as much money to finance the lease
deals and therefore derives a profit ... ."

Ford rebutted that R.C. 1309.18(B) was inapplicable to automobile leases
because security deposits do not constitute collateral within the
meaning of that section nor do they create security interests.
Additionally, Ford argued it never actually possessed Knight's security
deposit; thus, it never actually "received" the money under the state
statute. The trial court granted Ford's motion for partial summary

                         Legislative Intent

The Ohio Court of Appeals considered whether R.C. 1309.18(B) applied to
Knight's security deposit. First, it addressed Knight's argument that
the security deposit constituted collateral and made Ford a secured

Noting "[t]here is a limited amount of authority in Ohio regarding
whether an automobile lease security deposit is governed by the UCC,"
the court looked to the legislative history of the statute. It found
that while Ohio contains no specific legislation regarding profits paid
on lease security deposits, the state did have legislation dealing
specifically with leases. However, because the General Assembly did not
address the topic of interest or profits on security deposits in R.C.
Chapter 1310, the Court of Appeals held that it was not the
legislature's intent that automobile lessors pay lessees interest or
profits earned on security deposits.

Moreover, said the court, "to hold that a security deposit creates a
security interest ... would derogate the common-law principle that a
security deposit instead creates only a debt."

                          State Statute

Next, the Court of Appeals evaluated Ford's conduct to see if it
violated R.C. 1309.18. That section reads, "the secured party may hold
as additional security any increase or profits, except money, received
from the collateral, but money so received, unless remitted to the
debtor, shall be applied in reduction of the secured obligation." Judge
Porter explained that for there to be a violation of the statute,
collateral must be in the secured party's possession and the secured
party must have received money from the collateral and failed to remit
it to the debtor.


Additionally, the court concluded that Ford earned no interest on
Knight's deposit. The court found Ford's argument that it never
"received" possession of the security deposit persuasive - Ford recorded
the deposit as a liability. Also, Ford did not place the deposit in an
interest bearing account or receive any money from the security
deposits. The Court of Appeals ruled that there can be no violation
under the statute unless the lessor received money from the purported

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision with the
explanation that Ford had nothing to remit to class members.
Anthony Hartman, Jay Salamon and Romney Cullers of Hermann, Cahn &
Schneider in Cleveland represented Knight. Brett Bacon and Donald Screen
of Thompson, Hine & Flory in Cleveland represented Ford. (Consumer
Financial Services Law Report, January 25, 2000)

GOLDMAN SACHS: Moves to Dismiss Hull Antitrust Complaints
Goldman, Sachs & Co. is one of numerous financial services companies
that have been named as defendants in certain purported class actions
brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
by purchasers of securities in public offerings, who claim that the
defendants engaged in conspiracies in violation of federal antitrust
laws in connection with these offerings. The plaintiffs in each instance
seek treble damages as well as injunctive relief. One of the actions,
which was commenced on August 21, 1998, alleges that the defendants have
conspired to discourage or restrict the resale of securities for a
period after the offerings, including by imposing “penalty bids”.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in November 1998. The
plaintiffs amended their complaint in February 1999, modifying their
claims in various ways, including limiting the proposed class to retail
purchasers of public offerings. On May 7, 1999, the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

Several other actions were commenced, beginning on November 3, 1998,
that allege that the defendants, many of whom are also named in the
other action discussed above, have conspired to fix at 7% the discount
that underwriting syndicates receive from issuers of shares in certain
offerings. On March 15, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on April 29, 1999.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. received a Civil Investigative Demand on April 29,
1999 from the U.S. Department of Justice requesting information with
respect to its investigation of an alleged conspiracy among securities
underwriters to fix underwriting fees.

Hull Trading Co. L.L.C., an affiliate of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
is one of numerous market makers in listed equity options which have
been named as defendants, together with five national securities
exchanges, in a purported class action brought in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who
purchased or sold listed equity options. The consolidated class action
complaint, filed on October 4, 1999 (which consolidated certain
previously pending actions and added Hull Trading Co. L.L.C. and other
market makers as defendants), generally alleges that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to preclude the multiple listing of certain
equity options on the exchanges and seeks treble damages under the
antitrust laws as well as injunctive relief. On January 28, 2000, the
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint.

JDN REALTY: Berman, DeValerio Announces Shareholder Suit in Georgia
A shareholder of Atlanta-based JDN Realty Corporation (NYSE: JDN) has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia. The shareholder seeks damages for
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and has brought the lawsuit on behalf of all investors who
purchased JDN Realty common stock during the period February 15, 1997
through February 14, 2000 ("the Class Period").

The action alleges that, during the Class Period, JDN Realty and certain
of its officers concealed the fact that certain officers had received
undisclosed compensation in connection with certain real estate
development projects. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of
this concealment, JDN's publicly-filed financial statements were
materially misleading and that JDN's stock price was artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period.

Contact: Chauncey D. Steele IV, Michael G. Lange, Jeffrey C. Block,
Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109,
E-Mail: bdplaw@bermanesq.com or at (800) 516-9926. The firm's website is
at http://www.bermanesq.com

LOLA'S RESTAURANT: Blacks Sue Westside Bar Claiming Discrimination
A group of blacks sued a trendy Westside restaurant-bar on February 28,
claiming they were shooed away because of their race. The dozen
plaintiffs -- including lawyers, federal investigators and insurance
agents -- say they were denied entrance to Lola's Restaurant between
August 1999 and this past January. The group is represented by attorney
Carl Douglas who used to work for Johnnie Cochran Jr. and was part of
the ''dream team'' that represented O.J. Simpson against murder
charges.. ''Each time they tried to get into the bar, they were given
various excuses,'' said Douglas, ''But it was all a pretext. They were
denied entrance because of their race.''

The group cites the Unruh Civil Rights Act in the lawsuit. The state law
guarantees ''free and equal'' status to all citizens and states that
people are ''entitled to the full and equal accommodations ... in all
business establishments of every kind whatsoever,'' according to
Douglas. If found in violation of the law, the defendants would have to
pay sanctions and attorneys' fees, in addition to any damage award,
Douglas said.

Melanie Willis and Curtis Clark were turned away, Douglas said,
ostensibly because Clark was wearing tennis shoes, ''even though other
(white) patrons inside the bar were wearing tennis shoes.'' Three other
plaintiffs were told that the restaurant was full, Douglas said.
''Despite this statement, the women noticed that there were several
empty tables inside the restaurant,'' the suit states. ''They also
observed other white patrons being allowed into the restaurant through a
door on the side of the building.''

The plaintiffs found one another via e-mail, Douglas said. The lead
plaintiff is attorney Nedra Jenkins. Jenkins was planning a 30th
birthday party for herself at Lola's with 50 of her friends, Douglas
said. She had made the arrangements over the telephone, then went to
Lola's a few days before the party to finalize details. When she showed
up, ''she was suddenly told that the whole restaurant had just been
rented out to host a celebrity event,'' Douglas said. Jenkins had to
call her 50 guests, some of whom were coming from out of town, to make
alternative arrangements, Douglas said. Jenkins grew suspicious of the
story she was given and asked a friend to call the restaurant the day of
the party, Douglas said. That person found ''they were still taking
dinner reservations,'' he said.

Douglas said he was ''outraged and shocked'' that a business in the 21st
century would go out of its way to exclude blacks. Douglas said former
Lola's employees would testify that the management ''had a distinct
policy of excluding African Americans.'' Plaintiff's attorney Carl
Douglas can be reached at (310) 277-9595. (City News Service, February
28, 2000)

LOS ANGELES: Civil Rights Lawyers Gather against Police Corruption
Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2000 reports that Los Angeles may confront a
great problem in defending itself against lawsuits spawned by the
Rampart police corruption scandal, as suggested by a meeting held last
Saturday, February 26 afternoon at Johnnie L. Cochran Jr.'s mid-Wilshire
law office.

Among the two dozen attorneys gathered at the 10th floor suite were some
of the city's most accomplished civil rights lawyers -- including Mark
Rosenbaum of the American Civil Liberties Union and Connie Rice of the
Advancement Project -- as well as a bevy of skilled veterans of the
police "brutality bar," including Cochran, R. Samuel Paz, Antonio
Rodriguez and Carol A. Watson, as well as Carol Sobel, who has
spearheaded major employment discrimination litigation against the LAPD,
the report says.

While no formal agreements were concluded, the lawyers discussed how
they may use the courts and other means to bring about what they regard
as meaningful police reform, according to more than half a dozen
attorneys at the session, Los Angeles Times reports. Cochran, who filed
his first misconduct suit against the LAPD in 1965, said he expected the
group to meet again later this month. "If we band together, we can get a
lot done," the report quotes Cochran.

There already are more than 15 civil damages suits on file stemming from
the Rampart scandal, with many more expected. It also is possible that
there will be an attempt to consolidate those cases, though there are
difficult legal procedural hurdles to overcome, according to Los Angeles
Times, which says that it also appears probable that lawsuits seeking
structural reform of the LAPD will be filed.

The array of legal firepower convened by Cochran and Paz adds to the
city's mounting woes in the widening scandal. To a degree, the pooling
of resources parallels the entente forged between private plaintiff
lawyers and public prosecutors leading to multibillion-dollar
settlements against the historically invulnerable tobacco industry.

Some of the lawyers at the meeting, such as Gregory W. Moreno of
Montebello, already represent several Rampart victims, including Javier
F. Ovando, who was permanently crippled by Rampart officers. Law
professors Laurie Levenson of Loyola, a former federal prosecutor, and
Erwin Chemerinsky of USC, who has been asked by the Police Protective
League to formally critique the LAPD's internal inquiry report, offered
other expertise. Winston K. McKesson, the defense lawyer for Rafael
Perez, the former officer who is at the center of the scandal, also
spoke at the three-hour gathering.

Rodriguez said most of the people at the meeting have been battling with
the LAPD for years and hope that the Rampart scandal serves as the
catalyst for real change. "This is a situation that is tailor-made for
reform" because of the breadth of the illegal police conduct already
revealed," Los Angeles Times quotes Rosenbaum as saying. That the
appropriate city officials failed to "clamp down" on the Police
Department, despite warnings from the Christopher Commission and
community leaders, made the Rampart scandal "the natural and foreseeable
result," Rosenbaum said.

That contention may be debatable, but there is broad agreement that the
Rampart scandal is the worst in city history and that it will be very

                         Cases Called City Nightmare

Chief Deputy City Atty. Tim McOsker told the City Council in closed
session Feb. 2 that the city ultimately will have to pay as much as $
125 million to settle lawsuits stemming from the 99 cases already
conceded by Chief Bernard C. Parks to have been tainted--a number that
virtually all observers expect to grow.

Significantly, attorneys with considerable experience in suing the
police and their adversaries who defend law enforcement are in rare
agreement that the Rampart-generated damage cases are a nightmare for
the city. To both sides of the aisle, they represent an entirely
different challenge than the city usually faces in defending police
misconduct allegations.

In the typical case, a plaintiff accuses an officer of mistreating him
in some way--often with few or no witnesses--and the trial becomes a
credibility battle. The police win most of them.

But in the Rampart cases, the plaintiffs will come into court under
dramatically different circumstances, said Rodriguez, who has filed two
Rampart-related suits. First of all, those cases, if they are not
settled, will come to court after months and months of publicity about
Rampart police lawlessness.

In some instances, the defendants will include an officer who has been
convicted of or charged with an array of crimes, including illegal
shootings, planting of evidence, falsifying police reports and, perhaps
worse, perjury. In other instances, the officer, even if not charged
with a crime, will have been fired or suspended from the department
because of misconduct.

Normally, when the city defends a police misconduct case, its arsenal
includes a credible client and the weight of the city attorney's office,
sometimes aided by private lawyers, lined up against attorneys from
small law firms.

"Here, you have the district attorney acknowledging that there was
wrongful, unlawful conduct that deprived someone of their civil rights.
>From a plaintiff lawyer's perspective, you can't get a better
situation," said Dan Stormer, a Los Angeles attorney who has won major
police misconduct cases but was not at the Saturday meeting.

Los Angeles attorney George Fransell, who has been defending police
officers for 40 years, agreed: "Absent a technicality, you will be left
with one issue--just how much damages." Added attorney Steven D.
Manning, who also specializes in representing law enforcement agencies:
"If you have a cop who has been fired for falsifying evidence, you have
a big problem."

And Thomas D. Hokinson, who heads the city attorney's liability
division, said officers with criminal convictions could be "a real
problem" for the city in defending these cases.

                  City Has Possible Defenses

That is not to say that the city is without defenses or plans to
surrender. Already, the city attorney's office has filed papers saying
that some cases were filed too late to meet statute of limitations

Government lawyers may argue that the city's liability should be limited
because the plaintiffs have not proved a pattern and practice of
misconduct. However, as allegations of widespread wrongdoing continue to
mount, that contention may be difficult to sustain.

In some instances, the city may claim that an individual who had a
criminal record before the case at issue and no demonstrated earning
power is entitled to minimal damages for time spent in prison after
being incarcerated as a result of falsified evidence. The city also may
argue that the individual went to jail after pleading guilty upon the
advice of a defense lawyer.

Nonetheless, many lawyers said a number of the Rampart cases that,
according to both the district attorney and the police chief, involved
clearly illegal conduct would be worth more than than that of Rodney
King. He received $ 3.8 million in damages from the city stemming from a
severe beating by police officers in a case where his initial
conduct--leading police on a high-speed chase--was illegal and
dangerous, said Paul Hoffman, former legal director of the ACLU.

Hoffman contrasted the King case to that of Ovando, who was shot,
permanently crippled, framed for assaulting police and sentenced to 23
years in prison.

Although police say that Ovando is an 18th Street gang member, he had no
criminal record when he was shot. "That case is worth $ 25-$ 30 million
alone," said Hoffman, who has written law review articles on police

Among the other cases that could generate high damages is the one that
Paz filed on behalf of the family of Juan Saldana. That victim died in
1996 in one of three shootings in which former officer Perez says he or
fellow anti-gang CRASH officers in the Rampart Division unjustly wounded
or killed suspects. Perez has said that as Saldana lay bleeding to death
in the hallway of a Mid-City apartment building, officers delayed
calling an ambulance while they planted a gun near where he had fallen
and concocted a story to justify the shooting.

"The level of legal and moral culpability" in such a case is at "the
extreme end of the spectrum," said Hoffman, who was not at the meeting
but has been closely following the Rampart situation.

Some of the lawyers at the meeting are discussing how to fashion a
broad-gauged lawsuit that could play a role in changing LAPD practices.
Two federal court decisions issued in prior years--one in Los Angeles
and one in Philadelphia--place substantial hurdles in the way of lawyers
seeking to use the courts to achieve such a goal.

Nonetheless, Rosenbaum said he thought those rulings could be overcome
because of the sweep of police lawlessness already revealed. "This is
not a case of a few bad apples; it is the case of a poisonous tree," he

                 Chief's Statement Admissible in Court

Parks clearly would disagree. However, he already has told the City
Council that the LAPD was negligent in the way it hired and supervised
officers in recent years.

Some lawyers at the meeting said that statement, which would be
admissible in court, could provide significant ammunition to the claim
of plaintiffs' lawyers that the city had a pattern and practice of
deliberate indifference to officer misconduct. That could heighten the
level of damages that the city has to pay and buttress the argument that
the LAPD should be subjected to broad, court-ordered reforms, they say.

Moreover, the department's Board of Inquiry report on the scandal, in
which Parks states "we as an organization provided the opportunity" for
corrupt officers to carry out criminal acts, will further complicate the
city's legal position. The report cites failures from top to bottom,
including failures to check out the background of recruits, "a
breakdown" in front-line supervision and failures to monitor officer

Any coalition that emerges from the meeting apparently will not include
one of the area's most prominent police misconduct lawyers--Stephen
Yagman of Venice, who already has filed several Rampart-related cases
but was not invited to the meeting. Yagman and Cochran have been at odds
for years and there is no prospect that they will work together,
although the two frequently have leveled similar criticisms of the LAPD.

Santa Monica attorney Brian Lysaght, whose firm specializes in complex
civil litigation, said the firm is looking into the possibility of
filing a Rampart-related class-action suit. Lysaght acknowledged that
because the Rampart victims had suffered a variety of injuries, it might
be difficult to form a class that would comport with the federal rules
of civil procedure, but he said he did not think this is an
insurmountable obstacle. (Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2000)

MINNESOTA MINING: 3M's Year-End Report on Silicone-Related Litigation
As of December 31, 1999, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. relates in
its latest annual report filed with the Securites and Exchange
Commission, the company had been named as a defendant, often with
multiple co-defendants, in 3,671 lawsuits and 56 claims in various
courts, all seeking damages for personal injuries from allegedly
defective breast implants. These claims and lawsuits purport to
represent 12,210 individual claimants. It is not yet certain how many of
these lawsuits and claims involve products manufactured and sold by the
company, as opposed to other manufacturers, or how many of these
lawsuits and claims involve individuals who accepted benefits under the
Revised Settlement Program (defined later). The company has confirmed
that approximately 540 of the above individual claimants have opted out
of the class action and have 3M implants. The company entered the
business of manufacturing breast implants in 1977 by purchasing McGhan
Medical Corporation. In 1984, the company sold the business to a
corporation that also was named McGhan Medical Corporation.

The typical claim or lawsuit alleges the individual's breast implants
caused one or more of a wide variety of ailments and local
complications, including, but not limited to, non-specific autoimmune
disease, scleroderma, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, mixed
connective tissue disease, Sjogren's Syndrome, dermatomyositis,
polymyositis and chronic fatigue.

Plaintiffs in these cases typically seek monetary damages, often in
unspecified amounts, and also may seek certain types of equitable
relief, including requiring the company to fund the costs associated
with removal of the breast implants.

A number of breast implant claims and lawsuits seek to impose liability
on the company under various theories for personal injuries allegedly
caused by breast implants manufactured and sold by manufacturers other
than the company. These manufacturers include, but are not limited to,
McGhan Medical Corporation and manufacturers that are no longer in
business or that are insolvent, whose breast implants may or may not
have been used in conjunction with implants manufactured and sold by the
company. These claims raise many difficult and complex factual and legal
issues that are subject to many uncertainties, including the facts and
circumstances of each particular claim, the jurisdiction in which each
suit is brought, and differences in applicable law and insurance

A number of breast implant lawsuits seek to recover punitive damages.
Any punitive damages that may be awarded against the company may or may
not be covered by certain insurance policies depending on the language
of the insurance policy, applicable law and agreements with insurers.

In addition to the individual suits against the company, a class action
on behalf of all women with breast implants filed against all
manufacturers of such implants has been conditionally certified and is
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama (the "Court")(DANTE, ET AL., V. DOW CORNING, ET AL., U.S.D.C.,
N. Dist., Ala., 92-2589; part of IN RE: SILICONE GEL BREAST IMPLANT
U.S.D.C., N. Dist. Ala., CV 92-P-10000-S; now held in abeyance pending
settlement proceedings in the settlement class action LINDSEY, ET AL.,
94-P-11558-S). Class actions, some of which have been certified, are
pending in various state courts, including, among others, Louisiana,
Florida and Illinois, and in the British Columbia courts in Canada. The
Louisiana state court action (SPITZFADEN, ET AL., v. DOW CORNING
CORPORATION, ET AL., Dist. Ct., Parish of Orleans, 92-2589) has been
decertified by the trial court. The Louisiana Supreme Court has denied
plaintiffs' writ for an emergency appeal from the decertification. A
normal appeal remains pending.

The company also has been served with a purported class action brought
on behalf of children allegedly exposed to silicone in utero and through
breast milk. (FEUER, ET AL., V. MCGHAN, ET AL., U.S.D.C., E. Dist. NY,
93-0146.) The suit names all breast implant manufacturers as defendants
and seeks to establish a medical-monitoring fund.

On December 22, 1995, the Court approved a revised class action
settlement program for resolution of claims seeking damages for personal
injuries from allegedly defective breast implants (the "Revised
Settlement Program"). The Revised Settlement Program is a revision of a
previous settlement pursuant to a Breast Implant Litigation Settlement
Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") reached on April 8, 1994, and
approved by the Court on September 1, 1994.

The Court ordered that, beginning after November 30, 1995, members of
the plaintiff class may choose to participate in the Revised Settlement
Program or opt out, which would then allow them to proceed with separate
products liability actions.

The Revised Settlement Program includes domestic class members with
implants manufactured by certain manufacturer defendants, including
Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, the company and
McGhan Medical Corporation. The company's obligations under the Revised
Settlement Program are limited to eligible claimants with implants
manufactured by the company or its predecessors ("3M implants") or
manufactured only by McGhan Medical Corporation after its divestiture
from the company on August 3, 1984 ("Post 8/84 McGhan implants"). With
respect to claimants with only Post 8/84 McGhan implants (or only Post
8/84 McGhan implants plus certain other manufacturers' implants), the
benefits are more limited than for claimants with 3M implants. Post 8/84
McGhan implant benefits are payable in fixed shares by the company,
Union Carbide Corporation and McGhan Medical Corporation. McGhan Medical
Corporation has defaulted on its fixed share obligation (which does not
affect 3M's obligation to pay its share) and mandatory class action
status has been granted.

In general, the amounts payable to individual current claimants (as
defined in the Court's order) under the Revised Settlement Program, and
the company's obligations to make those payments, are not affected by
the number of class members who have elected to opt out of the Revised
Settlement Program or the number of class members making claims under
the Revised Settlement Program. In addition to certain miscellaneous
benefits, the Revised Settlement Program provides for two compensation
options for current claimants with 3M implants.

Under the first option, denominated as Fixed Amount Benefits, current
claimants with 3M implants who satisfy disease criteria established in
the prior Settlement Agreement will receive amounts ranging from $5,000
to $100,000, depending on disease severity or disability level; whether
the claimant can establish that her implants have ruptured; and whether
the claimant also has had implants manufactured by Dow Corning. Under
the second option, denominated as Long-Term Benefits, current claimants
with 3M implants who satisfy more restrictive disease and severity
criteria specified under the Revised Settlement Program can receive
benefits ranging from $37,500 to $250,000.

In addition, current claimants with 3M implants are eligible for (a) a
one-time payment of $3,000 upon removal of 3M implants during the course
of the class settlement, and (b) an advance payment of $5,000 against
the above referenced benefits upon proof of having 3M implants and upon
waiving or not timely exercising the right to opt out of the Revised
Settlement Program. Current claimants with only Post 8/84 McGhan
implants (or only Post 8/84 McGhan implants plus certain other
manufacturers' implants) are eligible only for benefits ranging from
$10,000 to $50,000.

Eligible participants with 3M implants who did not file current claims
but are able to satisfy the more restrictive disease and severity
criteria during an ongoing period of 15 years will be eligible for the
Long-Term Benefits, subject to certain funding limitations. Such
participants also will be eligible for an advance payment of $1,000 upon
proof of having 3M implants and upon waiving or not timely exercising
the right to opt out of the Revised Settlement Program or, as an
elective option which expired on June 15, 1999, a payment of $3,500 in
full settlement of all breast implant claims including any claim for
Long-Term Benefits under the Revised Settlement Program. Benefit levels
for eligible participants who are not current claimants and have only
Post 8/84 McGhan implants (or only Post 8/84 McGhan implants plus
certain other manufacturers' implants) will range from $10,000 to

On June 10, 1998, the Court approved the terms of a settlement program
offered by Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and the
company to eligible foreign implant recipients (the "Foreign Settlement
Program"). Notices and claim forms were mailed on June 15, 1998.
Benefits to eligible foreign claimants range from $3,500 to $50,000.

As of the date of this filing, the company believes that approximately
percent of the registrants, including those claimants who filed current
claims, have elected to participate in the Revised Settlement Program.
It is still unknown as to what disease criteria all claimants have
satisfied, and what options they have chosen. As a result, the total
amount and timing of the company's prospective payments under the
Revised Settlement Program cannot be determined with precision at this
time. As of December 31, 1999, the company has paid $289 million into
the court-administered fund as a reserve against costs of claims payable
by the company under the Revised Settlement Program (including a $5
million administrative assessment). Additional payments will be made as
necessary. Payments to date have been consistent with the company's
estimates of the total liability for these claims.

In the first quarter of 1994, the company took a pre-tax charge of $35
million ($22 million after tax) in recognition of its best estimate at
the time of its probable liabilities and associated expenses, net of the
probable amount of insurance recoverable from its carriers. In the third
quarter of 1999, the company increased its estimate of the probable
liabilities and associated expenses to approximately $1.2 billion, with
an offsetting increase in the probable amount of insurance recoveries.
This amount represents the company's current best estimate of the amount
to cover the cost and expense of the Revised Settlement Program and the
cost and expense of resolving opt-out claims and recovering insurance
proceeds. After subtracting payments of $1.114 billion as of December
31, 1999, for defense and other costs and settlements with litigants and
claimants, the company had accrued liabilities of $86 million.

The company has substantial primary and excess products liability
occurrence insurance coverage and claims-made products liability
insurance coverage, which it believes provides coverage for
substantially all of its current exposure for breast implant claims and
defense costs. Most insurers have alleged reservations of rights to deny
all or part of the coverage for differing reasons, including each
insurer's obligations in relation to the other insurers (i.e.,
allocation) and which claims trigger both the various occurrence and
claims-made insurance policies. Some insurers have resolved and paid, or
committed to, their policy obligations. The company believes the failure
of many insurers to voluntarily perform as promised subjects them to the
company's claims for excess liability and damages for breach of the
insurers' obligation of good faith.

On September 22, 1994, three excess coverage occurrence insurers
initiated in the courts of the State of Minnesota a declaratory judgment
action against the company and numerous insurance carriers seeking
adjudication of certain coverage issues and allocation among insurers.
On December 9, 1994, the company initiated an action against its
occurrence insurers in the Texas State Court in and for Harrison County,
seeking a determination of responsibility among the company's various
occurrence insurers having applicable coverages. The state of Texas has
the most implant claims. This action has since been removed to the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Texas, and stayed pending resolution
of the litigation in the Minnesota courts.

The insurers that are parties to these actions generally acknowledge
that they issued products liability insurance to the company and that
breast implant claims are products liability claims. The trial in
Minnesota to resolve the company's insurance coverage and the financial
responsibility of occurrence insurers for breast implant claims and
defense costs began on June 4, 1996, and is continuing in phases. A
phase III jury trial on the company's claim of breach and consequential
damages and insurer defenses to coverage began on October 25, 1999, and
is expected to continue through February 2000, at which time a verdict
is expected.

In mid-October 1995, the occurrence insurers that are parties to the
litigation in Minnesota filed more than 30 motions for summary judgment
or partial summary judgment. The insurers, through these motions,
attempted to shift all or a portion of the responsibility for those
claims the company believes fall within the period of occurrence-based
coverage (before 1986) into the period of claims-made coverage (from and
after January 1, 1986). The trial court denied the insurers'motions,
ruling that the key issues of trigger and allocation raised in these
motions would be resolved at trial. In the trial's first phase in 1996,
the court granted 3M partial declaratory judgment on the question of
when insurance coverage is "triggered." The court also granted the
insurers' motion for partial declaratory judgment on the question of the
allocation method to be applied in the case. In July 1997, the trial
court ruled further on the trigger issue and on the general allocation
method. That ruling was consistent with and further supported the
company's opinion as stated in the following paragraph. In November
1997, upon reconsideration, the court reversed a portion of its July
ruling and reinstated a portion of its previous ruling. The company
believed that conflicting rulings existed that needed to be clarified by
the court and reconciled with applicable law. Motions to clarify the
allocation methodology of triggered policies under these rulings were
filed and have been ruled upon by the Court. While the Court clarified
certain aspects of these rulings, it also ruled that there would be no
allocation from and after January 1, 1986. This ruling is consistent
with the company's position on the allocation issue.

The company believes it will ultimately prevail in this insurance
litigation. The company's belief is based on an analysis of its
insurance policies; court decisions on these and similar issues;
reimbursement by insurers for these types of claims; and consultation
with outside counsel who are experts in insurance coverage matters. If,
however, the occurrence insurers ultimately prevail in this insurance
litigation, the company could be effectively deprived of significant and
potentially material insurance coverage for breast implant claims. (See
discussion of the accrued receivables for insurance recoveries below.)

As of December 31, 1999, the company had accrued receivables for
insurance recoveries of $622 million, substantially all of which is
contested by the insurance carriers. During the first quarter of 1999,
the company executed a settlement agreement with its lead occurrence
underwriter. Payments of settlement dollars of this and other agreements
were received in 1999. Various factors could affect the timing and
amount of proceeds to be received under the company's various insurance
policies, including (i) the timing of payments made in settlement of
claims; (ii) the outcome of occurrence insurance litigation in the
courts of Minnesota (as discussed earlier) and Texas; potential
arbitration with claims-made insurers; (iv) delays in payment by
insurers; and (v) the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in
the future. There can be no absolute assurance that the company will
collect all amounts accrued as being probable of recovery from its

The company's current estimate of the probable liabilities, associated
expenses and probable insurance recoveries related to the breast implant
claims is based on the facts and circumstances existing at this time.
New developments may occur that could affect the company's estimates of
probable liabilities (including associated expenses) and the probable
amount of insurance recoveries. These developments include, but are not
limited to, (i) the ultimate Fixed Amount Benefit distribution to
claimants in the Revised Settlement Program; (ii) the success of and
costs to the company in defending opt-out claims, including claims
involving breast implants not manufactured or sold by the company; (iii)
the outcome of the occurrence insurance litigation in the courts of
Minnesota and Texas; and (iv) the outcome of potential arbitration with
claims-made insurers.

The company cannot determine the impact of these potential developments
on the current estimate of probable liabilities (including associated
expenses) and the probable amount of insurance recoveries. Accordingly,
the company is not able to estimate its possible future liabilities and
recoveries beyond the current estimates of probable amounts. As new
developments occur, these estimates may be revised, or additional
charges may be necessary to reflect the impact of these developments on
the costs to the company of resolving breast implant litigation, claims
and insurance recoveries. Such revisions or additional future charges
could have a material adverse impact on the company's net income in the
quarterly period in which they are recorded. Although the company
considers it unlikely, such revisions or additional future charges could
also have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial
position, annual results of operations, or cash flows of the company.

The company conducts ongoing reviews, assisted by outside counsel, to
determine the adequacy and extent of insurance coverage provided by its
occurrence and claims-made insurers. The company believes, based on
these ongoing reviews and the bases described in the fourth preceding
paragraph, it is probable that the collectible coverage provided by its
applicable insurance policies is sufficient to cover substantially all
of its current exposure for breast implant claims and defense costs.
Based on the availability of this insurance coverage, the company
believes that its uninsured financial exposure has not materially
changed since the first quarter of 1994. Therefore, no recognition of
additional charges has been made.

MOBILEMEDIA CORPORATION: Settlement with Goldman Sachs Almost Final
Goldman, Sachs & Co. has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit commenced on December 6, 1996 and pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. This lawsuit was brought
on behalf of purchasers of common stock of MobileMedia Corporation in an
underwritten offering in 1995 and purchasers of senior subordinated
notes of MobileMedia Communications Inc. in a concurrent underwritten
offering. Defendants are MobileMedia Corporation, certain of its
officers and directors, and the lead underwriters, including Goldman,
Sachs & Co. MobileMedia Corporation is currently reorganizing in

Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote 2,242,500 shares of common stock, for a
total price of approximately $53 million, and Goldman Sachs
International underwrote 718,750 shares, for a total price of
approximately $17 million. Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote approximately
$38 million in principal amount of the senior subordinated notes.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges violations of the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and seeks
compensatory and/or rescissory damages. In light of MobileMedia
Corporation’s bankruptcy, the action against it has been stayed.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied in October 1998.

The parties have entered into a stipulation of settlement, which was
approved by the court on February 7, 2000, but the time to appeal has
yet to expire.

MUNICIPAL BONDS: Underwriters' Motion to Dismiss Sub Judice
Goldman, Sachs & Co., together with a number of other firms active in
the municipal securities area, has received requests beginning in June
1995 for information from the SEC and certain other federal and state
agencies and authorities with respect to the pricing of escrow
securities sold by Goldman, Sachs & Co. to certain municipal bond
issuers in connection with the advanced refunding of municipal
securities. Goldman, Sachs & Co. understands that certain municipal bond
issuers to which Goldman, Sachs & Co. sold escrow securities have also
received such inquiries.

There have been published reports that an action under the Federal False
Claims Act was filed in February 1995 alleging unlawful and undisclosed
overcharges in certain advance refunding transactions by a private
plaintiff on behalf of the United States and that Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
together with a number of other firms, is a named defendant in that
action. The complaint was reportedly filed under seal while the
government determines whether it will pursue the claims directly.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is also one of many municipal underwriting firms
that have been named as defendants in a purported class action brought
on November 24, 1998 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida by the Clerk of Collier County, Florida on behalf of
municipal issuers which purchased escrow securities since October 1986
in connection with advance refundings. The amended complaint alleges
that the securities were excessively “marked up” in violation of the
Investment Advisers Act and Florida law, and that the defendants
violated the federal antitrust laws in connection with the prices at
which escrow securities were sold to municipal issuers. The complaint
seeks to recover the difference between the actual and alleged “fair”
prices of the escrow securities and to treble the alleged damages with
respect to the antitrust claim. On October 29, 1999, the defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint.

ONLINE INFORMATION: Ct OKs Class Brought by Legal Guardian over FDCPA
Legal guardians may satisfy the fair and adequate representation
requirement for class action certification and effectively represent
beneficiaries and other debtors in class actions filed pursuant to the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The duties a fiduciary owes to a
beneficiary do not necessarily conflict without the duties he owes to
the class as their representative. (Woodard v. Online Information
Services, No. 2:98-CV-70-BO92) (E.D.N.C. 1/19/2000).)

Online Information Services, a debt collector in North Carolina, sent
Elmer R. Woodard Jr. a collection notice on behalf of Albemarle
Hospital. Woodard, in turn, sued under the FDCPA claiming the letter's
language "overshadowed" his right to demand verification within 30 days.

Online Information and Woodard eventually settled the FDCPA action.
However, Online Information failed to change the language of its
collection letters. Therefore, when Woodard once again received
collection letters from Online Information with the same improper
language and omissions, his son and legal guardian, Elmer Woodard III,
filed a second FDCPA class action lawsuit on his father's behalf.

In the second action, Woodard alleged that the language of the
collection letters "overshadowed" the 30-day validation notice. He
sought declaratory and statutory relief. Additionally, the complaint
claimed Online Information violated the Section 1692(e)(11) of the FDCPA
by failing to specifically state in its initial communications to
approximately 5,000 debtors that the notice was from a debt collector
and that information obtained would be used for collection purposes.


Woodard moved for class certification, discovery and for partial summary
judgment while Online Information filed a motion to dismiss. The U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina first
addressed the motion for class certification.

Noting that Online Information admitted that Woodard's lawsuit satisfied
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23's numerosity and commonality requirements, the
District Court addressed Online Information's argument that the action
failed the typicality prerequisite of Rule 23 because the case called
for individual inquiries. Online Information claimed the court needed to
examine the date each class member received notice. Judge Terrence W.
Boyle opined that determining these facts did not defeat typicality. He
added, "This is not a case-by-case, fact-intensive determination, but
rather a simple exercising in sorting."

Online Information also attempted to defeat certification by claiming
Woodard's incompetence interfered with his ability to adequately
represent the class. Furthermore, Online Information alleged Elmer
Woodard III's guardianship duties to his father conflicted with his
duties to the proposed class. It claimed the guardian could only pursue
Woodard's individual claim because he was not "empowered to incur the
costs of pursuing a class action ... ."

The District Court disagreed with the debt collector for two reasons.
First, the court held that nothing prevents fiduciaries or trustees from
serving as class representatives on their beneficiaries' behalf. It
quoted from Newberg on Class Actions, Section 3.34 (3rd ed. 1992).

Second, the court found no conflict existed between the guardian's duty
to his father and to the class because class counsel took the case on
contingency and "the affidavits submitted that the costs of pursuing
class litigation will not be incurred by Plaintiff."

                        Declaratory relief

The court found that the debtor's request for declaratory relief
predominated over monetary relief, making certification appropriate
under Rule 23(b)(2). It based this decision on the fact that Online
Information explained that its net worth was under 500,000 and it mailed
over 101,000 offending notices. Under the FDCPA, monetary damages cannot
exceed one percent of the debt collector's net worth.

In conclusion the District Court held, "Given the identical issues of
law and fact presented, the large number of class members, the small
expected award per class member, and the likelihood that class members
will not be aware of their rights under the FDCPA, this Court finds that
class certification [under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3)] is the best
method for resolving the instant case."

                       Offer of judgment

Online Information served Woodard with an Offer of Judgment. The offer
included the maximum judgment allowable for the alleged violations
absent a showing of actual damages: 1,000 plus costs. Online Information
also changed its collection notices to comply with the FDCPA.

Citing its Offer of Judgment, Online Information moved to dismiss.
Online Information argued that dismissal was warranted because it
offered the maximum award permitted by the act; thus, no case of
controversy existed.

Citing Deposit Guaranty Nation Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980), the
District Court explained it could not grant the debt collector's motion
to dismiss based on its offer to settle the individual claim of the
named plaintiff. Additionally, the court said this issue was moot after
it granted class certification.

O. Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates Ltd. in Chicago and
Thomas D. Domonske and Dale W. Pittman of Petersburg, Va., represented
Woodard. William Blancato of McCall, Doughton & Blancato PLLC in
Winston-Salem, N.C., represented Online Information.

PATHOGENESIS CORP: WA Ct Dismisses Securities Lawsuits against Drug Co.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed
with prejudice all eight consolidated putative class action lawsuits
that had been filed in March and April 1999 against PathoGenesis Corp.
(Nasdaq: PGNS) and two of its officers.

The plaintiffs had claimed that the company and its officers violated
certain provisions of the federal securities laws in making statements
in early 1999 regarding the company's 1998 financial results and
expected 1999 results. The consolidated case was dismissed on the basis
of the court's determination that the plaintiffs' amended complaint
failed to state a cause of action. The court's ruling bars plaintiffs
from filing another lawsuit on the matter, although the plaintiffs can
appeal the court's decision.

In his oral decision granting PathoGenesis' motion to dismiss the case
on Friday, Feb. 18, U.S. District Judge Thomas S. Zilly said that
Congress had intended to protect companies and officers from precisely
this type of lawsuit when it adopted the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.

Seattle-based PathoGenesis Corp. develops and commercializes drugs to
treat chronic infectious diseases - particularly serious lung
infections, including those common in cystic fibrosis, bronchiectasis
and ventilator patients.

PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Virginia Joins Other States against Sweepstakes
As reported in the CAR, states have filed separate lawsuits against
Publishers Clearing House, claiming false advertising by the sweepstakes
giant that sends its ''Prize Patrol'' minivan out on Super Bowl Sunday.

Now Virginia has joined the list of states suing Publishers Clearing
House, alleging the sweepstakes giant dupes people out of millions of
dollars through deceptive mailings. The news is reported in AP Online,
March 1, which says at least 426 Virginians spent more than $2,500 each
in 1997 on magazine subscriptions or merchandise in the hopes of
improving their odds of winning a multimillion dollar sweepstakes award,
said Randy Davis, spokesman for Attorney General Mark Earley.

The report says that the state's lawsuit was filed February 28 in
Richmond Circuit Court, making it one of about 30 that have sued
Publishers Clearing House over deceptive practices, Davis said.

The suit alleges the company's solicitations are misleading. Examples
cited include a letter from a contest manager who wrote that she's in
trouble with her boss because a particular customer had not yet won a
prize. Other solicitations imply that a contestant's odds of winning are
better than they actually are. The actual odds of winning the grand
prize are about one in 50 million, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit
seeks reimbursement for residents who have been misled, an injunction
barring the company from engaging in deceptive practices, and fines of
$2,500 for each violation of the state law. That could add up to
millions of dollars, Davis said.

Publishers Clearing had sales of $375 million in 1997 and sends more
than 100 million pieces of mail each year, according to the lawsuit.

Christopher L. Irving, director of consumer affairs for the Port
Washington, N.Y.-based Publishers Clearing House, said 24 of the 31
contestants who have won $1 million or more in the sweepstakes' 33-year
history did not place an order with their entry. Irving said he was
disappointed by the lawsuit because the company had been in settlement
negotiations with Virginia and the other states that have sued.

On Feb. 18, a federal judge in Illinois approved a $30 million
class-action settlement on behalf of sweepstakes entrants who said they
were misled. (AP Online, March 1, 2000)

ROCKEFELLER CENTER: Goldman Moves to Dismiss Remanded Complaint
Several former shareholders of Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc.
brought purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware and the Delaware Court of Chancery arising from the
acquisition of Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. by an investor group
in July 1996. The defendants in the actions include, among others,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Whitehall Real Estate Partnership V, a fund
advised by Goldman, Sachs & Co., a Goldman, Sachs & Co. managing
director and other members of the investor group. The federal court
actions, which have since been consolidated, were filed beginning on
November 15, 1996, and the state court action was filed on May 29, 1998.

The complaints generally allege that the proxy statement disseminated to
former Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. stockholders in connection
with the transaction was deficient, in violation of the disclosure
requirements of the federal securities laws. The plaintiffs are seeking,
among other things, unspecified damages, rescission of the acquisition,
and/or disgorgement.

In a series of decisions, the federal district court granted summary
judgment dismissing all the claims in the federal action. The plaintiffs
appealed those rulings.

On July 19, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
rendered its decision affirming in part and vacating in part the lower
court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing the action. With respect to
the claim as to which summary judgment was vacated, the appellate court
held that the district court had committed a procedural error in
converting the defendants’ motion to dismiss into a motion for summary
judgment and remanded for the district court to reconsider that claim
under appropriate standards applicable to motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs
have since sought leave to amend the complaint as to the remanded claim.
The defendants have moved to dismiss the remanded claim and are opposing
the plaintiffs’ motion to amend it further.

SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Securities Suit Settlement
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and Robert C. Susser, P.C. posted a Summary Notice
of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action Against Signal Technology
Corp., to all persons or entities who purchased or acquired common stock
of Signal Technology Corp. (Symbol: STZ) from April 28, 1997 through
August 17, 1998, inclusive. The notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order by the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"), dated
January 21, 2000.

The Notice informs of the proposed $1,250,000 settlement that has been
reached in this Class Action by Lead Plaintiffs with defendants Signal
Technology Corp. and Dale L. Peterson.

The proposed settlement resolves all claims, rights, causes of action,
suits, matters and issues, whether known or unknown arising out of or
related to the subject matter of the Action or claims asserted by or on
behalf of plaintiffs or any member of the Class, whether individual,
class, derivative, representative, legal, equitable or any other type or
in any other capacity, against any one of the foregoing parties.

The settlement consideration consists of $1,250,000, in cash, plus
accrued interest. (A summary of the settlement and related matters are
more fully described in the detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Hearing On Proposed Settlement And Attorneys' Fee Petition, And Right To
Share In Settlement Fund (the "Detailed Notice")).

A hearing will be held by the Court on April 24, 2000 at 2:00p.m.,
before the Honorable Edward F. Harrington in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, United States Courthouse, One
Courthouse Way, Court Room 19, Boston, Massachusetts 02210.

The purpose of the hearing will be, among other things: (1) to determine
whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
should be approved and, therefore, whether this class action should be
dismissed on the merits and with prejudice and without costs as to the
Defendants; and (2) to consider the reasonableness of an application of
plaintiffs' counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses incurred in prosecuting the Action.

For additional information about this settlement, please contact Stacey
J. Dana, Esq. at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. at FaruqiLaw@aol.com or Robert C.
Susser, Esq. at Robert C. Susser, P.C. at ClassAction@mail.com Please do
not contact the Court or the Clerk's office for information.

SOLOMON SMITH: Ex-Brokers Allege of Being Pressed to Invest in Stock
As The Boston Globe, March 1, 2000 says, sometimes even stockbrokers
succumb to a hard sell on a stock - and lose a pile of money in the
process. According to The Boston Globe, former Massachusetts employees
of Salomon Smith Barney Inc. say they were pressed by their managers to
show their loyalty by investing a portion of their wages in the Wall
Street broker's stock. The plan was touted as a form of golden
handcuffs, an enticement for employees to stay aboard for at least two
years to reap potential gains from the stock. But the reality was more
like iron shackles, former employees say.

In a class-action lawsuit filed recently in state Superior Court,
Maxwell Peckler, a former broker for Smith Barney in Boston, claims he
lost $24,737 when he quit last year for another job. Because he left
less than two years after signing up for the restricted stock, Peckler
not only lost his rights to the shares, but to the cash he had used to
buy them.

Hundreds of other brokers who have left the firm in recent years have
suffered the same fate, Peckler's lawyers say. Class-action suits in
five states pit the former Smith Barney brokers against the firm's
parent, Citigroup Inc., in a multimillion-dollar fight.

"It's simply unfair to ask an employee to participate in this plan and
not give him or her back their own personal contribution when they
leave," The Boston Globe quotes Michael Collora, whose Boston law firm,
Dwyer & Collora, is handling the case. "It restricts their employment,
and it benefits the employer unduly."

Salomon Smith Barney argues that the plan was entirely voluntary and
that brokers signed forms acknowledging they understood they would leave
the stock and cash on the table if they quit before the two years were

Spokeswoman Sally Cates said participants enjoyed an "immediate benefit"
from the plan, because they were able to buy shares at a 25 percent
discount. "It's an agreement. It's completely voluntary," Cates said.

Last summer, a California lawsuit paved the way for the Bay State case.
In that suit, a state judge has ruled that Citigroup and its subsidiary,
Travelers Group Inc., violated California's labor laws by using the
so-called Capital Accumulation Plan to keep employees from changing
jobs. Citigroup is appealing the decision.

Since then, similar cases have been filed against Salomon Smith Barney
and Citigroup in Florida, New Jersey, and New York. Former employees
across the country are contending that the company pocketed tens of
millions of dollars in workers' earnings when employees quit.

Donna Chin, a New Jersey lawyer who is handling the class action in that
state, said employees nationwide have forfeited 4.5 million shares of
stock in three years. That would amount to about $232 million worth,
using February 29's closing price of $51.81.

The former brokers contest the company's insistence that their purchases
were voluntary. For certain management-level employees, buying stock was
mandatory, they say. Brokers were pressured twice a year to put as much
as 25 percent of their pay into the stock program, the Massachusetts
suit alleges, "as a sign of loyalty and as an implied prerequisite to
promotion and advancement."

A copy of one of Peckler's stock agreements, filed with the court
documents, states that completed forms had to be submitted to branch
managers. Failing to sign up brought trouble, said lawyer David Bunis of
Dwyer & Collora. "They put the arm on people to participate," he said.

Lawyers involved in the suits say they are looking into whether branch
managers had incentives to persuade their employees to sign up. Cates
said there were no incentives.

The case is wide-reaching because it could involve as many as 10,000
employees and former employees of Salomon Smith Barney and Travelers,
The Boston Globe says. Insurance agents who sell Travelers products
could also be affected, because some of them participate in the
restricted stock plan, said Collora, the Boston lawyer.

The Massachusetts suit seeks reimbursement for past employees. The
plaintiffs are also trying to change the way the plan works, so current
employees won't have to forfeit their wages if they leave. Under
Massachusetts law, Bunis said, employers must pay an employee all wages
on the day he leaves the job. Any contract that tries to flout that law
is illegal, he said.

Under the rules of Smith Barney's stock plan, the only sure ways to
avoid leaving two years' wages behind are to die or to be fired without
cause. (The Boston Globe, March 1, 2000)

TRANSWORLD HEALTHCARE: Discovery Continues in HMI Litigation
On July 2, 1998, a former shareholder of Health Management, Inc.,
purporting to sue on behalf of a class of shareholders of HMI as of June
6, 1997, commenced a suit in the Delaware Chancery Court, New Castle
County, entitled Kathleen S. O'Reilly v. Transworld HealthCare, Inc., W.
James Nicol, Andre C. Dimitriadis, Dr. Timothy J. Triche and D. Mark
Weinberg, Civil Action No. 16507-NC. Plaintiff alleged that Transworld
HealthCare, as majority shareholder of HMI, and the then directors of
HMI, breached fiduciary duties to the minority shareholders of HMI by
approving a merger between HMI and a subsidiary of the Company for
inadequate consideration. Plaintiff demands an accounting, damages,
attorney's fees and other payment for other expenses for unspecified
amounts. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action on
September 18, 1998. The Court denied defendants' motion in part and
granted the motion in part, leaving intact certain claims. Plaintiff has
propounded discovery requests. The claims, Transworld HealthCare notes
in its latest quarterly report, are insured.

TRANSWORLD HEALTHCARE: Former Employees' Testimony May Bite Them
By letter dated December 20, 1999, Transworld HealthCare, Inc., received
formal written notification of the intent of two plaintiffs to file a
civil action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania against Transworld Healthcare, Inc., Transworld Home
Healthcare, Inc., Health Management, Inc. and HMI Pennsylvania, Inc. The
two plaintiffs, Irwin Hirsch and Lloyd Myers, formerly were employees of
HMI Pennsylvania, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, and had written
employment agreements. Myers also served as an officer of HMI. Based
upon their former status as employees and as officers, both claim
entitlement to contractual indemnification from HMI and HMI
Pennsylvania, Inc. for defense costs and settlement of certain claims
made against them. In 1994, Hirsch and Myers also sold two retail
pharmacies they owned to HMI.

Hirsch and Myers were named as defendants in an action filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entitled In re Health Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 96 Civ. 0889 (ADS), which was a class action by shareholders of
HMI alleging, among other claims against the defendants, fraud in
connection with the valuation of certain securities. Hirsch and Myers
incurred non-reimbursed legal expenses of $100 in defending that
litigation and, ultimately, settled their liability jointly for $1,325,
which was non-reimbursed. They demand that defendants reimburse to them
their non-reimbursed legal fees and the settlement amount pursuant to
the indemnification provisions of their employee contracts.

In addition to their indemnification claims, Hirsch and Myers also claim
damages in the amount of $7,000 for losses in connection with the
pharmacies sale transaction they entered into with HMI under which they
sold their retail pharmacies to HMI. Hirsch and Myers claim that the
pharmacies sale transaction was based upon fraudulent misrepresentations
by HMI. The Company and HMI entities will vigorously defend against
these claims. The Company believes that Hirsch and Myers'
indemnification claims should not have any real merit because of
testimony given by Hirsch and Myers under oath in connection with a
criminal trial against Clifford Hotte, a director and former officer of
HMI. In their testimony, Hirsch and Myers acknowledged malfeasance and
nonfeasance, which should render their contractual entitlement to
indemnification void. Even if they are entitled to indemnification
despite their acknowledgements, they are liable to defendants for the
economic losses and damages suffered by defendants as a result of the
malfeasance and nonfeasance. Therefore if the civil actions are filed,
the Company and HMI entities will aggressively pursue counterclaims
against Hirsch and Myers for damages which, conservatively, are far in
excess of their claims, including the claims associated with the
pharmacies sale transaction.

VISX, INC.: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Complaint in California
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP gives notice that on February 20,
2000, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against VISX,
Incorporated (Nasdaq: VISX), and certain officers and directors of VISX
on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the stock of VISX
during the period March 1, 1999 through February 22, 2000 (the "Class

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 prospects of VISX, the
royalty structure for use of its laser machines, and validity of its
patented eye laser technology. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
VISX officers mislead the public about the business prospects of its eye
laser technology, thereby inflating the market price of VISX stock,
while at the same time, permitting insiders to sell more than $95
million of their personal holdings of VISX.

Contact: WECHSLER HARWOOD HALEBIAN & FEFFER LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, New
York New York 10022, Robert I. Harwood, Esq., Matthew M. Houston, Esq.,
Telephone: 1-877-935-7400 (toll free), Wechsler Harwood's Shareholder
Relations Department, Ramon Pinon, IV, e-mail: rpinoniv@whhf.com or BULL
& LIFSHITZ LLP at classlaw@bellatlantic.net
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq., Peter D. Bull, Esq., 246 West 38th Street, New
York, New York 10018, Telephone: (212) 869-9449 or (888) 893-1844
(outside New York State)

WORLD FUEL: Shepherd & Geller Files Securities Suit in Florida
The Law Firm of Shepherd & Geller, LLC announced it has filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of all individuals and institutional investors that
purchased the common stock of World Fuel Services, Corp. (NYSE:INT)
between May 26, 1999 and January 31, 2000, inclusive (the "Class

The complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by providing materially
false and misleading information about the Company's business, financial
condition, earnings and future prospects. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company failed to take adequate reserves for losses,
failed to disclose that it lacked insurance on key assets and failed to
disclose that bad debts had been consistently accounted for as advances
to third-parties. As a result of these false and misleading statements,
the plaintiff alleges that the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the class period. When the truth about the
Company was revealed, the price of the stock dropped significantly.

Contact: Shepherd & Geller, LLC, Boca Raton Jonathan M. Stein,
561/750-3000 Toll Free: 1-888-262-3131 E-mail:


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.   Romeo John D. Piansay, Jr., editor, Theresa Cheuk,
Managing Editor.

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  * * *