/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/000324.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 24, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 59 Headlines ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dying Woman Awarded $6.5M for Childhood Exposure AVT CORPORATION: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit in Washington AVT CORPORATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in Washington AVT CORPORATION: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in Washington BESICORP GROUP: NY Supreme Ct Denies Defendants' Appeal from Injunction CINAR CORP: Lionel Z. Glancy Retained to Bring Securities Suit COCA-COLA: Names Black Female Human Resources Director ECONNECT, INC: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in California FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Keller Rohrback Files Securities Suit FRUIT OF: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in Kentucky HMOs: AMA Wants Probe on PA Independence Blue and Highmark Re Antitrust HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Jewish Community Likely to Sue Austrian Companies HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Nazi Labor Funds Agreement Reached; Bill Approved MBNA CORP: DE Ct OKs Class Charging Fraud in Bank's Advertising MBNA CORP: NY Suit Filed '98 Suit Charges Fraud in Bank's Adverising MICROSOFT CORP: EC to Open Antitrust Probe in Proposed Telewest Deal MICROSOFT CORP: Hope for Settlement Renewed, to Leave Company Intact MICROSTRATEGY INC: Lionel Z. Glancy Retained to Bring Securities Suit MICROSTRATEGY INC: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Lawsuit in Virginia MICROSTRATEGY INC: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit MICROSTRATEGY INC: Wolf Popper Charges Company With Securities Fraud PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS: Sprenger & Lang Responds to Job Bias Class Denial PUBLIX: FL Judge Denies Class Status for Gender Discrimination Case RACE DISCRIMINATION: Black College Reunion Time for Scouting for Signs RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in PA SAFETY-KLEEN CORP: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Complaint SAFETY-KLEEN CORP: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit in SC VANTAGEMED CORP: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in California ********* ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dying Woman Awarded $6.5M for Childhood Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------------- An Alameda County jury awarded $6.5 million to a 61-year-old woman dying from cancer that they believe stems from childhood exposure to asbestos dust carried home from the shipyard where her parents worked. The verdict -- which lawyers say may be the largest ever in a Northern California asbestos case -- exemplifies the most recent wave of asbestos litigation hitting the courts. While many earlier cases were filed by people exposed to asbestos on the job, more and more cases today involve plaintiffs who say they were exposed to the carcinogenic asbestos particles secondhand. In Jeanette and Darrel Franklin v. USX Corp. and Garlock Corp., 816407-0, lead plaintiff Jeanette Franklin never worked in a job that exposed her to asbestos. But both of her parents were employed by a South San Francisco shipyard during World War II -- her mother was a carpenter and her father a ship welder. Franklin says she is dying from mesothelioma -- a cancer linked by medical research to asbestos -- after being exposed to asbestos her parents carried home with them from work. Franklin's father has died of cancer; her mother is still alive. "We had to prove to the jury that asbestos fibers actually did walk off the shipyard's premises with the workers, got into their cars and went home with them," said Simona Farrise, lead counsel and a partner with Kazan, McClain, Edises, Simon & Abrams. The jury found that Franklin's cancer was caused by asbestos exposure and that USX Corp. -- successor to Western Pipe and Steel Shipyard -- was liable for negligence. Garlock Corp., which was named in the suit as the maker of the product that contained asbestos used at the shipyard, was found not liable. The jury awarded $5.95 million in damages to Franklin, who is dying from mesothelioma, and to her husband Darrel, for loss of consortium. The couple also received more than $112,000 for medical bills; about $30,000 for lost Social Security income; and more than $400,000 for loss of Jeanette Franklin's contribution to her family's household. Farrise and her co-counsel, Kazan associate Andrea Huston, relied on the testimony of seven experts. But she said some of the most compelling testimony came from former employees of the shipyards who could speak of the working conditions that they and people like Franklin's parents endured. One 84-year-old witness told jurors that the dust around them was so thick that the air looked like down feathers. Farrise also faced the obstacle of having to prove that Western Pipe and Steel knew or should have known that asbestos was a poison in 1942. She looked to trade magazines from the 1940s and also found back issues of popular magazines, such as a 1950 issue of _Newsweek_ with an article discussing research linking asbestos and lung cancer. Rick Murphy of Oakland's Drath, Clifford, Murphy, Wennerholm & Hagen, as well as Phillip Berry of Oakland's Berry & Berry, represented USX Corp. "We are, of course, disappointed in the result; we feel there were a number of errors made during the course of the trial in terms of rulings, and the matter will be appealed," said John Drath, name partner with Drath, Clifford. Robert Barnes with Walnut Creek's Glaspy & Glaspy represented Garlock Corp. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard Hodge presided over the case. Farrise noted that Franklin is not expected to live more than six months: " I'm happy for my client that the case turned out as it did, but this must be tempered by the fact that what she really needs now is a medical cure, and she won't have that." (The Recorder, March 22, 2000) AVT CORPORATION: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit in Washington ----------------------------------------------------------------- A notice by Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP, March 22 says that that a Class Action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division on behalf of purchasers of AVT Corporation (Nasdaq: AVTC) common stock during the period January 20, 2000 and March 17, 2000 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charge AVT and certain of its officers and directors with violating the federal securities laws. The plaintiff claims that defendants misrepresented and concealed material problems with the Cornpany's business, including that customers were delaying new purchases and that sales of the Company's customer premises product lines were adversely affected. The Complaint alleges that the defendants took advantage of this undisclosed information by selling shares of their AVT common stock without disclosing the adverse information. Contact: plaintiff's counsel, Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP at 800-889-3701 or 212-889-3700, sfearon@a-g-s.com AVT CORPORATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in Washington -------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division on behalf of all purchasers of AVT Corporation (NASDAQ: AVTC) common stock between January 20, 2000 and March 17, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges AVT and certain of its officers and directors with violating the federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants misrepresented and concealed material problems with the Company's business, including that customers were delaying new purchases and that sales of the Company's customer premises product lines were adversely affected. The Complaint alleges that the defendants took advantage of this undisclosed information by selling shares of their AVT common stock without disclosing the adverse information. Contact: Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 320 East 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 e-mail FaruqiLawAV@aol.com AVT CORPORATION: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Counsel for Class Plaintiff, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP announced on March 22 that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of AVT Corporation (Nasdaq: AVTC) between January 20, 2000 and March 17, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, AVT led the market to believe that its first quarter 2000 results would meet or exceed its fourth 1999 results and that the Company would continue its profitable performance. Based on the guidance provided by defendants, the price of AVT stock continued to rise throughout the Class Period, allowing Company insiders to reap profits of over $ 46 million on their insider sales of AVT stock. On March 17, 2000, AVT revealed that results for the first fiscal quarter and the year 2000 would fall materially below forecasted earnings. This revelation caused the price of AVT common stock to plunge to $11.38. Contacr: Frederic S. Fox, Esq., Jonathan K. Levine, Esq., Brigid T. Kavanaugh, Esq., Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, 805 Third Avenue -- 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, 800-290-1952, 212-687-1980, Fax: 212-687-7714 E-mail address: mail@kkf-law.com BESICORP GROUP: NY Supreme Ct Denies Defendants' Appeal from Injunction ----------------------------------------------------------------------- According to the New York Law Journal, March 10, 2000, the case Lichtenberg V. Besicorp Group Inc. QDS:01762191, was brought as a class action under the federal securities laws to challenge the sufficiency of the disclosures made by certain of the defendants in the solicitation of proxies in connection with a proposed merger. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction either enjoining the shareholder vote on the proposed merger until curative disclosures could be made or requiring the transfer of certain contingent assets and/or liabilities of Besicorp to a spin-off company created by the merger. Following briefing and argument of the motion, the district court informed the parties that, in light of the imminence of the proposed merger, the court would immediately enter an order granting the motion to the extent of ordering the requested transfer of assets/liabilities and that it would issue as soon thereafter as possible an opinion explaining the ground for the injunction. Accordingly, on March 18, 1999, the district court entered an order ("Order" or "March 18 Order") requiring the assets/liabilities transfer and stating that the injunction was issued "subject to a written Opinion to be filed by the Court." March 18 Order at 1. The Order further stated that any "motion for reconsideration or reargument of this Order and the forthcoming Opinion" should be filed within 10 days of entry of the written opinion. The written opinion was entered on March 29, 1999 ("March 29 Order"), and set forth the district court's reasons for granting the injunction. Given the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) that "every order granting an injunction... shall set forth the reasons for its issuance," see generally Firemen's Fund Insurance Co. v. Leslie & Elliot Co., 867 F.2d 150, 151 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Small v. Kiley, 567 F.2d 163, 164 (2d Cir. 1977), the March 29 Order was the operative injunctive order. Defendants filed a notice of appeal from a District Court's order in a federal securities law class action. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that notice was not timely filed. Defendants contended that the appeal was saved by the doctrine of "unique circumstances," since they had obtained plaintiffs' consent and the District Court's approval, to extend their time to move for reconsideration, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court concluded that the doctrine of "unique circumstances" was inapplicable because there was no indication that defendants shared their vision that a Local Rule 6.3 motion would in effect extend their time to appeal from the District Court's order. The court found that there was no basis for inferring that plaintiffs or the District Court intended to agree to such an effect, so the appeal was dismissed. Under the terms of the March 18 Order, any motion for reconsideration of the March 29 Order would have been due on Monday, April 12, 1999. Sometime between March 29 and April 12, Besicorp sought and received the consent of the plaintiffs and permission from the district court to file a motion for reconsideration one week beyond the deadline set by the Order, i.e., by April Besicorp filed its motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 6.3 of the Local Rules for the Southern District on April 19. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration in an Opinion and Order dated June 23, 1999, entered on June 24 ("June Order"), stating in pertinent part as follows: A movant is entitled to reargument and reconsideration of a motion upon demonstrating that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were placed before it on the underlying motion. Local Civil Rule 6.3.... Local Civil Rule 6.3 is "strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been fully considered by the court."... Therefore, a motion for reconsideration and reargument "may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the court." Finding that defendants had failed to show any controlling authority or facts that had been overlooked by the court in deciding the injunction motion, the court denied reconsideration. The court also noted that if defendants intended to make a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) in order to introduce new evidence, then the motion is untimely and cannot be considered by this Court. See Gribble v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1173, 1174 (5th Cir. 1980) (Rule 59(e) ten-day time limit for filing motion is "jurisdictional and cannot be extended in the discretion of the Court"); see also Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 262 n.5 (1978); Lapiczak v. Zaist, 451 F.2d 79, 80 (2d Cir. 1971); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). On July 21, 1999-within 30 days of the June Order, but more than 30 days after the March 29 Order-Besicorp filed a notice of appeal from the March and June Orders. Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss on the ground that Besicorp's motion for reconsideration was untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and thus did not extend the 30 - day period for appeal from the March 29 Order granting the preliminary injunction. Besicorp contends that it moved for reconsideration in timely fashion, having been granted an extension by the court, and that in any event its appeal should be deemed timely under the doctrine of unique circumstances. In the present case, Besicorp moved under Local Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the injunction decision some 15 weekdays after entry of the March 29 Order, i.e., beyond the 10 - day period allowed by Civil Rule 59(e) calculated in accordance with Civil Rule 6(a). Since Besicorp's motion was not timely filed under Rule 59(e), it did not have the effect of extending Besicorp's time to appeal. Besicorp's reliance on Ametex Fabrics, Inc. v. Just In Materials, Inc., 140 F.3d 101, 106 (2d Cir. 1998), is misplaced. The appeal time in that case was extended because the motion for reconsideration was filed seven days after the entry of judgment. Besicorp contends alternatively, relying principally on Vine v. Beneficial Finance Co., 374 F.2d 627, 632 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 970 (1967), that we should deem its notice of appeal timely by applying the "unique circumstances" doctrine set out by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 (1964) (per curiam). To the extent that Besicorp challenges the June Order denying reconsideration of the injunction, its appeal is timely; and to that extent, plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. Appeal from such an order, however, calls up for review only the denial of the reconsideration motion, not the merits of the underlying judgment whose alteration was sought. See, e.g., Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. at 263 n.7; Daily Mirror, Inc. v. New York News, Inc., 533 F.2d 53, 56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 862 (1976). The Court concluded the appeal is untimely and should be dismissed insofar as it seeks review of the March 29 Order. The appeal is dismissed except to the extent that it challenges the June Order. (New York Law Journal, March 10, 2000) Besicorp Ltd. announced on February 14, as reported in the CAR, that the New York Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed, with prejudice, a class action lawsuit against Besicorp Group Inc., the Company's former parent. The lawsuit, Alan Fenster vs. Besicorp Group Inc. et al. was filed in January of 1999, and alleged, among other things, that consideration Besicorp shareholders were to receive from a merger which became effective on March 22, 1999 was inadequate. CINAR CORP: Lionel Z. Glancy Retained to Bring Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy has been retained to bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Cinar Corporation (Nasdaq: CINR) between April 8, 1997 and March 10, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action will charge Cinar and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reason of material misrepresentations and omissions. The Complaint will allege, among other things, that Cinar improperly claimed Canadian government subsidies in the form of tax credits, and that Cinar misrepresented the financial statements, revenues and earnings per share. As a result, Cinar's stock price was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period inflicting enormous damages on investors. Contact: Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of the Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150, toll free at (888) 773-9224 or by e-mail to info@glancylaw.com COCA-COLA: Names Black Female Human Resources Director ------------------------------------------------------ Coca-Cola Co. has named Coretha Rushing, a 43-year-old black woman, as head of human resources as the nation's biggest soft drink company continues to grapple with fallout from massive job cuts and a racial discrimination lawsuit. Rushing has worked at Coca-Cola for four years and has 19 years of experience in human resource management. She replaces Michael Walters, who retired last month. In her new position, Rushing will be responsible for overseeing recruitment, staffing, compensation, benefits and employee training and development. The soft drink company is in the middle of cutting about 6,000 jobs from its global workforce of 29,000 and is about to begin negotiations to settle a discrimination suit. The suit, filed by eight current and former employees, seeks class-action status for 2,000 of the company's black salaried employees in the United States. Coca-Cola denies the lawsuit's contention that the company discriminates against black employees in pay, promotions and performance evaluations. However, the company's new leader, Doug Daft, has said the company is ''working toward an expedient and equitable resolution.'' Daft also has said he will be linking his success and compensation as well as his managers' to meeting soon-to-be-established diversity goals. He is also creating a new position of vice president and director of diversity, who will report directly to him. Meanwhile, about 150 current and former employees are planning a ''justice ride'' from Atlanta to the annual shareholders meeting in Delaware next month to pressure the company into settling the suit quickly. As the buses roll from Atlanta to the April 19 shareholders meeting in Wilmington, Del., the company and the plaintiffs' attorneys are scheduled to begin settlement talks with a court-ordered mediator. (AP Online, March 23, 2000) ECONNECT, INC: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP announces that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California Western Division on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of eConnect, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: ECNC; "eConnect") between November 18, 1999 and March 13, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that eConnect and its President, CEO and Chairman, Thomas S. Hughes, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit charges that, during the class period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the financial condition and business prospects of the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class Period, eConnect made misrepresentations concerning the revenue generated from its Powerclick website and misrepresentations regarding its licensing agreement with Palm Pilot. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period. On March 13, 2000, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission suspended trading in eConnect's common stock based upon questions concerning the accuracy of eConnect's publicly released information. In addition, eConnect is subject to a SEC consent decree as a result of the Company's failure to file timely its annual and quarterly SEC documents. Contact: Frederic S. Fox, Esq., Laurence D. King, Esq., Hae Sung Nam, Esq., Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, 805 Third Avenue - 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, (800) 290-1952, (212) 687-1980, Fax: (212) 687-7714, E-mail address: mail@kkf-law.com OR Robert S. Green, Girard & Green LLP, 160 Sansome Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94104, Phone: (415) 981-4800, Email address: rsg@classcounsel.com FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Keller Rohrback Files Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Seattle's Keller Rohrback L.L.P. filed a class action complaint against Focus Enhancements Inc. (NYSE:FCSE) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of Focus Enhancements common stock between April 29, 1999 and March 1, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders allege that Focus Enhancements and certain of its officers and directors violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by improperly reporting financial results, including revenues and income, for fiscal year 1999. Complaints allege that on March 1, 2000, Focus Enhancements announced that its independent auditors had informed the Board of Directors that it had discovered certain irregularities relating to the Company's financial controls for fiscal year ending December 31, 1999 and prior quarters. The Board established a committee to investigate the matter. Two top officers agreed to a paid leave from the Company during which time they would cooperate with the committee's review. Contact: Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Jen Veitengruber, 800/776-6044 investor@kellerrohrback.com Website: http://www.SeattleClassAction.com FRUIT OF: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com/fruit/)announced on March 22 that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on behalf of purchasers of Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (NYSE:FTL) Class A common stock during the period between September 28, 1998 and November 4, 1999 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Fruit's two top officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the 3rdQ and 4thQ 1998, Fruit told investors it was materially reducing its levels of finished goods and raw materials inventory by curtailing production at its maquiladora facilities for several days in each of those quarters and that Fruit expected strong sales growth in 1999-2000. On April 21, 1999, Fruit reported its 1stQ 1999 results, including sales of $408 million and a loss of $.13 per share, compared to year earlier EPS of $.43. Fruit said these disappointing results were due to an inability to manufacture sufficient product to meet strong demand. As a result, Fruit forecast that its 1999 sales would be about $2.0-$2.1 billion, generating EPS of over $1.35, followed by 2000 EPS of over $2.00, yielding 1999 free cash flow of $225-$275 million. During June 1999-August 1999, Fruit projected a 3rdQ 1999 profit, better 2nd half 1999 results, 1999 free cash flow of $200+ million and represented that the production problems were now largely resolved and its plants were running at capacity. But then, on November 4 1999, Fruit revealed it had suffered an astonishing loss of $166.4 million in the 3rdQ 1999 on sales of just $548 million, a loss of $2.49 per share. This huge loss was not only due to Fruit's poor and out-of-control operations, but also a massive $60 million write-off of over-valued and non-existent inventory, a $20 million loss on cotton futures contracts and a $10 million charge for a loss on a supply contract from a previously sold facility. In December 1999, Fruit ran out of money and filed for bankruptcy. On March 17, 2000, Fruit announced its 4thQ and year end 1999 results, including a staggering loss of $398.5 million in the 4thQ 1999. Instead of achieving success with its operational reorganization, recovering from its production problems, achieving expense reductions and growing revenues, net income and EPS, as well as the strong cash flow as defendants had forecast for Fruit during most of the Class Period, Fruit, in fact, suffered declining revenues, huge losses and massive cash flow deficits because its MIS and inventory and production control systems were defective, its reorganization had failed and it could not overcome its production problems, leading to massively escalating expenses, all of which resulted in Fruit's bankruptcy. Fruit's stock became virtually worthless, inflicting millions of dollars of damage on class members. Contact: Milberg Weiss William Lerach, 800/449-4900 wsl@mwbhl.com HMOs: AMA Wants Probe on PA Independence Blue and Highmark Re Antitrust ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The American Medical Association, continuing its stepped-up attack on insurers, has asked federal regulators to investigate whether two health plans in Pennsylvania violated antitrust laws. The AMA contends the two plans, Independence Blue Cross and Highmark, agreed to divide up the state -- and gained so much market share as a result that they can dictate prices and terms to doctors, patients and employers. "We're asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether or not this conduct is anti-competitive," says Dr. Donald Smith, president of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, which joined the AMA in the complaint. The health plans question the motives of the doctors' groups. "They're not looking after the well-being of their patients, but rather the well-being of their members and the income of their members," says Highmark spokesman Brian Herrmann. Of the charge that the plans agreed not to compete, Herrmann says: "It sounds misleading and inaccurate. Competition has never been stronger in this area." Economist Stephen Foreman, hired by the doctors' groups to research the issue, says Independence covers 57% of the insured market in Philadelphia, and Highmark controls 69% in Pittsburgh. "Physicians are at the mercy of health plans to accept the terms they dictate, particularly when they get this large, because physicians cannot afford to lose half their practice," says Dr. Thomas Reardon, president of the AMA. The AMA has at least 10 lawsuits against insurers, part of a campaign to challenge insurers' practices that limit physician autonomy or income. Last week, the AMA filed a class-action lawsuit against United Healthcare and Metropolitan Life in New York, alleging the two insurers use inaccurate data that under-estimates the amounts needed to reimburse doctors for medical care. In December 1998, the AMA asked the Department of Justice to investigate Aetna's merger with Prudential, raising concerns about the resulting market share dominance of Aetna in some markets. As a condition of the merger, federal regulators required Aetna to sell some of its business in Dallas and Houston. (USA TODAY, March 23, 2000) HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Jewish Community Likely to Sue Austrian Companies -------------------------------------------------------------------- The World Jewish Congress said that it may file a class-action suit against Austria or Austrian companies as part of its program to get reparations for Nazi-era slave laborers and people whose assets were looted during World War II. The Jewish advocacy group added that Austria's efforts to limit reparations to slaves or forced laborers and not pay compensation for property claims was unacceptable. "In general, a class-action suit would be aimed at securing all questions of restitution," said Executive Director Elan Steinberg. The WJC is in the midst of talks with Germany to set up a $5 billion Nazi Holocaust reparation fund. The group's international steering community, which includes Holocaust survivors, will decide in the next couple of weeks whether to sue Austria. "The leadership of the Austrian Jewish community has been very positive that a class-action suit be filed here," Steinberg said in New York. How Jewish groups will handle Nazi Holocaust talks with Austria, whose new government promised swift compensation for former slave laborers, is a sensitive issue. (Chicago Tribune, March 21, 2000) HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Nazi Labor Funds Agreement Reached; Bill Approved -------------------------------------------------------------------- Clearing the last major obstacle to compensating aging victims of Nazi-era forced and slave labor, negotiators agreed Thursday, March 23 on how to divide a $5 billion German fund with hopes of starting payments by year's end. Under the deal, about 240,000 slave laborers those who were put to work in concentration camps and had been expected to die doing their jobs would receive up to $7,500 each. More than 1 million forced laborers, who worked in factories outside camps, would get up to $2,500 each. ''We have taken a huge step forward today,'' said Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat, the U.S. government envoy to the talks. ''This brings this process a substantial step closer to completion.'' All sides agreed in December on the size of the fund, to be split equally by German government and industry. But negotiators had been wrangling over how to divide the money among various groups. They have been working under pressure to start making payments as soon as possible because many victims are in their 70s. Noah Flug, 75, an Auschwitz survivor who heads an umbrella organization of Holocaust survivor groups in Israel and was one of the negotiators, said two-thirds of the people who could have been eligible for money already have died. ''It is better late than never,'' he said of the agreement Thursday, echoing a common refrain of the victims' groups. ''We've worked very hard to get that compensation fund up and going and to be able to begin the distribution,'' U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said in Geneva of the agreement. Germany has paid about $60 billion under other compensation programs for Nazi-era wrongs since World War II. But many people eligible for the labor compensation are non-Jews from eastern Europe who were prevented from receiving the earlier money because they were behind the Iron Curtain. Claims also were stymied for decades by industry's insistence that the workers were forced on them by the Nazi regime, while the government maintained it was not responsible because the laborers toiled for private companies. The Nazis used slave laborers in concentration camps as another means of killing, expecting the victims to die because of the extreme work conditions. Forced laborers were brought to Germany from eastern Europe to keep German industry running during the war and replace German workers sent to the front lines. The agreement would allocate just over $4 billion to compensate slave and forced labor victims and $500 million to cover claims for property, bank accounts and insurance policies stolen by the Nazis as well as ''humanitarian cases.'' About $350 million will be used for a foundation to sponsor research and educational projects on Nazi labor, with the remainder going for administrative costs and legal fees. German industry proposed a compensation fund last year, under pressure of U.S. class-action lawsuits. As part of the deal, the U.S. government has promised to ask courts to refer lawsuits to the foundation for settlement. Eizenstat said to guarantee U.S. support, the German parliament must enact legislation that conforms with the principles agreed to in the talks. Leaders of the talks refused to elaborate on the details of possible problems, which are expected to be discussed in smaller working groups. Another round of full negotiations hasn't been scheduled. On Wednesday, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Cabinet approved a bill to set up the fund; plans call for the measure to be enacted by July. After the legislation is finalized, victims will have eight months to apply for compensation, Eizenstat said. (AP Online, March 23, 2000) MBNA CORP: DE Ct OKs Class Charging Fraud in Bank's Advertising --------------------------------------------------------------- As reported in MBNA's report with the SEC, MBNA Corporation, a registered bank holding company, was incorporated under the laws of Maryland on December 6, 1990. It is the parent company of MBNA America Bank, N.A., a national bank organized in January 1991 as the successor to a national bank formed in 1982 and the Corporation's principal subsidiary. The Bank has two wholly owned foreign bank subsidiaries, MBNA International Bank Limited ("MBNA Europe") formed in 1993 and located in the United Kingdom and MBNA Canada Bank ("MBNA Canada") formed in 1997. The Corporation says that through the Bank, it is the largest independent credit card lender in the world and is the leading issuer of affinity credit cards, marketed primarily to members of associations and Customers of financial institutions. In addition to its credit card lending, the Corporation also makes other consumer loans and offers insurance and deposit products. In its report to the SEC, MBNA Corp discloses that in May 1996, Andrew B. Spark filed a lawsuit against the Corporation, the Bank and certain of its officers and its subsidiary MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This suit is a purported class action. The plaintiff alleges that the Bank's advertising of its cash promotional annual percentage rate program was fraudulent and deceptive. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages including actual, treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees for an alleged breach of contract, violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act and violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In February 1998, a class was certified by the District Court. MBNA CORP: NY Suit Filed '98 Suit Charges Fraud in Bank's Adverising -------------------------------------------------------------------- In October 1998, Gerald D. Broder filed a lawsuit against the Corporation and the Bank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. This suit is a purported class action. The plaintiff alleges that the Bank's advertising of its cash promotional annual percentage rate program was fraudulent and deceptive. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages including actual, treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees for an alleged breach of contract, common law fraud and violation of New York consumer protection statutes. The Corporation asserts in its report to the SEC that it believes that its advertising practices were and are proper under applicable federal and state law and intends to defend these actions vigorously. MICROSOFT CORP: EC to Open Antitrust Probe in Proposed Telewest Deal -------------------------------------------------------------------- The European Commission said it was opening a full antitrust probe into the proposed acquisition by Microsoft Corp. and Liberty Media Corp. of joint control in British cable company Telewest Communications PLC. The investigation will focus on sales of software for digital set-top boxes for cable television in Britain. CAMPBELL SOUP CEO QUITS: Campbell Soup Co. said Dale F. Morrison has quit as president and chief executive. Morrison, 51, was appointed to those positions in June 1997. David W. Johnson, 67, who held the same roles from 1990 to 1997, will be interim chief executive. Campbell's stock closed at $ 29.69, down 69 cents. The announcement came after the close of traditional trading. The soupmaker's stock has fallen nearly 50 percent since November 1998. (St. Petersburg Times, March 23, 2000) MICROSOFT CORP: Hope for Settlement Renewed, to Leave Company Intact -------------------------------------------------------------------- Out-of-court negotiations between Microsoft Corp. and government antitrust lawyers have come to life in recent weeks and could be edging closer to a deal that does not involve breaking up the world's largest software company, according to people familiar with the talks. The two sides are talking to each other not directly but rather through Richard Posner, an appellate judge and renowned legal scholar in Chicago. Posner agreed last year to mediate a settlement of the most significant antitrust case of the information age. Details of the discussions are not public, but the sources say the focus is on changes in Microsoft's business practices rather than any proposal to break up the company, which Microsoft steadfastly opposes. While the Justice Department and 19 states prefer a breakup of the company, the government is willing to consider a lesser remedy provided it is strong enough, according to the sources. The recent flurry of paperwork, e-mail and phone calls between Posner and the parties, coming at all hours of day and night, contrasts starkly with the stalled talks in the days leading up to closing arguments a month ago in U.S. District Court in Washington. But the clock is running out--the presiding judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, is within weeks of issuing his final judgment. Jackson already has ruled in his findings of fact that Microsoft's Windows gives it a monopoly in operating-system software for personal computers and that the company has used that monopoly to harm competition, innovation and consumers. He next will rule on whether those acts broke antitrust law. Some computer industry officials closely following the government's case are skeptical about the recent activity, saying that lawyers on both sides might be eager to appear to be making a good-faith effort to settle. "Both sides are preparing to win the blame game" when the talks fail, said one industry official. Spokesmen for both sides have declined to comment on the settlement talks. Joel I. Klein, chief of the Justice Department's antitrust division, told a Senate Judiciary Committee panel on antitrust that "settlement is better than litigation, but settlement would have to be appropriate to the findings." On Tuesday, the parties participated in a closed-door scheduling conference with Jackson. The judge has told the lawyers that if they are making progress in the talks, he will wait before issuing a final judgment. Some involved in the case have said that they would have expected a ruling to be issued by this month, given how long the judge has spent deliberating his findings of fact. Posner, the chief appellate judge of the 7th Circuit, recruited by Jackson to mediate the case, has conducted continuing and separate series of talks with Microsoft and the government. The sources say that Posner has worked methodically and tirelessly to refine the areas of difference and possible remedies so that the two sides can hash out their remaining differences face to face. The government camp is divided over whether the latest exchanges with Posner really can lead to an enforceable settlement that corrects the damage that government attorneys say Microsoft has done to the market, according to the sources. The move toward settlement comes as Microsoft has gotten strong signs that Wall Street would prefer a deal. The company's stock price has bounced around, dipping to below $ 90 after closing arguments last month. "We note that the shares have traded down sharply over the past month," Goldman, Sachs analyst Richard Sherlund said after meeting this month with Microsoft's chief financial officer. "While the risk of an adverse decision in the [Justice Department] case overhangs the stock, we are hopeful that a settlement might be reached, providing a potential catalyst for improving investor sentiment." The shares have rebounded more recently on word that the settlement talks were continuing. One possible motivation for Microsoft to reach a settlement is the danger of private lawsuits filed by class-action lawyers. A U.S. District Court judgment against the company could add significant momentum to those cases--110 lawsuits in 28 states--under federal antitrust law, which permits that judgment to be used in the follow-on cases. Attorneys in those cases insist that even without a final judgment, they have significant ammunition through the thousands of pages of documents, e-mail messages and depositions already made public in the case. "We think we have a lot to work with already," said Mike Hausfeld, a Washington lawyer who has filed one of the follow-on lawsuits. "We did not rely exclusively on Judge Jackson's decision." The attorneys are fighting in federal court in Utah this week, seeking permission to use hundreds of boxes of Microsoft-related documents collected in a separate antitrust lawsuit filed filed by Caldera Systems Inc., a Utah software company. The attorneys also will have access to hundreds of depositions from the government's case that were ordered open to the public under a 97-year-old law, the Publicity in Taking Evidence Act. The law was intended to permit the public to review business actions of monopolists revealed in cases filed under the Sherman Act. The law received renewed public attention in 1998, when The Washington Post, the Seattle Times and other newspapers cited it in a successful attempt to make public the deposition of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. In a little-noticed action last fall, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the open-depositions law. The proposal has not yet been acted upon by the Senate. The repeal of the law, however, would not retroactively close the court record to class-action attorneys in the Microsoft follow-on lawsuits, said Andrew I. Gavil, a Howard University professor who first wrote about the repeal efforts. Microsoft has made preparations to attack those follow-on lawsuits, particularly if it settles the case with the government, and has hired prominent Seattle class-action lawyer Steve Berman to help defend the company. (The Washington Post, March 23, 2000) MICROSTRATEGY INC: Lionel Z. Glancy Retained to Bring Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy has been retained to bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of MicroStrategy Incorporated (Nasdaq: MSTR) between June 11, 1998 and March 20, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action will charge MicroStrategy and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reason of material misrepresentations and omissions. The Complaint will allege MicroStrategy made mis-representations about its financial statements, revenues and earnings per share. As a result, MicroStrategy's stock price was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On March 20, 2000, MicroStrategy disclosed the truth, shocking the investment community when it announced that the Company is "revising its 1999 and 1998 revenues and operating results." The market reacted swiftly and MicroStrategy's stock price plunged more than 50%, inflicting enormous damages on investors. Contact: Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of the Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150, toll free at (888) 773-9224 or by e-mail to info@glancylaw.com MICROSTRATEGY INC: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Lawsuit in Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of MicroStrategy Incorporated (Nasdaq: MSTR) stock between June 11, 1998 and March 20, 2000. The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Defendants include MicroStrategy, Michael J. Saylor (President and CEO), Mark S. Lynch (CFO and VP Finance) and Sanju K. Bansal (COO and EVP). Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's operating results and financial performance. Contact: Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C., Philadelphia Robert P. Frutkin, Esquire Barbara A. Podell, Esquire 215/923-5400 or 800/993-3233 E-mail: sfprpc@op.net MICROSTRATEGY INC: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Spector, Roseman & Kodroff announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the stock of MicroStrategy Incorporated (Nasdaq: MSTR) between June 11, 1998 and March 20, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that MicroStrategy and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial statements, revenues and earnings per share. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period MicroStrategy issued false statements about its "record" revenues and revenue growth thereby causing its stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. On March 20, 2000, MicroStrategy admitted that its 1999 and 1998 revenues and operating results had been false due to improper timing of revenue recognition. The Company announced that it must restate its revenues for both fiscal years, which will substantially reduce its 1999 and 1998 results. The Company stated that it will reduce its 1999 reported revenue from $205.3 million to between approximately $150.0 million and $155.0 million, and its results of operations from diluted net income per share of $0.15 to a diluted loss per share of between approximately $(0.43) and $(0.51). It will also reduce its reported revenues for 1998 from $106.4 million to between approximately $95.9 million and $100.9 million, and its results of operations from diluted net income per share of $0.08 to diluted net income per share of between approximately $0.04 and $ 0.01. Contact: plaintiff's counsel Robert M. Roseman or Beth Mandel Rosenthal toll-free at 888/844-5862 or via E-mail at classaction@spectorandroseman.com Website at http://www.spectorandroseman.com MICROSTRATEGY INC: Wolf Popper Charges Company With Securities Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------------- MicroStrategy (Nasdaq: MSTR), its Chief Executive Officer, Michael Saylor, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mark Lynch, have been charged by Wolf Popper LLP in a class action lawsuit with committing securities fraud. That lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased MicroStrategy common stock from January 27, 2000 through March 17, 2000. The Complaint charges that the defendants manipulated MicroStrategy's stock price by improperly and prematurely recognizing revenue throughout 1998 and As a result of defendants illegal accounting manipulations MicroStrategy's publicly reported financial results were artificially inflated throughout the class period. The Complaint further alleges that the individual defendants, MicroStrategy's CEO and CFO, sought to profit from their accounting manipulations by seeking to sell MicroStrategy stock valued at over $379 million, at prices artificially inflated by their illegal actions. Contact: James A. Harrod, Esq. (212-451-9642) or Douglas Rotela, Investor Relations Representative (212-451-9625), WOLF POPPER LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689, Toll Free: 877-370-7703, Facsimile: 212-486-2093 or 212-486-2238, E-Mail: jharrod@wolfpopper.com or IRRep@wolfpopper.com Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS: Sprenger & Lang Responds to Job Bias Class Denial ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A federal district court judge on March 21 ruled that, despite evidence that women in Publix Supermarkets' warehouses and plants have been channeled into low-paying "female jobs," they cannot bring their claims as a class action as the case now stands. The court ruled that the ten women who filed a class action on behalf of thousands of other women at Publix were too dissimilar to women who have been stuck in low-paying menial line or clerical jobs to represent those women. "This decision does not reflect negatively on the merits of this case," said the women's lawyer, Susan Stokes. "In fact, the court wrote that the statistics presented by the women, appear to show that women in the warehouses are under-represented in many of the warehouse positions, particularly the selector position, as well as many others.'" "The decision also does not close the door on the court certifying a class of women in the warehouses, if other women are willing to come forward to represent the class," added Stokes. The lawsuit alleges that Publix discriminates against women in its warehouses and plants by channeling them into low-paying "women's jobs" while the "male jobs" pay more and lead to advancement. Publix settled a similar case brought by female employees in its stores for $80 million in 1997. The decision means that, unless and until a class is approved, women in Publix' plants and warehouses must now file individual lawsuits against Publix. Publix could face scores if not hundreds of individual lawsuits by women alleging the same type of discrimination. Stokes is a partner in the Minneapolis office of Sprenger & Lang, which specializes in national employment class action litigation. Contact: Susan Stokes, Minneapolis, 612-871-8910, or Michael Lieder, Washington DC, 202-265-8010, both of Sprenger & Lang PUBLIX: FL Judge Denies Class Status for Gender Discrimination Case ------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 21 U.S. District Judge Henry L. Adams issued an order denying Plaintiffs' request for class certification of the Dyer gender discrimination lawsuit against Publix. This class action lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in Tampa, Fla., in November of 1997 alleged gender discrimination in Publix's manufacturing plants, warehouses and distribution centers. Plaintiffs alleged that Publix discriminated against women by steering them into predominantly female, lower-paying jobs that hindered their abilities to advance. However, the court found that the facts concerning the named Plaintiffs did not support these allegations. The Company asserts that although several named Plaintiffs were initially hired into what they claim were dead-end jobs, they were able to advance into positions such as forklift operator, mechanic and receiving clerk. Plaintiffs also alleged that Publix's policies and practices discouraged women from pursuing what Plaintiffs called traditionally male jobs. However, Judge Adams said, "Several of the proposed class representatives were actually encouraged or were approached to apply for male jobs by their supervisors." Judge Adams further stated: "Many of the named Plaintiffs have received promotions into or have been able to obtain traditionally male positions. ...None of these women have been unable to obtain male' jobs because of channeling or because they were denied the opportunity to apply for a male' job." Regarding the Plaintiffs' allegation that Publix denied training, thus preventing women from obtaining transfers and promotions, Judge Adams stated, "...many of the proposed class representatives have testified that they did receive training..." RACE DISCRIMINATION: Black College Reunion Time for Scouting for Signs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- An $8 million settlement may have resolved discrimination lawsuits against Adam's Mark hotels, but attorneys and NAACP officials say they will be watching other businesses during next week's Black College Reunion. Members of the NAACP's Daytona Beach branch said Wednesday that not only will they scout around for signs of discrimination during the three-day event but they are encouraging those who attend to report any mistreatment they observe. "We will continue to monitor the activities of the Adam's Mark as well as those of other hotels in the area and restaurants during Black College Reunion," said Charles Cherry, president of the NAACP chapter and a Daytona Beach city commissioner. "We're asking all students who come to Daytona Beach to file complaints with this branch of the NAACP if they experience discrimination while they are here." A similar strategy last year resulted in the lawsuit against the Adam's Mark. NAACP members kept a list of businesses that closed or altered procedures last year, and they plan to visit those places again when BCR returns from March 31 to April 2. The attorneys will come along. The U.S. Justice Department and Florida Attorney General's Office say they will have officers in town for the weekend. Sam Smith, one of the lead attorneys in the Adam's Mark lawsuit, will be here. The Tampa attorney has been to Daytona Beach for Black College Reunion and Biketoberfest and said the treatment for bikers is better than it is for BCR visitors. The Adam's Mark settlement shows how vulnerable those businesses could be, he said. "A lot of hotels and restaurants should take note of the outcome of this suit, especially in Daytona Beach," the Tampa attorney said. "We've seen videotape of what happens during Black College Reunion. We've seen how African-Americans are treated at some of these places." Complaints against the Daytona Beach Adam's Mark during last year's reunion led to a lawsuit filed by five visitors who said the hotel charged higher rates to blacks, subjected them to stricter security measures and provided them with inferior service. The settlement announced Tuesday - which still needs court approval - includes $4.4 million for hotel guests and visitors in the proposed class action; $1.5 million to historically black colleges; and $1.75 million for the attorneys. With those numbers in the news, few business owners are willing to talk about their BCR policies for fear of being targeted by the NAACP, yet it seems as if many have taken note. Among the more prominent closings last year were a Taco Bell and a Shells restaurant in the heart of the beachside tourism district. Managers at both chains said that their restaurants would be open this year. Other owners said there are legitimate business reasons for changing policies during the reunion. For instance, some owners cut back on hours because they need all their employees to handle the rush of people during peak hours. Danny Myara, owner of the Cruisin' Cafe Bar & Grill on South Atlantic Avenue, across the street from the Adam's Mark, said he would be open again this year but would reserve his dining room for police officers on break, as he did last year. Hungry BCR visitors will have to be satisfied with takeout fare from a walk-up window. Myara said partygoers prefer that. "This is an outdoor, street event. Most people don't want to come in and sit down to eat," Myara said. "If I opened the dining room I would have damage [from rowdy visitors), but I wouldn't have any more business." Myara was unconcerned that his policy might leave him open to charges of discrimination. "It has nothing to do with discrimination," said Myara, who was born in Morocco. "If anyone says something, I tell them, 'I'm more African than you'll ever be.' "I'm here to make money. I'm in business. Their money's as green as everybody else's money." Myara's brother, Simon, owner of Cruisin' & Co. clothing store on North Atlantic Avenue, said everyone would be happier if all businesses followed his family's example and tried to make a buck off of the event. Simon Myara will stock special BCR T-shirts and fashions such as FUBU that are popular among young blacks. To him, it is the same as stocking up on leather for Bike Week or bathing suits for spring break. "We've always had great times during Black College Reunion," he said. "The problem is people don't like to adapt. They don't like to bend." (THE ORLANDO SENTINEL, March 23, 2000) RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in PA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Counsel for Class Plaintiff, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, announces that a class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Ravisent Technologies (NASDAQ: RVST) between July 15, 1999 and March 14, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that Ravisent and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in a scheme to artificially inflate the revenues and profits of Ravisent by improperly recording revenues on contracts in violation of generally accepted accounting principles. This was done so that the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") would occur at the maximum price per share, and to then create the expectation in the market that Ravisent was an increasingly profitable company. Contact: Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager, at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, at 800/417-7305 or 215/963-0600, fax number 888/417-7306 or 215/963-0838, or by e- mail at msgoldman@barrack.com SAFETY-KLEEN CORP: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP announced on March 22 that a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Safety-Kleen Corporation (NYSE: SK) securities between July 7, 1998 and March 5, 2000 (the "Class Period"). The action will charge Safety Kleen and certain of its directors and executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued false and misleading financial statements that materially overstated the Company's revenues, income and earnings during the Class Period. On March 6, 2000, Safety-Kleen shocked the market by announcing that it "has initiated an internal investigation of its prior reported financial results and certain of its accounting policies and practices following receipt by the Company's Board of Directors of information alleging possible accounting irregularities that may have affected the previously reported financial results of the Company since fiscal year 1998." In addition, three of the Company's top executives have been placed on administrative leave for the duration of the investigation. Contact: Ira Press, Esq. Danielle Feman, Paralegal KIRBY MCINERNEY & SQUIRE, LLP 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 317-2300 or Toll Free (888) 529-4787 Email: dfeman@kmslaw.com SAFETY-KLEEN CORP: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit in SC ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Weiss & Yourman announces that a class action lawsuit against Safety-Kleen Corp. (NYSE:SK) and its senior executives was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina seeking to recover damages on behalf of defrauded investors who purchased Safety-Kleen securities. The complaint charges Safety-Kleen and its top executives with violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants issued materially false and misleading financial statements and press releases concerning Safety-Kleen's revenues, income and earnings per share. 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. VANTAGEMED CORP: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------- Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. gives notice on March 22 that a class action complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of a Class of persons who purchased the common stock of VantageMed Corporation (NASDAQ: VMDC) in its February 15, 2000 Initial Public Offering. The complaint charges VantageMed and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. VantageMed completed an IPO of 3,000,000 shares of stock at $12 per share pursuant to a registration Statement/Prospectus. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement/Prospectus was false and misleading, failing to describe the fact that the Company had been delayed in introducing a new version of its most important product, Ridgeway medical management, which delay would adversely affect the Company's future results. Contact: SAVETT FRUTKIN PODELL & RYAN, P.C. Robert P. Frutkin, Esquire Barbara A. Podell, Esquire 215/923-5400 or 800/993-3233 E-mail: sfprpc@op.net ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, DC. Theresa Cheuk, 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 * * *