/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/000328.MBX                 C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                 Tuesday, March 28, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 61


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Resoves '95 Suit over Devaluation of Mexican Peso
AMERICAN GENERAL: Satellite Dish Financing Case Depends on Ch 11 Plan
BOEING NORTH: Santa Susana Plant Releases Toxic Waste, Suit Charges
BOONE SCHOOLS: Girls' Parents Sue over Athletic Gender Bias
CORTLANDT: Will Pay Members of Defunct Police for Retaliation Charges

DETROIT DIESEL: Resolves Case over Alleged Defect of Two Cycle Engines
DETROIT DIESEL: Settles Clean Act Case with US; Claims by Others Go on
FLIR SYSTEMS: Cauley & Geller Files Securities Suit in Oregon
INMATES LITIGATION: Appeals Ct in CA Dismisses Suit over Phone Bills
KINDER MORGAN: Curtis V. Trinko Files Securities Suit in Colorado

KRYSTAL COMPANY: Access to Restrooms Subject of ADA Suit in Alabama
MANHATTAN INVESTMENT: Kirby, McInerney Files Securities Suit in NY
MICROSOFT CORP: Settlement Proposal Likely Will Fall Short
MICROSTRATEGY INC: Morris and Morris Files Securities Suit in Virginia
MICROSTRATEGY: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in Virginia

VIVENDI S.A.: Finkelstein & Krinsk Investigates on Tender for US Filter
WAR VICIMS: Filipinos Plan to Sue Japanese Companies over Slave Labor
YIELD-BURNING: Cases Aren't Federal, Federal Judge in Chicago Rules


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Resoves '95 Suit over Devaluation of Mexican Peso
Alliance Capital Management L.P. and Alliance Capital Management Holding
L.P. (NYSE: AC) announced on March 24 the signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding with the lawyers for shareholders of Alliance North
American Government Trust ("NAGIT"), resolving a class action lawsuit
brought by the shareholders in January 1995 related to a decline in
NAGIT's net asset value following the sudden devaluation of the Mexican
peso in December 1994.

On December 2, 1999, the Honorable Milton Pollack, a U.S. District Judge
sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, granted Alliance Capital's motion for summary judgment and
dismissed all claims against Alliance Capital and NAGIT. The plaintiff
shareholders then filed motions for reconsideration of the Court's
ruling which are still pending, with the likelihood of appeals

Under the settlement, Alliance Capital will permit the shareholders to
invest up to a total of $250 million in Alliance Capital managed funds
free of initial sales charges. Like all class action settlements, the
settlement is subject to Court approval.

As a result of the settlement, Alliance Capital expects to record a
one-time non-cash gain for the three months ended March 31, 2000.
Alliance Holding expects to record a one-time non-cash gain of
approximately $0.12 per Alliance Holding Unit for the first quarter,
representing its share of that gain. The one-time non-cash gain will
not, however, result in an increase in first quarter 2000 distributions
of Available Cash Flow to Alliance Capital or Alliance Holding

AMERICAN GENERAL: Satellite Dish Financing Case Depends on Ch 11 Plan
In the mid-1990's, one of the subsidiaries of Amercianc General Corp.,
American General Financial Center (renamed A.G. Financial Service
Center, Inc.) (Financial Service Center), provided financing for
satellite dishes sold by independent unaffiliated dealers. On May 18,
1999, the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Jones County,
Mississippi in a case captioned Clayton D. Smith, et al. v. Delta TV
Corporation, Don Acy, US Electronics, American General Financial Center,
Civil Action No. 96-0254 (the Clayton Smith matter), rendered a judgment
awarding approximately $500,000 in compensatory damages and $167 million
in punitive damages against Financial Service Center.

The lawsuit was filed on November 15, 1996, by 29 individuals who had
each purchased a satellite dish. Financial Service Center, together with
certain other American General companies, currently are named as
defendants in other pending cases involving the financing of satellite

In August 1999, Financial Service Center filed a voluntary petition to
reorganize under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code with
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
The decision to reorganize was necessitated by the judgment rendered
against Financial Service Center by the Mississippi state court. The
filing for reorganization under Chapter 11 is limited to Financial
Service Center and was intended to provide a fair and orderly process
for managing the claims against Financial Service Center. Prior to the
bankruptcy filing, Financial Service Center had assets of approximately
$7 million.

In January 2000, settlement agreements were entered into in connection
with the Clayton Smith matter and other pending cases relating to
satellite dish financing. The Company says it recorded a charge of $57
million ($36 million aftertax) in fourth quarter 1999 to cover the
proposed settlements and other litigation. The Company believes that
resolution of the satellite dish litigation is dependent upon a number
of factors, including the bankruptcy court's approval of Financial
Service Center's plan of reorganization. The Company believes that if
court approvals are obtained and appeals are not taken, the settlements
will be final in third quarter 2000.

BOEING NORTH: Santa Susana Plant Releases Toxic Waste, Suit Charges
Boeing North American Inc., Seattle, and Rockwell International Co.,
Milwaukee, will have to create a medical-testing facility for residents
living near the Rocketdyne Santa Susana, Calif., plant if a judge agrees
with complaints of contaminated ground water and soils.

In a summary judgment hearing in the U.S. District Court Central
District of California, Western Division, Judge Audrey Collins will
decide whether complaints of health effects from the plant have merit.
The hearing was postponed from March 13, but a new date was not set as
of press time.

In Lawrence O'Connor, et al. vs. Boeing North American Inc., et al,
residents claim high cancer rates are the direct result from nuclear
engine testing at the site. They also claim Rocketdyne, a division of
Boeing and a former division of Rockwell, releases toxic waste into soil
and ground water, and emits dioxins into the air. These releases have
occurred at the site for more than 40 years of engine testing,
plaintiffs argue. In addition to toxic waste, the plaintiffs say they
have endured high amounts of radiation escaping from the plant into
their yards.

"The companies must pay for the residents to get medically monitored
over decades," said Barry Cappello of Cappello & McCann LLP, Santa
Barbara, Calif., who represents the plaintiffs. "We want a full-service
facility with doctors, researchers and anyone with expertise in
precursors to cancer so those concerned can get checked and tested for
those precursors."

                        Two Studies Prove Case

The plaintiffs point to two University of California-Los Angeles studies
that found a link between Rocketdyne activities and an increase of
bladder cancer. The analysis was an occupational study, but the
plaintiffs used it as proof of a causal relationship between pollution
and cancer.

Boeing and Rockwell filed a brief arguing the residents should have
stated their claims years ago, but the plaintiffs lodged a counter
claim, saying they were not aware of injury until last year when the
suit was initiated. The brief filed by Cappello also said the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
authority pre-empts a state's statute of limitations. Boeing's facility
is not listed on the National Priorities List.

Boeing also denies the engine testing caused their injury. While not
wanting to talk about the lawsuit, Beck said a number of studies have
shown no health threat (see following story). Rockwell deferred all
inquiries to Boeing.

Cappello discounted the studies conducted by the government agencies.
They were part of a conspiracy to downplay hazards from chemical
releases at the site, Cappello said. Contacts: Dan Beck, Boeing, (818)
586-4572; Barry Cappello, Cappello & McCann, (805) 564-2444. (Ground
Water Monitor, March 1, 2000)

BOONE SCHOOLS: Girls' Parents Sue over Athletic Gender Bias
Six Boone County parents filed a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf
of their daughters on March 24, claiming the girls are not getting the
same athletic opportunities as boys attending Boone County Schools. The
suit alleges violations of Title IX, the federal law calling for equal
academic and athletic opportunities for boys and girls, and the 14th
Amendment's equal protection clause. Patrick and Kimberlee Egan, Raleigh
and Barbara Lawrence, and David and Lisa Gatewood filed the lawsuit
against the school district and Superintendent Bryan Blavatt. They
promise to name other defendants and are seeking class- action
certification for all present and future female students.

They say their daughters, who play softball, volleyball and basketball,
are being discriminated against because of a difference in how the
school district supports male and female athletic programs. They say a
gap can be seen in funding, team travel, equipment and supplies, quality
of coaching, scheduling of games and practice times, provision of locker
rooms and medical and training services and publicity. For example,
"Boone County Schools provides male athletes with newer equipment and
supplies that are of better quality than those provided to female
students. Boone County Schools also provides male athletes with better,
more complete uniforms than those provided to female athletes," said the
lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court.

They also are seeking a trial, attorneys' fees, and for a federal judge
to declare that the defendants have engaged in past and present
discrimination. They want the judge to issue a permanent injunction
restraining the district from discrimination on the basis of gender.

The parents mention their reasons for suing the school district in their
lawsuit. "Lyndsey (Gatewood) is a talented athlete who participates in
basketball and softball," the lawsuit said. "Her opportunities to
participate in interscholastic and other school-sponsored athletics are
not comparable to the opportunities afforded to boys who are similarly
situated. "In addition, she has endured the unequal treatment and
benefits directed by Boone County Schools toward their female athletes."

Superintendent Blavatt said the district has been trying to ease the
parents' concerns for about three months. He doesn't believe the
district has violated Title IX. "My biggest concern is we made a
concerted effort to provide equity and fairness," he said. "It disturbs
me when someone specifically looks at (what we've done) and has a
problem with it." (The Cincinnati Enquirer, March 25, 2000)

CORTLANDT: Will Pay Members of Defunct Police for Retaliation Charges
As the jury was being selected in Federal District Court in White Plains
last week to hear a case against Cortlandt, the town, at the urging of
Judge Charles L. Brieant, agreed to pay 18 members of its defunct police
department $1.9 million.

The plaintiffs had filed an array of First Amendment claims, asserting
that the town's decision to abolish its police department last year was
a retaliatory gesture for the former employees' speaking out on matters
of public concern, including issues of public safety and waste of public

The Town Board voted to disband the department as of Dec. 31, 1998, by
refusing to include any money for it in the 1999 budget. Before that,
the employees had filed several lawsuits to stop the move.

The plaintiffs included former Police Chief Robert Pavone, Sgts. Peter
Macaluso, Thomas Diana and Susan Whitmore, Detective Jerry Underwood,
Officers Anthony Rao, Timothy Kalb, William Wilson and Vincent
Pagliaroli and Dispatchers Mary Schnittert, Rose Orlando, James
Crescenzo, Warren Bonds and Theresa Lowery.

Sergeant Diana, Detective Underwood and Officer Rao are now employed by
the Westchester County police, which took over the town's former police
station and now patrols the town along with the state police. (The New
York Times, March 26, 2000)

DETROIT DIESEL: Resolves Case over Alleged Defect of Two Cycle Engines
James M. Wright, and five other individuals, filed a class action
lawsuit against Detroit Diesel Corp. and General Motors Corporation in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County Law Division, on January
28, 1993, alleging that various two cycle engines, originally
manufactured by either defendant were defective as modified in different
ways by various third parties for use in yachts. Plaintiffs asserted
claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed nationwide class for
alleged breach of warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act and the Uniform Commercial Code.

The court denied class certification three times. In October 1998
defendants' motions for summary judgment on the individual claims were
granted. Two of the plaintiffs subsequently settled their individual
claims, but four remaining plaintiffs again appealed the denial of class
certification and dismissal of their individual claims.

In March 2000, the parties signed agreements settling the remaining
individual claims, dismissing the appeal and releasing the defendant
from all claims, to bring this protracted matter to a conclusion. The
Company says that while terms of the settlements are confidential, they
will not have a material adverse impact on the financial position or
results of operations of the Company.

DETROIT DIESEL: Settles Clean Act Case with US; Claims by Others Go on
On July 1, 1999, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
formally entered the agreements negotiated by Detroit Diesel Corp. and
other engine manufacturers with the United States Department of Justice
and the EPA to settle the lawsuits filed by the United States on October
22, 1998 for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. The court order
also finalized similar agreements with CARB. The agreements provide for
the acceleration of lower NOx standards previously established by EPA
and CARB for both on-highway and off-road engine applications and
increase the stringency of testing procedures relative to emissions
standards. The Company and the other settling manufacturers also agreed
to modify electronic engine control strategies, provide for research and
development to further reduce emissions and make specified settlement
payments as previously reported. The implementation of the agreements is

Three other lawsuits have been filed by private litigants against the
Company and other manufacturers that arise out of the same operative
facts of the above case.

In Environmental Law Foundation v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc. et al.,
which was filed on October 2, 1998 in the Supreme Court of California,
San Francisco County, plaintiff alleged that the defendant heavy-duty
vehicle and engine manufacturers violated state emissions laws and the
Unfair Competition Law. Injunctive relief and restitution was sought on
behalf of the public. On February 11, 1999, the court ruled that
plaintiff failed to state valid claims and ordered the case dismissed.

In Tri-State Express, Inc., et al. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc. et al.,
filed on January 29, 1999 in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, three trucking companies seek to represent a
nationwide class of purchasers of heavy-duty diesel engines, and seek
damages related to the same alleged violations of the Clean Air Act
addressed in the EPA and CARB settlement agreements. Plaintiffs further
claim that the sale of engines and trucks constituted breach of warranty
and contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act and fraud in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. Injunctive relief as well as compensatory and
statutory damages are being sought. A motion to dismiss on behalf of all
defendants is currently pending.

Lastly, in California Dump Truck Owners Association et al. v. Cummins
Engine Co., et al., filed on October 4, 1999 in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County (and later removed by defendants to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California), various
purchasers of trucks equipped with heavy-duty engines allege violations
of the Clean Air Act and California Health and Safety Code, breach of
warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unfair business practices.
Unspecified damages are claimed. On January 10, 2000, the U.S. District
Court granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. An
appeal has been filed.

The Company believes it has meritorious defense to all of these claims
and that these proceedings (including any appeals of the reported
favorable decisions) will not have a material adverse impact on the
financial position or results of operations of the Company.

FLIR SYSTEMS: Cauley & Geller Files Securities Suit in Oregon
The Law Firm of Cauley & Geller, LLP announced on March 24 that it has
filed a class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon on behalf of all individuals and institutional
investors that purchased the common stock of FLIR Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq:FLIR) between April 22, 1999 and March 3, 2000, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

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 financial results.
As a result of these false and misleading statements the Company's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period, trading
as high as $18-5/8 in February 2000. On March 6, 2000, FLIR admitted
that its fourth quarter 1999 results would be much lower than previously
forecast due to "accounting errors." At the same time, the Company
announced the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer. On these
shocking disclosures, the price of the stock dropped significantly, to
as low as $9 per share.

Contact: Cauley & Geller, LLP, Boca Raton Sue Null or Sharon Jackson
888/551-9944 Email: CauleyPA@aol.com

INMATES LITIGATION: Appeals Ct in CA Dismisses Suit over Phone Bills
Federal appeals court in Cal. said Cal. Dept. of Corrections isn't
required to offer prison inmates collect payphone calling at same rates
prevailing outside of prison. Three-judge panel of U.S. Appeals Court,
San Francisco, affirmed Dist. Court decision dismissing suit by state
prison inmate Garrison Johnson alleging Corrections Dept. had extorted
excessive phone fees from inmates. Johnson's claim was based on
comparison showing that inmates paid higher rate on collect payphone
calls than unincarcerated persons using payphones in same geographic
area as prison. Appeals Court said prisoners' First Amendment rights to
telephone access can be limited by prison systems and inmates aren't
entitled to specific rate for phone calls. Court said inmates' phone
access right "is subject to reasonable limitations arising from the
legitimate penological and administrative interests of the prison
system." It said suit failed to show that rate charged at inmate
payphones was so high that it denied prisoners their limited rights to
phone access. (Communications Daily, March 27, 2000)

KINDER MORGAN: Curtis V. Trinko Files Securities Suit in Colorado
The following was released on March 24 by the Law Offices Of Curtis V.
Trinko, LLP:


JAMES E. ADAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated


against - Civ. A. No. 00-N-516

KINDER-MORGAN, INC. (formerly known as KN Energy, Inc.), Larry D. Hall,
Clyde E. McKenzie, Morton C. Aaronson, John N. DiNardo, and Richard


Within the past 20 days, a putative class action was filed asserting
claims under the federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. ss 78(j)(b),
78(t)(a), and Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. ss 240.10b-5), common law fraud, and
negligent misrepresentation, in connection with a series of public
filings made by KN Energy, Inc. ("KNE") (KNE has recently merged with
and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc.), and several newspaper
articles and press releases concerning KNE. The Class (the "Class") in
this action is comprised of all individuals who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of KNE between the dates of March 19, 1997 and March 9,
1999, inclusive.

Plaintiffs allege that various statements disseminated by KNE and
certain of its senior officers and directors were material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact concerning: (a) the
extraordinary risks posed by the high proportion of "keep whole"
contracts to which the Company was party in connection with its
processing plant operations; and (b) the reporting of materially
misleading financial information by reporting as income proceeds from
extraordinary transactions, not in the ordinary course of business, to
bolster KNE's financial results in order to facilitate certain
securities offerings of KNE essential to financing of a major corporate
acquisition, without disclosing the increased exposure to risks of
future losses created by the transactions.

The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, McGloin Davenport Severson &
Snow, P.A., and Berman DeValerio & Pease, LLP, collectively represent
representative plaintiff James E. Adams and the Plaintiff Class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel,
Timothy J. MacFall, of the Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 16 West
46th Street, New York, New York 10017, (212) 490-9550, Michael Lange of
Berman DeValerio & Pease, LLP, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109,
(617) 542-8300, or Gary C. Davenport of McGloin, Davenport, Severson &
Snow, P.A., 1600 Stout, Ste. 1600, Denver, Colorado 80202 (303)

KRYSTAL COMPANY: Access to Restrooms Subject of ADA Suit in Alabama
On September 21, 1999, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in the Northern District of Alabama (Michael Jones vs. The Krystal
Company) alleging that the plaintiff was denied access to the restrooms
in one of the Company's restaurants in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all
wheelchair bound patrons of the Company's restaurants who have been
denied access to restrooms.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this suit. At this stage of the
proceedings the Company's legal counsel is unable to express an opinion
as to the probable outcome of this action. restaurants.

MANHATTAN INVESTMENT: Kirby, McInerney Files Securities Suit in NY
A class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Manhattan Investment Fund Ltd., an offshore hedge fund,
between Sept. 1, 1996 and Jan. 18, 2000, (the "Class Period").

Filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, the action asserts claims against the fund's investment
manager, Michael Berger, the fund's accountants, Deloitte & Touche, the
fund's administrator, Fund Administration Services, together with its
parent, Ernst & Young, and the fund's broker/clearing broker, Bear
Stearns. The action arises from allegations of a massive fraud involving
the overstatement of the fund's investment performance,
misrepresentations of the assets held in the fund's portfolio, and
undisclosed activities that generated in excess of $400 million in
trading losses which were hidden from investors.

Claims are asserted for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reason of material misrepresentations
and omissions, as well as for common law fraud, professional malpractice
and aiding and abetting fraud.

Including institutions with collective stakes will in excess of tens of
million of dollars, plaintiffs have retained as counsel the firm of
Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP.

Contact: Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq. Richard Stone, Esq. Mark A. Strauss,
Esq. Joanne M. Cicala, Esq. Daniel Feman, Paralegal KIRBY McINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, New York 10022
Telephone: (212) 317-2300 or Toll Free (888) 529-4787 E-Mail:

MICROSOFT CORP: Settlement Proposal Likely Will Fall Short
Microsoft has made a wide-ranging offer that key officials say could
lead to the settlement of the landmark antitrust case against the
software giant.

People familiar with the matter, however, say that the proposed
agreement falls short of government demands, is fuzzy on pivotal points
and is opposed by several states pressing for the company to break up.
Microsoft has balked at spelling out restrictions more clearly, making
some skeptical that an agreement can be reached. Still, the offer
attempts to address most of prosecutors' concerns and marks a key first
step, officials say.

The offer could result this week in the first face-to-face meeting
between the two sides since settlement talks began four months ago.

Microsoft apparently was pressed into making the concessions by a ruling
to come in connection with allegations that it broke antitrust laws.
That decision might help plaintiffs in the numerous class-action
lawsuits it faces.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is expected to rule today, March 28,
though his decision likely would be vacated as part of any settlement.
In findings last year, Jackson said the software titan stifled
competition and harmed consumers. In the roughly 9-page proposal, sent
to government lawyers, Microsoft says it would:

* Give personal computer makers some ability to remove its Internet
  browser from its Windows operating system, which runs 90% of personal
  computers. It's unclear, however, how far the company is willing to
  go. Jackson found that Microsoft wed the two products to crush a
  rival browser.

* Provide makers Windows' source code, or technical blueprint, so that
  they can bundle in non-Microsoft products.

* Give makers more freedom to design the first screen consumers see
  when they turn on their personal computers. Unclear: whether they
  would have to share the screen with Microsoft and could freely
  promote rival products.

* Charge all makers the same price for Windows, except for volume-based
  discounts. Officials say the giant uses discounts to reward makers
  that feature its software.

* More fully disclose the technical inner workings of Windows so
  software developers can make their products work well with the
  system. Unclear is whether Microsoft would update developers with
  revisions and whether it still wants to give better access to favored

A settlement is far from imminent. Some officials worry Microsoft will
try to insert loopholes in a settlement pact. Others fear any contract
would be tough to enforce. (USA TODAY, March 27, 2000)

MICROSTRATEGY INC: Morris and Morris Files Securities Suit in Virginia
A class action lawsuit was filed on March 24, 2000 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of MicroStrategy Inc. (NASDAQ:MSTR)
between June 11, 1998 and March 20, 2000 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The class action Complaint alleges a fraudulent scheme and deceptive
course of conduct by certain individuals, officers and/or directors of
MicroStrategy, who disseminated materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period. Specifically, these individuals
caused MicroStrategy to publicly report revenues and earnings results
for 1998 and 1999 which, as they knew or recklessly disregarded, were
artificially inflated through the use of improper accounting techniques.
These false and misleading revenue figures caused the price of
MicroStrategy stock to be artificially inflated throughout the Class
Period. The Complaint further alleges that several defendants sold
massive amounts of MicroStrategy stock to the public during the Class
Period, reaping a total of almost $80 million in illegal insider trading
profits at the expense of public investors.

Contact: Morris and Morris, Wilmington, DE Patrick F. Morris, Esq. or
James A. McShane, Esq. 1-800-296-0410 e-mail:

MICROSTRATEGY: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in Virginia
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on behalf of
its client, on March 27, 2000, filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of MicroStrategy, Inc. (Nasdaq: MSTR)
during the period between June 11, 1998 and March 20, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges MicroStrategy and certain of its directors and
executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 1Ob-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that
MicroStrategy and certain of its officers and directors with reporting
materially false and misleading financial results throughout the Class
Period. During 1998 and 1999, defendants significantly overstated
MicroStrategy's revenues and earnings per share by improperly
recognizing revenue in connection with software sales/service contracts.

Contact: Andrew N. Friedman, Esq., or Mark S. Willis, Esq., or Robert
Smits Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue,
N.W.,Suite 500 - West Tower, Washington, D.C. 20005, Telephone:
888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 E-mail address: afriedman@cmht.com OR
rsmits@cmht.com OR mwillis@cmht.com

VIVENDI S.A.: Finkelstein & Krinsk Investigates on Tender for US Filter
San Diego law firm Finkelstein & Krinsk is pursuing an aggressive
investigation of the activities of Vivendi S.A. (NASDAQ:VVDIY) and its
wholly-owned subsidiary EAU Acquisition Corp., with regard to Vivendi's
tender offer for US Filter Corp. (NYSE:USF) shares at $31.50 per share.

Vivendi and certain of its senior executives have been charged with
violating the federal securities laws in conjunction with purported
unlawful payments to senior US Filter executives to "grease the skids"
and obtain their support in consummating Vivendi's tender offer. Such
conduct, if proven, violates the "all holder, best price" rule and would
make Vivendi liable to tendering US Filter shareholders for the
additional per share benefit given to the US Filter executives (on top
of the $31.50 per share tender offer).

"The genius of the securities laws is their adaptability to a broad
array of cheating," stated Jeffrey R. Krinsk of Finkelstein & Krinsk.
"In this instance, the US Filter and Vivendi parties likely thought they
had committed the perfect crime' -- shareholders would not notice the
payments to the executives because they were disguised. In situations
like this, such payments are often the payola that greases a company's
acquisition of another in violation of the law."

Contact: Jeffrey R. Krinsk of Finkelstein & Krinsk, 501 West Broadway,
Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101, by phone (toll free) 877-493-5366,
e-mail: fk@class-action-law.com or fax 619-238-5425.

WAR VICIMS: Filipinos Plan to Sue Japanese Companies over Slave Labor
Thousands of Filipinos will sue Japanese companies that allegedly forced
them into slave labor during World War II, a Filipino lawyer said
Sunday, March 26. Most of the Filipinos drafted into the wartime labor
force by the Japanese occupation army were made to work in mines and
plantations operated by Japanese companies, lawyer Rod Domingo said.

Domingo said the suit would be consolidated with similar class-action
suits filed in California by former prisoners and civilians from
Australia, Canada, China, England, Scotland and the Netherlands. He
encouraged living victims or their heirs to file claims against Japanese
companies that "violated their rights or exploited, enslaved, tortured
or profited from their forced labor" from 1941 to 1945. "The sheer
volume and complexity of this lawsuit required a global team of 13 law
firms that ask for an accounting and restitution from Japanese
corporations that reaped profits during the war from the misery, which
they have prolonged for the sake of profitability," Domingo said.

The suit will be based on a California law that prohibits slave or
forced labor, said Domingo, who helped win a $ 150 million settlement
for 9,539 Filipinos against the estate of the late Philippine dictator
Ferdinand Marcos for human rights violations.

Among the companies that may be sued are members of the Mitsui,
Mitsubishi, Matsushita and Hitachi groups, as well as carmakers Toyota
and Nissan, he said. A research paper on Japanese companies that used
slave labor in the Philippines showed more than a dozen had operated
cotton plantations in more than 10 provinces in the Philippines covering
tens of thousands of acres. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 27, 2000)

YIELD-BURNING: Cases Aren't Federal, Federal Judge in Chicago Rules
In a ruling that surprised several participants, a federal judge in
Chicago recently dismissed two yield-burning lawsuits, saying they do
not belong in federal court -- an argument that the defendants never
presented to that specific judge.

Clint Krislov of Krislov & Associates -- the law firm that brought the
class action lawsuits against Prudential Securities Inc., Everen
Securities Inc., and Bear Stearns & Co. by two taxpayers on behalf of
Chicago and Cook County -- said he planned to appeal one case and file
the other in state court.

In his 10-page order issued March 17, U.S. District Court Judge Charles
R. Norgle did not address specific claims made in the case. Norgle also
made no mention of a recommendation filed late last year by U.S.
Magistrate Martin C. Ashman that the lawsuits be dismissed because the
statute of limitations had expired.

Instead, the court acted on its own and found that the case did not meet
constitutional requirements that would give the federal courts
jurisdiction. That was due in part to the plaintiff's role as a
third-party litigant that did not suffer any direct injuries from the
alleged wrongdoing. Furthermore, the judge said the city and county's
objections to the taxpayers acting on their behalf undermined the
plaintiffs' right to bring the lawsuits.

Lawyers for the underwriters had brought up the jurisdiction issue
during proceedings before Ashman, but the magistrate made no mention of
those statements in his ruling.

Lawyers on both sides of the case said they were expecting Norgle to
soon rule on whether Krislov had filed an appeal to Ashman's
recommendation in a timely manner. If the ruling had favored Krislov,
then both sides would have been expected to submit written briefs to
Norgle. "We are absolutely shocked by the order," said Krislov. "It
doesn't cover the merits of the case. It doesn't address the fraud."

The lawsuits were the result of the firm's sweeping probe of advance
refunding transactions conducted by Illinois-based issuers between 1991
and 1995.

The first suit filed in 1998 alleged that Prudential and Everen, at the
time of the deal known as Kemper Securities Inc. and now First Union
Securities Inc., bilked Chicago out of a combined $700,000 on two
separate deals from 1992 and 1993. A second lawsuit charged that Bear
Stearns overcharged Cook on a 1992 deal. The accounting firms --
Deloitte & Touche; Altschuler, Melvoin and Glasser; and Ernst & Young --
that verified certain financial calculations were also named.

Yield burning can occur when a dealer excessively inflates the price of
U.S. Treasuries that are bought to establish an escrow until the
original debt matures.

Krislov initially set out to prove that the firms violated the 1940
Investment Advisers Act and state laws on securities. Although there is
no specific statute of limitations on the federal claim, Ashman turned
to other court decisions that relied on a three-year statute under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

In seeking class certification, Krislov asserted that the firms had
engaged in yield burning on dozens of advance refundings reviewed by an
expert. While the law firm has declined to comment on why they chose the
federal court system over the state, several legal sources suggested
that it's a better venue for pursuing class-action status. (The Bond
Buyer, March 27, 2000)


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  * * *