/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010330.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, March 30, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 63


BRADLEY CENTER: 8 people in ticket scalper crackdown Sue City and Arena
CONOCO: Pensacola Toxic Site War Rages In And Out Of Court
CYBERWORKS: Website Seeks Investor Plaintiffs for Possible Suit V. HK Co
DENVER: CO Ap Ct Upholds Damages To Adams County In Airport Noise Case
FLORIDA: Miami Judge Strikes Down $1000 Fine Vehicle Impoundment Law

GUN MANUFACTURERS: Flaws in System Can Allow Purchases By Felons
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Suit Against IBM Dropped, U.S. Official Says
JAPANESE GOVT: Ordered To Pay 450 Mil. Yen In Tunnel Disaster
MARIJUANA USE: Supreme Court Takes First Look; Ruling By End of June
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Judge OKs Settlement Agreement in Employee Race Case

MORRISON HILL: BRA Looks into Rents of Elderly Handicapped Poor Tenants
NIKE, INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit
NIKE, INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces on Securities Lawsuit in Oregon
NISSAN AIRBAGS: NHTSA Explores Safety Of Air Bags In Older Altimas
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in CA

RACE PROFILING: Former NJ A.G. Denies Withholding Information
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: LA School Employees' Retirement Files Securities Suit
U OF MI: CNN Coverage; Is Affirmative Action in Education Dead?
U.S. BANK: Settles Privacy Class Action For 2.9 Million


BRADLEY CENTER: 8 people in ticket scalper crackdown Sue City and Arena
Eight people caught in a ticket scalper crackdown filed a federal lawsuit
Wednesday against the city and the Bradley Center alleging that the
arrests violated their constitutional rights.

The suit seeks class-action status to represent dozens of others who
spent hours in jail after selling tickets.

Earlier in the month, Andrew Arlotta, 24, of Whitefish Bay, filed a
lawsuit asking for $100,000 from the city and an unspecified amount from
the Milwaukee Bucks and the Bradley Center. Arlotta's suit claims his
civil rights were violated after he was arrested and spent six hours in

In January, police started strictly enforcing Milwaukee ordinances that
ban the sale of tickets, at any price, within 500 feet of the Bradley
Center or on any public sidewalk without a permit. The effort came after
venue officials complained about scalpers.

A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel review of 51 cases since January found that
10 of those arrested could be considered professional scalpers. But 41,
all residents of Milwaukee's surrounding communities, had no prior record
of illegal ticket sales in Milwaukee County. The 51 cases represent only
those for which court records were available; more citations were issued
in that period.

Fifteen of the first-time offenders described their arrests as harrowing
experiences that changed their perception of the Bradley Center, the
Police Department and the city. "The whole situation turned me off of
Milwaukee," said Thomas Wade of Kenosha, who was arrested after going to
Milwaukee Feb. 2 with 40 people for dinner and a hockey game. "I don't
want to go back."

Wade sold two of his $20 tickets for $5 apiece just outside the arena
doors and was arrested.

All 15 interviewed, except for a few who talked their way out of being
arrested, said they were treated the same way:

    -- The offenders were handcuffed and put in a van until there were
enough people to take to jail. Before the van left, a Bradley Center
manager warned them that they were not allowed back and could be arrested
for trespassing if they returned. At the jail, the group was searched and
then put into a "bullpen" for between three and eight hours. Most were
not allowed to make phone calls while their citations were processed.
They were fingerprinted, asked to sign a Bradley Center form promising
not to return to the arena and released.

Wade said the officers who arrested him made it clear that they were only
carrying out orders. "I can't say enough about the police, (they) were
real nice. They were almost tripping over themselves being apologetic,"
Wade said.

Others said police either at the arena or at the jail were intimidating,
threatening to extend the time they would be held if they complained.

Many of those interviewed said they could not understand why they were
taken to jail for an ordinance violation that is not classified as a
crime. "Give me a (citation), but don't arrest me and embarrass me and
detain me, especially on my birthday," said Steven Chortek, 32, of Fox
Point, who was arrested before a Bucks game Feb. 19.

Chortek is one of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit.

Milwaukee Police Chief Arthur Jones won't talk about ongoing police
operations, said his spokeswoman, Karen Pride Garvin. But Bradley Center
officials said police have stopped taking first-time offenders to jail.

The Bradley Center wanted to target scalpers, not regular fans, said
Stephen Costello, the arena's assistant general manager. "We very much
regret some of the things that occurred," Costello said.

The Bradley Center and teams that play there have tried to make amends
with some fans who were cited.

Illegal ticket sales are down since the increased police enforcement, but
it's not clear if that will last, said Costello. "It did have some
impact; of course, at what cost?" he said. On The Net:
Milwaukee Police Department: http://www.milw-police.org
Bradley Center: http://www.bradleycenter.com

CONOCO: Pensacola Toxic Site War Rages In And Out Of Court
Environmental activists have sued oil giant Conoco over a toxic waste
dump in what has become a very public battle, fought with billboards and
newspaper advertisements along the streets of Pensacola.

A team of lawyers filed the lawsuit late last week, accusing Conoco of
failing to properly clean up toxic waste left by a former fertilizer
plant owned by Conoco from 1963 until the company sold it in 1972.

The lawsuit claims Conoco's failure to clean up the site, after
pollutants were discovered in the late 1980s, is responsible for a deadly
plume of toxic chemicals headed through the underground aquifer toward
Bayou Texar. The lawsuit, which asks $500 million in damages, also
contends that arsenic, lead and fluoride from the site are leaching into
irrigation wells.

That 370-acre waterway is lined by some of the most expensive homes in
the city. In the past several months, the campaign has been waged in the
court of public opinion. Around Pensacola, giant billboards and
advertisements proclaim "Conoco, It's Your Mess! You Clean It Up!" Some
depict a "Conoco catfish" with three bloodshot eyes and a body covered in
sores. Striking back, Conoco hired a local advertising company to develop
newspaper ads and provide mailouts to hundreds of residents affected by
the alleged toxic seepage. The company also has sent letters and made
door-to-door visits to worried residents and has held meetings with civic

The company recently opened a two-story information center in a shopping
center and filled it with stacks of maps and technical documents
defending the company's position. "Our reputation, our image is being
maligned, in our opinion," said Carlton Adams, spokesman for the
Houston-based company. "We are in the fight to protect our reputation."

Adams maintains that Conoco has done everything federal and state
environmental agencies have asked of it.

Heading the movement against Conoco is Pensacola lawyer Mike Papantonio.
He has represented environmentalists in fights against Smithfield Foods,
the nation's largest hog farm company, and Champion International Paper
Co., the center of a dispute between North Carolina and Tennessee over
wastewater standards for the Pigeon River.

Also on the legal team is Allan Kanner, who directed a class-action
lawsuit after the Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident in 1979.

The fight against Conoco is being supported by Robert Kennedy Jr.,
president of the Water Keeper Alliance.

According to Neil Overholtz, one of the lawyers on the team,
environmentalists began investigating the issue after a landowner
received a letter from Conoco offering to cap his irrigation well and to
pay him $5,000 while claiming there were no dangerous chemicals in the

Conoco insists it has abided by the law. "We have done exactly what the
EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection told us to
do," said Adams, the Conoco spokesman. "Even though we owned that site
for only 15 percent of its history, we took 100 percent of the
responsibility for its cleanup."

According to Adams, the company in 1989 agreed to conduct a feasibility
study to determine what was needed to stabilize the pollution and then
spent $14 million to clean up the site. "We stabilized 150,000 cubic
yards of sludge and soil with cement and placed the material in a dry
zone 20 feet above the groundwater table and capped it with a four-foot,
seven-layer impermeable cap," he said. Adams says his company plans to
fight as long as necessary. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, March
29, 2001)

CYBERWORKS: Website Seeks Investor Plaintiffs for Possible Suit V. HK Co
According to a report in the International Herald Tribune headlined
"Mammoth Purchase Weakens CyberWorks; Huge Write-Off Results in $886
Million Loss", less than a year after he became the uncrowned king of the
Internet in Asia, the Hong Kong businessman Richard Li on Wednesday
presented worse-than- expected results in the first financial snapshot of
his company since a major acquisition last August.

Mr. Li's company, Pacific Century CyberWorks Ltd., reported a loss of
$886 million for 2000, capping a period in which Mr. Li has shed his
high-flying status as local business hero to become the brunt of jokes by
bitter investors, the report says.

The bleak numbers and a heavy debt burden even prompted some CyberWorks
executives to protest that the company does, in fact, remain solvent,
according to the International Herald Tribune. ''I know there have been a
lot of questions out there about us going forward,'' said David Prince,
chief financial officer. ''We are well able and within our means to
service those debts,'' the Tribune quotes.

The two-year-old Internet start-up, founded by the son of the prominent
tycoon Li Ka-shing, capitalized on the height of Internet fever to carry
off a $38 billion purchase of Hong Kong Telecom from Cable & Wireless PLC
of Britain last year.

Asia's largest-ever corporate merger on Wednesday was shown to have
produced one of the biggest write-offs in Asian corporate history.
Executives said CyberWorks would immediately write off the $22 billion
goodwill premium paid for shares of Hong Kong Telecom, the Tribune
reports. The debt acquired to finance the acquisition has ballooned to
make the company's liabilities greater than both its assets and its
market capitalization, the report adds.

''The party really is over, but they are trying to kid everyone on,''
said Richard Ferguson of Nomura International according to the Tribune.
''You ask where they are going and nowhere is the answer.''

According to the report, Mr. Ferguson said the results would prompt a
downgrade of his current recommended share price of 2.85 Hong Kong
dollars (36 U.S. cents). Shares of the company finished 2 cents lower at
3.48 dollars Wednesday; they peaked in February 2000 at 28.50 dollars.

Mr. Ferguson said the company was not helped by an admission last week by
Mr. Li that he had never graduated from Stanford University. References
to a Stanford degree, made in company documents and filings to regulators
in Singapore and the United States, were retracted after an article in
the International Herald Tribune questioned the existence of such a

Mr. Li presented company results to a group of analysts but skipped a
news conference Wednesday, allowing his deputy to be peppered with
questions about Mr. Li's academic credentials, reports the International
Herald Tribune. The purpose of this meeting is to address the
financials,'' said Francis Yuen, the deputy chairman, ''and we have the
full team of financial people here to answer your questions.''

Mr. Li's admission that he does not have a degree unleashed a storm of
media attention in Hong Kong and, inevitably, sent a buzz across the
Internet, the report says.

One newly created Web site, is intended to gather plaintiffs for a
possible class-action lawsuit against CyberWorks, contending that he
misled investors by claiming a degree.

For the future of the company, executives announced several initiatives
aimed at bolstering earnings, including possible layoffs and staff

Mr. Li told analysts that revenue for 2001 should grow in ''high single
digits'' but company executives provided little elaboration.
(International Herald Tribune (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France), March 29,

DENVER: CO Ap Ct Upholds Damages To Adams County In Airport Noise Case
The Colorado Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a decision ordering
Denver to pay neighboring governments about $5.3 million in damages and
other penalties for violating noise agreements involving Denver
International Airport.

The awards were ordered for Adams County and the cities of Aurora,
Brighton, Commerce City and Thornton after a trial that found the city
and county of Denver in violation of a 1988 intergovernmental agreement
in which Denver pledged the airport would not violate maximum noise

In the agreement, Denver agreed to pay compensation for any violations of
the noise standards that were not mitigated under terms of the agreement.
The agreement set up a system that called for DIA to monitor aircraft at
about 100 locations around the airport, and established a noise boundary
around the airport that could lead to additional violations.

The plaintiffs sued Denver in 1996, a year after DIA opened. The appeals
court's ruling said there were a total of 62 noise violations in the
first year, and seven of them were not mitigated by the second year.
After a four-day trial, the trial court awarded the plaintiffs $4 million
for the violations and $1.3 million in prejudgment interest. In its
appeal, Denver argued that the mitigation payments called for in the
agreement constituted an unenforceable penalty and therefore should not
have been ordered.

The ruling said the trial court properly found that Denver had not
provided evidence that the $500,000 figure was inappropriate.

The appeals court also disagreed with Denver's argument that the
plaintiffs failed to prove actual damages and should not be awarded a
financial windfall, saying the trial judge found that the plaintiffs had
suffered actual injury. "Denver's own expert witness testified that the
peak noise levels of overhead aircraft would far exceed the ambient noise
levels, thus causing damage to plaintiffs," the ruling said. "The witness
also testified that actual peak noise energy levels increase dramatically
in relation to very small averaged decibel increases."

The ruling could affect an airport-noise lawsuit filed against Denver by
Adams County earlier this month. The new lawsuit alleges at least 24
noise violations in 1996 and 1997 and seeks $12 million in penalty
payments. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, March 29, 2001)

FLORIDA: Miami Judge Strikes Down $1000 Fine Vehicle Impoundment Law
A judge ruled that a city law requiring motorists to pay a $1,000 fine to
reclaim vehicles impounded after a drug or prostitution arrest was
unconstitutional. Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Rosinek made
the ruling Wednesday, ordering the return of $1,000 in two separate cases
in which the state dropped drug-related charges against the defendants.

The law, amended in 1998, stated that motor vehicles helped facilitate
prostitution and drug-related crimes. It also allowed towing companies to
auction off or junk the impounded vehicles if their owners did not pay
the money in cash or through a bond.

Rosinek said the ordinance was "contrary to the laws of the State of
Florida," adding that it was the "difference between employment and
poverty" for people that could not afford the fine. He also deemed the
penalty amount excessive and questioned its purpose in cases which
defendants were either acquitted or had charges against them dropped or
dismissed. "We think the judge overlooked that this ordinance has been
upheld in other courts," city attorney Alex Vilarrelo said, noting that
the ruling would be appealed.

Similar ordinances exist in St. Petersburg, Chicago, New Orleans and
elsewhere around the country.

A class-action lawsuit also challenging the ordinance's constitutionality
is pending before Circuit Judge Celeste Muir.

No trial date has been set. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire,
March 29, 2001)

GUN MANUFACTURERS: Flaws in System Can Allow Purchases By Felons
Flaws in the U.S. system for doing instant background checks on gun
buyers could be allowing thousands of felons to purchase guns illegally
each year, USA Today reported Thursday.

The newspaper, citing authorities, said the background checks are
undermined by fragmented computer systems and antiquated criminal records
in courthouses across the nation.

The FBI estimates that during the system's first two years, there were as
many as 200,000 gun sales to felons and others who are barred from owning
guns, USA Today said.

The reason, according to the report, was that incomplete or missing
criminal records kept background checks from being done within three
business days, as required by U.S. law.

After the waiting period, gun dealers who have not received a negative
report on a prospective buyer may sell weapons to that person.

The background check system, created by the 1993 Brady gun control law,
was designed to keep licensed dealers from selling guns to convicted
felons or fugitives and people who are under felony indictments.

USA Today cited officials who said the record-keeping problems revealed
during the first two years of the instant-check system were significant.
``It makes me nervous,'' said David Loesch, an assistant FBI director in
charge of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The newspaper said much of the problem stems from the criminal justice
system's traditional failure to track cases after an arrest.

The lack of accessible, computerized case records sometimes forces the
FBI to rely on harried court clerks to sift through handwritten documents
that are more than 20 years old to try to determine whether a felony
charge led to a conviction, the newspaper said.

Not only is there no national standard, but in some areas, local police,
prosecutors, court clerks and judges each use different tracking systems,
according to the newspaper.

``The FBI must be pulling its hair out dealing with these differences in
different states,'' Catherine Kimball, a Louisiana Supreme Court justice
was quoted as saying.

``The public assumes that criminal records are up to date and available
at the push of a button, said Kimball, who leads a court technology
committee in her state. ``But that's just not the case,'' she told the
newspaper. (Washington Reuters, March 30, 2001)

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Suit Against IBM Dropped, U.S. Official Says
Attorneys who brought a class action lawsuit against IBM alleging that
the company aided Nazi Germany will file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit
later this week, the U.S. State Department said Thursday.

Spokesman Richard Boucher said concern had been raised in Germany that
the lawsuit would endanger legal peace that German companies have been
seeking. ''The dismissal of this suit should alleviate any such
concern,'' Boucher said. He said the plaintiff's attorneys seek to speed
implementation of the German Foundation ''Remembrance, Responsibility and
the Future,'' which will make payments and provide a measure of justice
to more than 1 million people.

The original suit alleged that IBM was an accomplice in the Holocaust
because it knew its machines were being used in Nazi death camps. ''IBM
USA implemented, aided, assisted or consciously participated in the
commission of crimes against humanity and violations of human rights ...
by providing technology, products and service it knew would be used to
facilitate persecution and genocide,'' the suit said.

Boucher said the primary remedy sought by the plaintiffs in the IBM case
was the opening of IBM's archives in relation to the World War II period.
''The United States strongly supports the opening of all archives, public
and private, relating to the Holocaust era in order to facilitate further
research and encourage greater understanding of the Holocaust and its
historical context,'' he said.

At the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust in January 2000,
Boucher noted that the United States and other countries declared a
shared commitment to take all necessary steps to facilitate the opening
of archives. ''The United States maintains that commitment, as strongly
as ever, today,'' he said.

Upon the signing of the Foundation Agreement in July 2000, Stuart E.
Eizenstat, the Clinton administration's senior official for Holocaust
issues, stated that it is ''critical that German companies open their
archives for research on the Nazi period and World War II,'' Boucher

He said that during 1999-2000, IBM donated without restriction over
10,000 pages of historical materials to New York University as well as
other documents to Hochenheim University in Stuttgart. All of these
materials -- which relate to the activity of IBM and its German
subsidiary during the Nazi era and World War II -- will be or are
available to the public. (AP Worldstream, March 29, 2001)

JAPANESE GOVT: Ordered To Pay 450 Mil. Yen In Tunnel Disaster
The Sapporo District Court ordered the government Thursday to pay roughly
450 million yen in compensation to the bereaved families of seven out of
20 victims of a 1996 tunnel disaster in Hokkaido.

The three-judge panel made the decision in a 640 million yen damages suit
filed by 16 relatives of the seven victims, awarding 449.48 million yen
to the plaintiffs.

Presiding Judge Kenji Jimoto said the state neglected its duty to inform
the public of how to use an emergency communication system in the
1,086-meter-long tunnel, adding the bereaved families are 'entitled to
compensation for their mental anguish.'

The court, however, did not render its judgment on whether such a
disaster could have been foreseen, to the disappointment of the
relatives, saying judging whether the state was liable in areas where the
government denied its responsibility would be 'impractical.'

On Feb. 10, 1996, a huge boulder weighing about 21,000 tons smashed
through the Toyohama Tunnel near Yoichi, western Hokkaido, crushing a bus
and a car and killing 20 people.

The state offered during a hearing in March 1997 to pay a total of 300
million yen in compensation to them, on the condition that it only admit
its negligence concerning the communication system.

A rock fall had been witnessed by a truck driver inside of the tunnel 30
minutes before the boulder smashed the tunnel, but a report on the rock
fall was delayed because the driver did not understand how to use the
communication system.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs had argued in court hearings that the
government's lax management of the tunnel caused the accident, saying it
could have foreseen the disaster and taken measures to prevent it.

The plaintiffs said the ground around the tunnel was too fragile to
support such a project in the first place and that a rock weighing some
300 tons had fallen in the vicinity four years before the fatal boulder

The government, however, did not admit responsibility for actually
failing to prevent the disaster during the trial, saying it was
impossible to foresee the fatal fall, and that it cannot be blamed
despite the fact that it did not take preventive safety measures.

By June 1998, the government reached an out-of-court settlement with 12
bereaved families of the remaining 13 victims, with the state paying the
families between 30 million and 80 million yen each under the State
Redress Law. (Japan Economic Newswire, March 29, 2001)

MARIJUANA USE: Supreme Court Takes First Look; Ruling By End of June
The Supreme Court took a first look at prescription pot Wednesday,
hearing arguments on an issue that has pitted the federal government
against cancer, AIDS and other patients who sometimes regard marijuana as
a wonder drug.

As far as the federal government is concerned, marijuana is illegal and
should remain so. Federal enforcement efforts have led to confrontations
and arrests in California and other Western states.

Voters in Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington
also have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical
marijuana. In Hawaii, the Legislature passed a similar law and the
governor signed it last year.

The issue for an openly skeptical Supreme Court is whether a patient's
need for marijuana trumps a 1970 federal law that classifies it as an
illegal substance with no known medical value.

President Bush supports federal prohibitions on marijuana, but also
respects states' rights to pass voter initiatives, as was the case in
California, spokesman Ari Fleischer said. ``The president is opposed to
the legalization of marijuana, including for medicinal purposes,'' he
said Wednesday.

Lawyers for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in California want
to make what they call a ``medical necessity'' defense in federal court,
and argue that federal judges and juries have the power to decide if the
drug is warranted.

Several justices seemed to think that approach was a stretch at best.
``I thought the medical necessity defense was for an individual,''
Justice Antonin Scalia said. ``You would extend it to the person
prescribing the drug, and even to opening a business,'' to dispense it.
``That's a vast expansion beyond any necessity defense I've ever heard
of,'' Scalia said.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy seemed to agree. ``You're asking us to hold
that this defense exists ... with no specific plaintiff before us, no
specific case,'' Kennedy told the club's lawyer, Gerald Uelmen.

The court's ruling is expected by the end of June. A ruling for the
Oakland club would allow special marijuana clubs to resume distributing
the drug in California, which passed one of the nation's first medical
marijuana laws in 1996. A ruling for the federal government would not
negate the California voter initiative, but effectively would prevent
clubs like Oakland's from distributing the drug openly.

One of the most vocal opponents of legalized prescription marijuana is
Barry McCaffrey, the Clinton administration's drug policy director. He
once dismissed the practice as ``Cheech and Chong medicine,'' a reference
to the comedy team that celebrated pot-smoking.

Advocates of medical marijuana say the drug can ease side effects from
chemotherapy, save nauseated AIDS patients from wasting away or even
allow multiple sclerosis sufferers to rise from a wheelchair and walk.

There is no definitive science that the drug works, or works better than
conventional, legal alternatives. Nonetheless, nine states have laws
allowing the legal use of marijuana to treat a host of ailments.

Scalia challenged Uelmen to list medical emergencies that could require
marijuana treatment.

``Death, starvation, blindness,'' Uelmen began.

``Stomach ache?'' Scalia interrupted with an edge of sarcasm.

Representing the government, Barbara Underwood, a holdover from the
Clinton administration Justice Department, said the 1970 Controlled
Substances Act ``leaves no room for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers
Cooperative'' and others to act as ``marijuana pharmacies.''

Bush's choice as chief advocate before the Supreme Court, Theodore Olson,
has not been confirmed by the Senate.

Several states are considering medical marijuana laws, and Congress may
revisit the issue this year. A measure to counteract laws like
California's died in the House last year. Activists on both sides
gathered outside the court.

The Clinton administration sued to stop distribution by the Oakland group
and five other California clubs in 1998.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, brother of Supreme Court Justice
Stephen Breyer, sided with the government. All the clubs except the
Oakland group eventually closed down, and the Oakland club turned to
registering potential marijuana recipients while it awaited a final

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that medical
necessity is a legal defense. Charles Breyer followed up by issuing
strict guidelines for making that claim.

Stephen Breyer will not participate as the other eight justices consider
their ruling. Should the court divide 4-4, the appeals court ruling would

The case is United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 00-151.

On the Net: Supreme Court site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
For the appeals court ruling in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative: http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html,and click on 9th
Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative: http://www.rxcbc.org(Washington
AP, March 28, 2001)

MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Judge OKs Settlement Agreement in Employee Race Case
U.S. District Court Judge Michael M. Mihm has given preliminary approval
to a settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit alleging past acts of
racial harassment and discrimination at Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of

Attorneys for both sides said the settlement agreement underscores
Mitsubishi's commitment to a fair and racially sensitive workplace.

"We are pleased we have been able to resolve this matter," said Patricia
C. Benassi, who represented the employees in the class action suit. "It
is evident that things have changed for the better at MMMA thanks to the
leadership of Mr. Gilligan. The mechanisms put in place under this
agreement will advance this progress even further."

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of African-American and Hispanic/Latino
employees who worked at Mitsubishi's manufacturing plant in Normal,
Illinois. Their complaints generally relate to Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission charges originally filed in mid 1998.

"We are committed not only to fixing problems that occurred in the past,
but to ensuring that no problems occur in the future," said Rich
Gilligan, MMMA's executive vice president and chief operating officer.

"Working together in a fair and dignified workplace is important for both
the company and its employees," said Gilligan. "Now that this case is
settled, we can move forward as a team to accomplish our goals and

The settlement agreement specifically:

* Resolves all claims in the class-action lawsuit alleging past acts of
   racial harassment and discrimination;

* Assures equal opportunity for all MMMA employees;

* Promotes compliance with existing MMMA policies, including its Zero
   Tolerance Policy regarding race and gender harassment;

* Establishes an expedited claims procedure for members of the
   settlement class;

* Appoints two independent monitors who will work with MMMA to ensure
   implementation of the agreement and validate MMMA's compliance.

James E. Coleman, Jr. is a professor of law at Duke University. Carol
Hanson Posegate is a lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in employment
discrimination cases in the U. S. District Court for the Central District
of Illinois.

"We welcome the opportunity to work with the monitors to ensure we truly
do have best practices for preventing racial harassment and
discrimination," Gilligan said.

Monetary terms of the class-action settlement include:

* An amount to be determined for eligible members of the class who file
   sworn claim forms;

* The 10 named plaintiffs have settled their own individual claims for
   an aggregate amount totaling approximately $1.4 million;

* $1.8 million to cover attorneys' fees and litigation costs for
   representing the entire class.

The eligibility of claimants for compensation under the class action will
be determined by two Special Masters appointed under the settlement
agreement. Special Masters James E. Coleman Jr. and Hunter R. Hughes are
experienced mediators in the area of employment discrimination.

In a separate action, Benassi indicated that two other cases -- Gillespie
and Warr -- involving additional individual plaintiffs have also been
settled on a confidential basis for undisclosed amounts.

"It is evident that MMMA is making good progress through its Zero
Tolerance Policy and its Opportunity Programs Department, which monitors
equal opportunity in the workplace," Benassi said.

MORRISON HILL: BRA Looks into Rents of Elderly Handicapped Poor Tenants
The Boston Redevelopment Authority has opened an investigation into
allegations that a Mission Hill landlord illegally raised the rents of
elderly, handicapped, and poor tenants. The BRA action comes on the heels
of a class-action lawsuit by tenants of Bay Manor, a Roxbury high-rise on
St. Alphonsus Street, who allege that Edmund Shamsi failed to uphold a
1997 agreement with BRA that gave him financial breaks on loan interest
rates in exchange for the protection of some tenants. A BRA spokesperson
said that the city planning agency could join the lawsuit, let it proceed
without its participation, or mediate the dispute. (The Boston Globe,
March 29, 2001)

NIKE, INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit
Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., of Bala Cynwyd, PA, on March 28 announced that
class action lawsuits involving the purchase of the below mentioned stock
have been initiated in federal courts across the country alleging
violations of the federal and/or state securities laws for the following
proposed time period:

Corporation               Class Period
-----------               ------------
NIKE (NYSE:NKE)            12-20-00 to 02-26-01

The class has not been certified by the court for this stock, and until
certified, an investor is not represented. You have the right to be
represented and participate as a plaintiff in this lawsuit if you
purchased the above-named stock during the identified proposed class

If you wish to be represented in the class please contact Jason L.
Brodsky, Esquire or Evan J. Smith, Esquire, of Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C.,
11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 via email at
esmith@brodsky-smith.com, or at (toll free) 877-LEGAL90. Please indicate
the name of the stock and quantity of shares purchased.

NIKE, INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces on Securities Lawsuit in Oregon
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP announced that a class action lawsuit was commenced
in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf
of purchasers of NIKE, Inc. ("NIKE" or the "Company")(NYSE: NKE) common
stock between December 20, 2000, and February 26, 2001, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint charges Nike and certain of its executive officers with
violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Besides
issuing a series of false and misleading press releases concerning Nike's
financial condition, the Company announced on December 19, 2000 favorable
2ndQ F01 results and told analysts the Company was still on track to
report mid-teens earnings growth for F01. As a result, the price of
Nike's securities was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period,
allowing certain defendants to collectively sell over 400,000 shares of
personally held Nike stock for proceeds of $20.96 million. However, on
February 26, 2001, Nike shocked the market when it announced its 3rdQ F01
results would be much lower than previous forecast due to problems
implementing supply planning systems, which caused Nike to produce an
unfavorable product mix. In response to the disclosure, the Company's
common stock plummeted to as low as $38.26 per share from $49.17 in its
most recent trading session.

Contact: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Anthony Vozzolo, Esq., 212/983-9330

NISSAN AIRBAGS: NHTSA Explores Safety Of Air Bags In Older Altimas
Nissan air bags can blind passengers when the bags inflate in a crash,
according to complaints that have prompted a federal investigation.

Nissan acknowledges settling some lawsuits related to the cases but won't
give details and insists its bag system is safe.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently began looking
at 1994 and 1995 Nissan Altimas after at least 29 people reported eye
injuries ranging from temporary, partial loss of vision to permanent
blindness when the passenger-side, front-impact air bags deployed in

Nissan spokesman Scott Vazin says, "The Altima is one of the safest cars
in its class, and the air bag system is very similar to one used in many
different models of cars, including Nissans and some of our competitors."
He notes that most of the cases were reported to NHTSA by lawyer Lawrence
Baron of Portland, Ore.

That sometimes happens when a lawyer is laying groundwork for a lawsuit
that will seek class-action status or when the lawyer is applying
pressure to gain clout in settlement negotiations with an automaker.

Safetyforum.com, an information clearinghouse for plaintiff lawyers,
called the Nissan design "aggressive" and said that Baron reported more
than 40 injuries to NHTSA, not all related to eye damage.

A NHTSA report on the investigation, which began March 13, says, "In some
of the cases, the eye injuries allegedly resulted in permanent partial or
complete loss of vision." NHTSA also notes that "some of the front
passengers allegedly suffered other injuries, such as facial cuts,
scrapes, bruises and fractures."

The preliminary investigation involves an exchange of letters and
documents between the agency and the car company. If NHTSA believes the
complaints have merit, it can escalate its probe to an engineering
analysis, then to a recall. Most NHTSA investigations are closed with a
finding of no safety defect.

The force of inflating air bags is known to be potentially deadly to
children and others whose bodies and bones aren't robust enough to
withstand the momentary but intense force of a deploying air bag.

Bags also are known to have deafened some people.

But blindness is a new and sensational allegation that could renew debate
on whether air bags are worthwhile safety devices or unduly harmful
systems meant to protect people unwilling to wear safety belts, as
required by law nearly everywhere in the USA.

Automakers are rushing to install more air bags to lure safety-conscious
buyers. The trend is toward side-curtain bags that stay inflated to
cushion occupants during rollovers. (USA Today, March 29, 2001)

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in CA
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of Nuance Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ: NUAN) securities during the period between January 31, 2001 and
March 15, 2001 ("Class Period") against Nuance, Ronald A. Croen
(President, Chief Executive Officer, and a director of the Company),
Brian Danella (Vice President, Secretary, and General Counsel), Matthew
Lennig (Senior Vice President of Engineering), Graham V. Smith (Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer), and Lloyd Leanse (Vice President
of Business Development). If you would like to view a copy of the
complaint filed in this action, please visit the Wolf Haldenstein web
site located at www.whafh.com.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, Nuance develops,
markets, and supports a voice-recognition software platform that
purportedly makes the information and services of enterprises,
telecommunications networks, and the Internet accessible from any
telephone. The complaint alleges that after exceeding analysts' earnings
expectations for its fourth quarter and reporting "record revenue,"
defendants reaffirmed Nuance's leadership position in the
voice-recognition market and the continued revenue growth experienced
since the end of the fourth quarter. Thereafter, the Individual
Defendants, contrary to their unwavering public support for the Company's
prospects and its stock, sold vast quantities of their holdings in Nuance
stock. Just weeks after defendants finished selling their own Nuance
stock, they revealed that the Company's revenue growth had in fact
ceased, and that revenues for the quarter would be well below those
reported for the prior quarter.

Commenting on the disappointing news, defendants stated: "Nuance
attributes the revenue shortfall primarily to general economic
conditions, which have led customers and customer prospects to postpone
capital investment in Nuance products and service offerings based on
Nuance products. The company believes its visibility is limited for both
the second quarter and full-year results." Immediately following
defendants' March 15, 2001 disclosures, the price of Nuance stock
dropped, falling from its closing price of $17 per share March 15, 2001
to $9.68 per share at the close on March 16, 2001, a drop of more than

Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York Michael
Miske, George Peters, Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Taylor Isquith, Esq.
800/575-0735 classmember@whafh.com

RACE PROFILING: Former NJ A.G. Denies Withholding Information
New Jersey's former attorney general denied Wednesday withholding
evidence of racial profiling by state troopers from federal investigators
but said he regrets not questioning police more thoroughly about
allegations they targeted minority drivers.

Verniero, now a state Supreme Court justice, said he agreed to appear
before a state Senate committee investigating racial profiling so the
public could better understand what transpired during his tenure as
attorney general.  ``Racial profiling has existed for many years. I hope
we can arrive at the day when this humiliating ... practice is stamped
out,'' Verniero said.

Senate investigators are examining the state's response to racial
profiling, including whether Verniero initially tried to squelch evidence
of it.

Verniero first admitted state police were targeting minorities in an
April 1999 report issued one year after two white troopers fired shots at
a van stopped for speeding on the New Jersey Turnpike and wounded three
men, all minorities.

The day before releasing the report, Verniero had announced an indictment
against the troopers accusing them of falsely reporting that some black
motorists they pulled over were white. Witnesses have testified that
Verniero rushed to release the report because the Justice Department
planned a civil rights lawsuit.

The troopers have said they fired in self-defense, thinking the van's
driver was trying to run them over.

Some witnesses have testified that Verniero received a study in May 1997
that said minorities made up 90 percent of people searched during traffic
stops. Similar findings in Maryland led to federal oversight prohibiting
racial profiling in the state.

Verniero denied knowing of the 1997 statistics at the time and said he
had never instructed anyone to withhold them. He also defended the timing
of the indictment against the troopers, which aides feared could
jeopardize the investigation of the shooting itself. Verniero said he
wanted to take action before the shooting's one-year anniversary because
the public was losing confidence in the attorney general's office and the
state police. ``It was a time in my office where credibility was an
issue. The public had lost faith in the police's ability to police
itself,'' Verniero said.

Verniero's report and indictments against the troopers were released just
after then-Gov. Christie Whitman nominated him to the state Supreme

Whitman, now the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has said
Verniero did ``nothing wrong'' in his handling of racial profiling
allegations but that she and Verniero were slow to realize profiling was
a problem. (AP, March 28, 2001)

TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: LA School Employees' Retirement Files Securities Suit
The following is an announcement by the law firm of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP:

Pursuant to Section 15 U.S.C. 77z-1(a)(3)(A), the Louisiana School
Employees' Retirement System (the "LSERS"), through Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLBG"), hereby gives notice that on March 28,
2001 LSERS filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California a class action lawsuit against Turnstone Systems
Inc. ("Turnstone"), certain of its officers and/or directors, and the
underwriters for Turnstone's secondary public offering, as defined below.
Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, brings
this action against defendants for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The class includes all persons or entities who acquired Turnstone common
stock in Turnstone's secondary public offering ("Secondary Offering")
pursuant to a registration statement and prospectus filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") and declared effective on
September 21, 2000 ("Registration Statement/Prospectus"). Excluded from
the Class are defendants, officers and directors of the corporate
defendant, and predecessors, successors, assigns or affiliates of any
such excluded party.

The Complaint alleges that defendants made certain false and misleading
statements in Turnstone's Registration Statement/Prospectus.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement/Prospectus misrepresented the reliability, efficiency and
accuracy of Turnstone's flagship product, the CX100, by concealing the
CX100's operating problems. The Complaint further alleges that the
Registration Statement/Prospectus misrepresented that there was only a
future "risk" that the financial condition of its customers may
deteriorate and that its customers may have difficulty obtaining vendor
financing. In truth, at the time of the Secondary Offering, the Complaint
alleges that the financial condition of Turnstone's customers had already
deteriorated and vendor financing had already been substantially

LSERS is a public pension fund system organized for the benefit of the
current and retired public school employees of the State of Louisiana.
LSERS is represented by BLBG, which maintains offices in New York, New
Jersey and California.

Contact: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, San Diego Blair A.
Nicholas, 858/793-0070

U OF MI: CNN Coverage; Is Affirmative Action in Education Dead?
(Broadcast on the Cable News Network on March 28, 2001)

Guests: John Payton, Godfrey Dillard, Curt Levey

Byline: Roger Cossack

Highlight: John Payton, lead trial counsel for the University of
Michigan; Godfrey Dillard, counsel for minority interveners; and Curt
Levey of the Center for Individual Rights discuss a federal judge's
ruling that the University of Michigan Law School's policy of using
racial preferences in admissions decisions is a violation of the 1964
Civil Rights Act.

    ROGER COSSACK, HOST: Today on BURDEN OF PROOF, is affirmative action
in education dead? A federal judge says the University of Michigan has
been violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act and orders its law school to
stop considering race in its admissions.


    MIRANDA MASSIE, ATTORNEY: Black, Latino, and Native American students
have faced a baseless and racist stigma of intellectual inferiority since
the dawn of this nation. Now affirmative action has helped to break down
those disgusting and backward and unacceptable ideas.



beyond even what we had hoped for. Not only did he say that diversity
could not justify racial preferences, but he said that even if it did,
the law school's racial preferences would still be unconstitutional.


    ANNOUNCER: This is BURDEN OF PROOF with Greta Van Susteren and Roger

    COSSACK: Hello, and welcome to BURDEN OF PROOF.

Yesterday in Detroit, a U.S. District Court judge ordered the University
of Michigan's law school to stop using race as a factor in its admissions
decisions. But that ruling conflicts with an earlier court decision.

Judge Bernard A. Friedman concluded that the practice violated Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that using race as a justification
for admissions decisions is not a compelling state interest. Michigan's
law school policy was adopted nine years ago, and is designed to increase
minority enrollment for the purpose of better education for all students.

But a white woman who applied to the school sued, claiming her
application was rejected because the university gave preferences to
minority applicants. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

discriminated against because there was different criteria applied to my
application in the admission process than was applied to members of
another race.


    COSSACK: Tuesday's law school ruling conflicts with another federal
judge's ruling last December, which applies to the University of
Michigan's undergraduate admissions practices. Joining us today from
Detroit is Godfrey Dillard, who is the counsel for Minority Interveners
in these cases. Here in Washington: Jackie Brown, John Payton, who was
the lead trial counsel for the University of Michigan, and Curt Levey,
director of legal and public affairs at the center for individual rights.

And in the back: Eileen Ayala (ph) and Steven Bentz (ph).

John, I want to start right with you. The judge yesterday said that
there's been a long and tragic history of race discrimination in this
country. But he went on to say that even if the law school's goal of
achieving a racially diverse student body is not compelling state
interest, and even if it were, the school has not narrowly tailored its
use of race to achieve the goal.

What exactly does that mean for affirmative action? It seems to me that
what this judge is saying is the Bakke decision, which was the prior
decision, says that race can be a factor, but you can't set up quotas.
And I think what he said was the University of Michigan law school set up

what he said was he disagrees with the Bakke decision. And he finds that
it has no controlling legal significance for the purposes of how he
viewed this case. We think he's simply plainly wrong.

The other judge you mentioned, Judge Duggan, ruled in the undergraduate
case found Bakke to have continuing validity, and upheld essentially the
exact same arguments that we made.

We do exactly what the Bakke court said was authorized when it cited the
Harvard University admissions policy. We cannot be distinguished from
that. If Judge Friedman is wrong about Bakke, he's wrong about how we
came out in this case.

The surprising thing is that we are increasingly a vastly diverse
country, more diverse than we have ever been before. And now we are
conscious of it. And as we are becoming so diverse, how strange to now
have so much resistance to having diverse student bodies where everyone
agrees, both judges, even the plaintiffs, even Mr. Levey, that having a
racially and ethnically diverse student body has tremendous educational
value. COSSACK: I don't think, John, that anyone is going to argue that
point with you. I think the argument, if I might -- and I will turn to
Mr. Levey to let him speak for himself. But I think the argument will be
from the other side is how do you do this in a constitutional way that
doesn't violate the constitution?

And I think that the notion of achieving diversity is high goal. The
question how you do it constitutionally I think is perhaps where the
center has an issue.

Go ahead, Curt.

    LEVEY: Exactly. The Supreme Court has really only okayed one
compelling interest that justifies racial preferences. And that's
remedying your own past discrimination. There was only one out of nine
justices in Bakke that talked about diversity. Four more justices joined
parts of his opinion but explicitly didn't join the Bakke talk about

So you don't are the Supreme Court in Bakke upholding the diversity
rationale. You have one justice. And that's why Judge Friedman in this
case did not consider the one justice's opinion binding.

The reason that we don't allow many different compelling interests to
justify racial preferences is because we want to in this country have a
very high barrier to racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is so
hostile to the American way that we want to make it extremely difficult.

And if we start saying that every laudable goal you can come up with is a
justification for racial discrimination, we have weakened that barrier.
And we are hurting all Americans, especially minorities.

    COSSACK: Godfrey, I want to turn to you and ask you your position on
this. Let me give you a hypothetical. I don't think there's anyone who is
going to argue that the notion of being inclusive in this country and
giving all people more of an opportunity is a bad idea. The question now
becomes how do you do this and get over the constitutional barrier?

representing minorities, we have a different position. We take the
position that the race-based admission program at the University of
Michigan is constitutionally based on the fact there's a history of
discrimination at the university, and that there's present and ongoing
discrimination at the university.

We believe that the admission program at the University of Michigan is
relatively a mild program. It provides some incentives to ensure that
there's adequate numbers of minorities in the university.

One of the problems in this particular case is that there's quite a few
white preferences at the University of Michigan, which there's no focus
on. It is our opinion that these white preferences need to be looked at
as well.

The simple fact focusing in on so-called black incentives to the
exclusion of the white incentives at the university is misplaced. For
example, we did a study on the undergraduate case. And if you use our
opponent's classic argument that the most objective way to evaluate a
student is grade point average and standardized test scores, our
regression analysis showed that over 42 percent of the students who got
in at the University of Michigan with a lesser grade point standardized
test score than the plaintiff were in fact white.

And the reason why that happened, that was close to 1,400 white students
got in with a lesser grade point, standardized test score. So the reason
why the plaintiff got in was not because they gave some points to
minorities even regardless of the point to minorities...

    COSSACK: Godfrey, let me just -- to sum up, what your position would
be, if I could, is that you would say that in fact your argument is
correct because under Bakke you are redressing existing discrimination
that is going on at the university right now rather than perhaps the
argument that it's just better to have diversified students.

    DILLARD: Well, no, our argument is on a distinct constitutional
basis, namely the eradication of discrimination. I think Mr. Levey made
reference to that. But that is clearly a recognized compelling state
interest in our law.

And what we are arguing is not that we object to the argument of
diversity, but we're also arguing that this race-based program at
Michigan is constitutionally based because there's discrimination at the
University of Michigan.

   COSSACK: All right. Let's take a break.

When we come back, let's find out what evidence was presented to the
judge to convince him one way or the other that in fact diversity is
necessary in the University of Michigan or in fact discrimination now
exists. Stay with us.


    COSSACK: We are back. And we are discussing affirmative action.
Yesterday, a court in Detroit held that the affirmative action policy at
the University of Michigan Law School was unconstitutional.

John, I think all of us have now laid out our positions in this case. I
think it's now time to get to a little response. I know you were waiting
to talk to what Curt had to say. Please go ahead.

    PAYTON: You know, they're arguing about what Bakke means. We will
argue about that in the 6th Circuit. And I think everyone appreciated
that both of these cases weren't going to stop at the District Court.
They're going to end up in the 6th circuit, maybe in the Supreme Court.

But I can say this with complete certainty. When Bakke came down in 1978,
every college and university that reviewed that opinion quickly came to
the conclusion that it authorized the Harvard plan. And that's why
hundreds and hundreds of colleges and law schools in fact took Bakke to
mean that diversity in the student body was a compelling educational
interest that justified taking race into account.

We have a key that have filed friend of the court briefs on behalf of
hundreds and hundreds of law schools and colleges. I don't think there's
any question what Bakke was understood to mean 23 years ago. Bakke...

    LEVEY: But the judge said you don't even comply with that. The judge
said even if Powell was right, you're still not narrowly tailored what
you have at the law school is virtually a quota, he said. And you didn't
even look at less discriminatory alternatives to achieving diversity.

    PAYTON: He's wrong about both those things. His reasoning goes
something like this. Because we use race to achieve a critical mass of
minority students in our student body, which is exactly what Bakke says
you can do, but because we use race to get a critical mass, that
constitutes a quota.

That simply can't be right if Bakke is still the law. Bakke is still the
law. No one has ever shown us any aspect of our admissions policy at the
law school that differs in any material way from the Harvard plan that
was authorized in the Bakke opinion.

    LEVEY: The judge showed you yesterday.

    PAYTON: No, he didn't, actually.

    COSSACK: What did the judge say then?

    PAYTON: The judge said that there were a number of reasons why their
plan does not follow the type of plan that Justice Powell talked about.

    COSSACK: Let's stop for one second and just let me get -- so I can
tell our viewers about 10 seconds worth of what the Harvard plan is. The
Harvard plan is when the admissions officer and several other members of
the law school sit around and have a long discussion regarding each
individual applicant, not only what the race may be, but what this
applicant may add to the student body, and takes it on in a case by case
basis. That's the Harvard plan.

Now what was wrong with what you said...


    PAYTON: We, in fact, make decisions, folder by folder, whole student
by whole student. We take race and a whole range of other factors into

    COSSACK: Let me just ask you this. If in fact that's true, is that
what Bakke stands for, that if you follow the Harvard plan you are OK?

    LEVEY: No, that's what Justice Powell's opinion stands for. And John
is right. We can argue about whether Justice Powell's decision should or
should not be considered the holding of the court. We believe since it
was only one justice it shouldn't be.

But the important thing in this case is...

    COSSACK: Godfrey, I'm going to give you a chance in a second.

    LEVEY: ... Again, the important thing here, as Judge Friedman said,
they don't -- they're not aimed at achieving a broad type of diversity
like Powell talked about. They're aimed at achieving a balancing of skin
colors. And they have a quota. They aim for between 11 and 17 percent of

And they did not even bother to look at the many other ways to achieve
diversity, such as aggressive recruiting, such as basing preferences on
socioeconomic disadvantages.

    COSSACK: All right, let me give Godfrey a chance to get in here.
Godfrey, go ahead.

    DILLARD: Well, Roger, as you can see, there's quite a bit of debate
over the constitutionality of diversity. We in minority community,
however, would like to focus in on long tested and established
constitutional basis for race-based remedy, namely the existence of

We believe in both of these cases if you look at them together we put on
a very strong case for discrimination. We've documented historically the
over 100-year history exclusion of people of color from the University of
Michigan. We have documented evidence present discrimination on the
campus. We've had incidents where minority students are required to wear
name bands for variety of social events on bogus terms.

    COSSACK: Godfrey, I'm going to agree with you and ask you this
question. Assuming what you are saying is 100 percent right, can you
remedy the situation under the way the University of Michigan attempted
to remedy it and not get into this notion of they're establishing a quota
to remedy the situation, which may not be constitutional?

    DILLARD: Well, I would like for them to eliminate white-based
preferences in the admission program. I think that's where we need to
stop. We need to stop giving preferences for nonacademic bases.

For example, they give points for alumni. They give points for select and
highly sophisticated high schools. They give points for geography. All of
these various different preferences that they give are basically to
benefit white students.

    COSSACK: But wait a minute. They points for athletes. They give
points for children of alumni. They give points for socioeconomic
situations. It would seem to me that cuts across the board.

    DILLARD: Well, if we want equal opportunity for all, we can't
collectively eliminate some preferences and leave the other preferences
create a situation...


    PAYTON: The argument we only care about racial diversify, which is
what you said, is simply incorrect. Our policy is published. It's
written. You can read it. We seek all sorts of viewpoint diversity,
experiential diversity, what people are interested in doing, where they
come from, socioeconomic status, all kinds. And that general policy in
favor of diversity has as a second part we also are interested in racial
and ethnic diversity.

So let's say it right. We have a very broad-based policy that seeks
diversity across the board in all sorts of ways just like Harvard plan.

    COSSACK: Curt, I'm being told to take a break.

    LEVEY: OK.

    COSSACK: If you will hold that thought, I promise I will get right
back to you.

When we come back, achieving diversity through the admissions office.
Stay with us.


    COSSACK: We're back trying to discuss the University of Michigan and
affirmative action and what happened yesterday in the district court.

Curt, I want to give you the opportunity now to respond.

    LEVEY: Yes. I think it is important to respond to John's point about
what type of diversity we are talking about. Even if I were to concede
that Powell's opinion is the governing law, Powell was talking about a
broad type of diversity, of which, yes, race can be one factor. But he
said if what you are trying to do is racial balancing, that is blatantly

They are looking for critical mass of 11 to 17 percent minorities. That's
racial balancing. They're trying to get the right balance skin color.

Now they will claim that if you get right balance of skin colors, you get
the right balance of viewpoints in the classroom. But I think that it's
very demeaning to minorities to say that all black people have certain
viewpoint or all Hispanic people have a certain viewpoint.


    PAYTON: The Bakke case and Harvard plan clearly says you need to have
critical mass. Otherwise, you have tokenism.

The problem with tokenism is that it is isolating for the minority
students. But it also means they end up being representatives of their
race. And what you just did happens to them, that you say gee, all
minorities have the same thoughts. When you have a critical...


    PAYTON: ... mass of minority students, in fact, you have enough so
that everyone else can see that there's a diversity of views among the
minority students...

    COSSACK: John, don't you...

    PAYTON: ... And that breaks down stereotypes.

    COSSACK: ... John, don't you run into problems, though, when you
start using his words, Curt's words, of critical mass because...

    PAYTON: It's my word.

    COSSACK: ... well, doesn't critical mass sound like quota?

    PAYTON: No.

    COSSACK: OK, why not?

    PAYTON: In fact, we get criticized because when asked, "Gee, what's
the percentage that constitutes a critical mass?" we say, as the Harvard
plan says, that you can't tell that. It's not a fixed number. It's not
even a fixed range. This 11 to 17 percent, we have no such 11 to 17

    LEVEY: Judge Friedman looked at the evidence and said that's clearly
the range.

    PAYTON: Judge Friedman looked at the evidence and simply said, "Gee,
it looks to me like it's 11 to 17 percent. What's the conclusion from
that?" He just looked at what had happened over years. And, in fact,
there is great variation.

Eleven to 17 in fact some years it's below 11. You know, it goes to 17.
It varies all over the place.

    COSSACK: Godfrey, I want to give you a chance to jump in there, and
then I've got a question for you. Go ahead.

    DILLARD: OK, well, Roger, one problems here is this diversity
argument is analyzed in isolation. The reality of the matter is that
discrimination, racial discrimination, is still a plague within in our
society. It's still a cancer within our society.

And you really can't discuss the diversity issue without putting it in
the proper context. And that's one of the things we have been trying to
fight. We've been fighting very difficult to try to get people to focus
in the fact because of the fact of the matter that we are dealing with a
university that although is very favorable to affirmative action, there
is still ongoing discrimination at that university.

And if you focus in on the discrimination aspect of it, then you come to
the conclusion that there must be something done to eradicate this
problem. And that's where we argue that the use of race in a very limited
form and a very minimalist form that the University of Michigan uses
meets constitutional muster under discrimination standards.

    COSSACK: Godfrey, and I just want to get back to what you are saying
because I might agree and do agree that race is a cancer in this country.
But the question I have to put to you as a lawyer is can you solve this
problem constitutionally? I mean, isn't that really the ultimate muster?
And there may be that the constitution may not allow for perhaps the best

    DILLARD: Well, I think one of the ways to look at it is to make sure
we have a real equal and fair system -- is to look at all of the
preferences. There are preferences here that discriminate in favor of
white students. And that is one of the things that we are trying to get
the courts to focus in on.

This is just not a situation where you have black preferences. There are
white preferences. And the fact that you give a preference to alumni,
which is overwhelmingly white, and the fact that you call it an alumni
preference or a legacy preference, does not eliminate the fact that it's
in fact a white racial preference.

    LEVEY: But the constitution does not forbid preferences for alumni or

    DILLARD: Well, well...

    LEVEY: ... They're not subject to strict scrutiny. The reason we
subject race to strict scrutiny is to protect minorities, not to hurt

    DILLARD: ... Well, I certainly don't think you are protecting us in
this particular case, Mr. Levey. But let me say this. My point simply is
that you choose not to call legacy a racial white preference. I do.


    COSSACK: I've got a few seconds left. John, I want to ask a specific
question to you. If you lose this case in the Sixth Circuit, is
affirmative action in the universities a dead letter issue?

    PAYTON: Oh, I think we will go to the Supreme Court. I think both
sides will go to the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court hasn't already...

    COSSACK: What I'm saying is if the Supreme Court don't uphold this, I
mean, if they don't uphold this issue, isn't Bakke over with? PAYTON:
Well, if the Supreme Court says Bakke is not the law, we will abide by
what the Supreme Court says. I think that this is an established

You know, he says that he now agrees that diversity and having a diverse
student body is educational positive thing. That wasn't true very few
years ago. We are learning as we go. We are going to change the way this
is perceived.

    COSSACK: Well, thank you all. I'm afraid I've got to cut you off
because that's all the time we have for today.

Thanks to our guests. Thank you for watching.

Today on "Talkback Live," when your dog attacks, who is responsible? Send
your e-mail to Bobbie Battista and tune in at 3:00 p.m. Eastern time.

And I'll be back tomorrow with another edition of BURDEN OF PROOF. We'll
see you then.

U.S. BANK: Settles Privacy Class Action For 2.9 Million
Last month, U.S. Bank settled federal and state class actions in which
North Dakota customers claimed the bank sold their private account
information to marketing companies. The agreement follows on the heels of
several other multimillion dollar settlements over similar allegations
brought by disgruntled customers and state officials. The latest
settlement involves North Dakota customers who opened checking or credit
card accounts with U.S. Bank before April 1998. (Junkert v. First Bank
National Association, et al., No. 98-01577 (N.D. Dist. Ct. 2/15/01); In
re U.S. Bank Litigation, No. 99-891 (JGL) (D. Minn. 2/16/01).)

The case began in 1998, when North Dakota customers accused U.S. Bank of
selling their personal information, including Social Security numbers,
birth dates, credit limits and homeownership status to marketers. The
marketers allegedly used the information to sell insurance products to
the bank customers.

U.S. Bank account holder Jane Junkert sued the bank in North Dakota state
court, alleging violations of common law claims as well as the North
Dakota Disclosure of Customer Information Act. The complaint sought class
certification and relief. However, the state court eventually dismissed
all of the claims except for the statutory claim. The court held because
Junkert was not "actually injured" by the bank's conduct, she could not
recover compensatory damages. The court then certified, for liability
purposes only, a class of North Dakota customers whose account
information U.S. Bank sold to marketers.

                      Minnesota Action

In the meantime, Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch brought similar
charges against U.S. Bank in Minnesota. The bank settled Hatch's privacy
suit for approximately 3 million and agreed to stop sharing customer
account information with third parties. U.S. Bank later paid 2 million to
settle similar claims brought by 38 other attorneys general (see Consumer
Financial Services Law Report, Oct. 27, 2000, p.2).

Minnesota bank customers also filed several class actions alleging
similar violations. The actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court, District of Minnesota.

In the Minnesota action, U.S. Bank admitted it "shared" customer account
information with marketing companies. The bank also conceded, because it
discarded documents after the "sharing" program ended, that it could not
tell customers which marketers had been given their private account
information. In December 2000, U.S. Bank settled the Minnesota action for
3.5 million (see Consumer Financial Privacy Law Report, Jan. 19, 2001,

                   Settlement Provisions

While the class certification issue was on appeal in the North Dakota
state action, the North Dakota plaintiffs and U.S. Bank settled their
dispute. The settlement agreement "carved out" a subclass from the
Minnesota federal action for North Dakota customers. Under the agreement,
U.S. Bank will mail settlement checks to approximately 53,000 affected
North Dakota account holders. Customers will receive the checks
automatically, without filing claim forms. Checking account customers
will receive 75, and credit card customers will receive 25. Plaintiff's
class counsel, Timothy Q. Purdon of Dickson and Purdon in Bismark, N.D.,
estimates the total payout may amount to 2.9 million. Plaintiffs' lawyers
will also receive 517,000 in fees.

North Dakota District Judge Georgia Dawson approved the settlement in
state court on Feb. 15, 2001. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Lebedoff
approved the settlement in the federal District Court on Feb. 16, 2001.
The parties expect customers will begin receiving their settlement checks
after April 2001.

Timothy Q. Purdon of Dickson and Purdon in Bismark, N.D., represented the
North Dakota plaintiffs. Richard B. Solum of Dorsey & Whitney LLP in
Minneapolis represented U.S. Bank. (Consumer Financial Services Law
Report, March 19, 2001)


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  * * *