---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 18, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 73

                            Headlines

ADVANCED MICRO: Expects Consolidation of Securities Litigation
ALLIED PRODUCTS: Facing Employees' Race Discrimination Claims
ALYDAAR SOFTWARE: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Suit in North Carolina
BORON LEPORE: Cauley & Murphy File Complaint in New Jersey
CARIBINER INTERNATIONAL: Finkelstein & Krinsk File New York Suit

FORD MOTOR: Jury Will Hear About Cover-up to Avoid EPA Fines
GROW BIZ: Proposal Prompts Suit Before Being It's Withdrawn
IRIDIUM WORLD: Berger & Montague File District of Columbia Suit
KOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Transfers to Florida, Dismissal Sought
NETMANAGE INC.: Updates Company and Acquisition Securities Suits

NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Bernstein Liebhard Expands Defrauded Victims
TEXAS: Civil Rights Suit Seeks Share of Tobacco Settlement
VERSANT CORP: Awaiting Decision on Motion to Dismiss
WWII REPARATIONS: German Firms Sued Over Polish Slave Labor


                            *********


ADVANCED MICRO: Expects Consolidation of Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Between March 10, 1999 and April 22, 1999, ADVANCED MICRO
DEVICES INC and certain individual officers of AMD were named as
defendants in the following lawsuits: Arthur S. Feldman v.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Pamela Lee v. Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Izidor Klein v. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., et al.; Nancy P. Steinman v. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., et al.; Robert L. Dworkin v. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., et al.; Howard M. Lasker v. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., et al.; John K. Thompson v. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., et al.; Dan Schwartz v. Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc., et al.; Serena Salamon and Norman Silverberg v. Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; David Wu and Hossein Mizraie v.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Eidman v. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., et al.; Nold v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et
al.; Freeland v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; and
Fradkin v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.

In addition, AMD is aware of the following actions, although AMD
has not been served with the complaints: Ellis Investment Co. v.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.; Dezwareh v. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., et al.; and Tordjman v. Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc., et al.

These class action complaints allege various violations of
federal securities law, including violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Most of the complaints purportedly were filed on
behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased
or otherwise acquired common stock of AMD during the period from
October 6, 1998 to March 8, 1999. Two of the complaints allege a
class period from July 13, 1998 to March 9, 1999. All of the
complaints allege that materially misleading statements and/or
material omissions were made by AMD and certain individual
officers of AMD concerning design and production problems
relating to high-speed versions of the  AMD-K6-2 and AMD-K6-III
microprocessors. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
equitable relief, interest, fees and other litigation costs.

The Company currently expects that these suits will be
consolidated into one action within the next several months. AMD
intends to contest the litigation vigorously.


ALLIED PRODUCTS: Facing Employees' Race Discrimination Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
One case pending against ALLIED PRODUCTS CORP is a race
discrimination class action lawsuit brought by seven plaintiffs
who are current or former employees. The complaint alleges
discrimination with respect to compensation, promotions, job
assignments, discipline and other terms and conditions of
employment. The potential class identified by plaintiffs could
include several hundred current or former employees.

No class certification hearing has been held and no order has
been entered. The Company denies the allegations of the
plaintiffs and is vigorously defending this claim.


ALYDAAR SOFTWARE: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Suit in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit
against ALYDAAR SOFTWARE CORPORATION (NASDAQ: ALYD) and certain
of its officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The suit is
brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Alydaar between November
14, 1997 and April 1, 1999. The complaint charges Alydaar and
certain officers and directors with violations of the securities
laws and regulations of the United States.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
falsely reported Alydaar's financial results and for the first,
second, third and fourth quarters of 1998 and 1998 fiscal year
ended December 31, 1998, causing Alydaar's common stock to trade
at artificially inflated prices. Following defendants'
disclosure that Alydaar would be required to restate its
financial results, the Company's common stock closed at $3-9/16
per share on April 5, 1999 a drop of over 81% from a high of
$19.375 per share. Alydaar's common stock price has not
recovered, and currently trades for less than $4 per share.

To learn more, contact: Jonathan K. Levine, Esq., Stephen M.
Sohmer, Esq., or Donald R. Hall, Esq. at 800-290-1952 or 212-
687-1980 or write lawkkf@aol.com via email.


BORON LEPORE: Cauley & Murphy File Complaint in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. and Bruce G. Murphy,
Attorney at Law filed a class action in United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers
of Boron LePore Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: BLPG) common stock
during the period May 5, 1998 through May 5, 1999. The complaint
charges that Boron LePore and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by making false
statements regarding its financial potential.

According to the complaint, false statements were issued
regarding Boron LePore's earnings and potential for tremendous
growth so that: (a) Boron LePore could raise $47.4 million for
itself and $112 million for certain of its officers and
controlling shareholders in a secondary offering; (b) to enable
certain officers to reap an additional $126 million by selling
an additional 4.6 million shares in the open market between
September 1, 1998 and December 8, 1998; and (c) to permit Boron
LePore to use approximately $5 million worth of its common stock
as an artificially inflated currency to make an acquisition. The
Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants knew their
statements were false and that Defendants' financial 1998
statements had overvalued the assets acquired in the January
1998 acquisition of Decision Point, Inc. by at least $750,000,
and due to organizational changes at Glaxo Wellcome PLC the
Defendants' would lose the enormous Glaxo Wellcome PLC contract
and the huge business it provided to the company. Boron LePore's
stock reached a high of $42 in October of 1998, but as certain
truths about the company were revealed it dramatically fell in
price. Later the stock price was $11-3/16.

To learn more, call Steven E. Cauley or Scott E. Poynter at 888-
551-9944 or write cauleypa@aol.com via email.


CARIBINER INTERNATIONAL: Finkelstein & Krinsk File New York Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York charging
Caribiner International (NYSE:CWC) of misleading and deceiving
its public investors by falsely representing the business impact
and success of at least five (5) acquisitions intended to mask
internal problems and the sale by insiders of millions of
dollars of Caribiner stock. Over a two year period the Company
inflated its stock price by disguising the true impact of
multiple acquisitions it was unprepared to properly supervise
and manage. Once the truth became clear and Caribiner could not
integrate the Company's new holdings, its stock price plummeted
from more than $27.50 to a current price of approximately $6 a
share.

According to the complaint, executives of Caribiner sought to
misrepresent to the investment community its ability to manage
and capably compliment each acquisition, a fact management was
well aware of, but sought instead to communicate a different
picture of events. The complaint, is filed on behalf of all
entities and individuals, particularly institutional investors,
who acquired the securities of Caribiner International between
June 12, 1997 and April 24, 1999.

Caribiner purports to be a leading international producer of
meetings events, training programs and a provider of related
business communication services. It represents to the public an
acumen and expertise in enabling businesses to inform, sell and
train sales forces, dealers, franchise partners and employers.
"We believe certain Caribiner executives knew that they could
not manage the acquisitions as represented and that the value of
the shares were artificially inflated," stated Jeffrey Krinsk of
Finkelstein & Krinsk. "When the facts became clear and the
company had to restructure its operations, it cost shareholders
more than $3.8 million and more than 155 employees were laid
off. Unfortunately shareholders too were forced to suffer as the
stock collapsed; at least one of the defendants has previously
been alleged to have participated in civil racketeering and
deceiving its business participants."

For more information, call Jeffrey R. Krinsk at 877-493-5366 or
write fk@class-action-law.com via email.


FORD MOTOR: Jury Will Hear About Cover-up to Avoid EPA Fines
------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Examiner reports that lawyers suing Ford Motor
Co. will be allowed to present evidence that the automaker
allegedly hid problems with an ignition part to avoid
environmental fines that could have totaled $50 billion. Ford
called the allegations that it had hidden flaws in the module
from environmental officials "unfounded and wildly speculative."

But Alameda County Superior Court Judge Michael Ballachey ruled
Tuesday that plaintiffs' attorneys had gathered enough evidence
of the alleged cover-up to permit them to present the claim to
the jury. According to the San Francisco Examiner, Ballachey
said "There is enough evidence here to allow that," overruling
Ford's motion to bar the information.

The decision came in the largest class-action lawsuit to go to
trial against a U.S. automaker, with opening arguments reset to
May 18. It was another setback for the nation's second-largest
automaker, which has sought to have the case dismissed. The San
Francisco Examiner wrote that the suit claims Ford withheld from
federal highway safety officials and the public information
about defects in its Thick Film Ignition (TFI) module that could
cause potentially dangerous stalling in millions of 1983-1995
cars and trucks. The suit, filed on behalf of past and present
Ford owners in California, seeks more than $3billion in damages.

According to the SF Examiner story, Ford has denied the
allegations and says that although some earlier vehicles had a
flawed module, it offered to fix them in the worst cases and
improved them in later models. While acknowledging the flaws
could make engines quit, Ford claims there was no safety risk.
The TFI module controls current sent to the spark plugs and was
mounted on the engine's distributor. Internal Ford documents
show that some versions of the module were prone to heat
failure. Under federal and state law, ignition modules are
considered to be part of a vehicles emissions system.

The San Francisco Examiner reports that Ballachey's ruling
allows the plaintiffs' attorneys to argue at trial that Ford had
hidden flaws in the module not only from federal highway safety
officials, but also from environmental regulators who had the
power to impose far larger fines. Jeff Fazio, one of the
plaintiffs' lead attorneys, said in a legal brief that Ford
faced a potential $10,000 fine from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for each module that it failed to cover under
a required five-year, 50,000 mile warranty. He alleged that
Ford's internal records showed the company had failed to cover
at least 500,000 modules that owners had replaced at their own
expense, meaning Ford potentially faced a $50 billion fine.
"Ford faced the risk of such a penalty, which provided yet
another powerful motive to conceal the TFI problem," he said in
court papers. The SF Examiner wrote that Ford also failed to
report TFI problems to the EPA and the state Air Resources
Board, he said.

Richard Warmer, one of Ford's attorneys, said in court papers
that the plaintiff's environmental allegations were "hot
rhetoric and colorful visions." Ford denied that it had failed
to honor its warranty obligations and contended it had no duty
to report module problems to environmental officials, Warmer
said in the San Francisco Examiner story. To show that Ford
should have reported the TFI problem to environmental officials,
he argued, the plaintiffs would have to prove it caused
excessive exhaust levels, and they "cannot come close."
"Plaintiff's allegation that Clean Air Act concerns provided a
motive for Ford to conceal TFI module performance issues is . .
. unfounded and wildly speculative," Warmer said in the San
Francisco Examiner report.

But Ballachey concluded the plaintiffs had shown enough evidence
to present the issue at trial. The San Francisco Examiner
reports that the evidence cited by the judge included Ford's
sworn statement earlier in the case that TFI module problems
could cause erratic engine performance, described as bucking and
running rough.


GROW BIZ: Proposal Prompts Suit Before Being It's Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Finance Partners, a shareholder of Grow Biz, commenced a
shareholder class action against GROW BIZ INTERNATIONAL INC and
the members of its Board of Directors, arising out of the non-
binding proposal by Jeff Dahlberg and Ron Olson, officers,
directors and majority shareholders of Grow Biz, to exchange,
through a newly formed entity, all of the shares of Grow Biz
that they do not already own, for $14 per share in cash.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the proposed
price for the shares is substantially below the fair value of
those shares, that the defendants failed to maximize stockholder
value through an adequate auction or market check process, and
that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and
otherwise unfairly dealt with the plaintiff and the other
minority shareholders.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things: (1) injunctive relief
to enjoin any proposed transaction; (2) creation of a committee
of shareholders to help protect the interests of the minority
shareholders in any proposed transaction; and (3) damages in an
unstated amount, pre-judgment interest, and costs and attorneys'
fees incurred in this action. The action was filed in the
Hennepin County, Minnesota District Court.

Grow Biz and the Board of Directors deny the plaintiff's
allegations and intend to defend the action vigorously. The
proposal by Messrs. Dahlberg and Olson was withdrawn May 4,
1999.


IRIDIUM WORLD: Berger & Montague File District of Columbia Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia was filed by Berger & Montague, P.C.,
against Iridium World Communications, Ltd. (Nasdaq: IRID) and
certain officers and directors of the company, and Motorola,
Inc. (NYSE: MOT), its largest shareholder. The lawsuit was filed
on behalf of all purchasers of Iridium securities between
September 9, 1998, and March 29, 1999, inclusive. The Complaint
asserts that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making material
misrepresentations and omissions that caused the Company's stock
to trade at artificially inflated levels.

The Complaint alleges that defendants falsely reported its
ability to begin commercial sales of satellite cellular
telephones it was developing, and withheld important information
from investors regarding software and hardware problems that
made the telephones unreliable. During the same period, Iridium
is alleged to have sold $250 million of its own stock at
inflated prices, and two top officers are alleged to have sold
large amounts of their own Iridium stock.

For more information, call Arthur Stock or Susan Kutcher at 888-
891-2289 or  write investorprotect@bm.net via email.


KOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Transfers to Florida, Dismissal Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 5, 1998, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, against KOS PHARMACEUTICALS INC, the
members of the Company's Board of Directors, certain officers of
the Company, and the underwriters of the Company's October 1997
offering of shares of Common Stock. In its complaint, the
plaintiff asserts, on behalf of itself and a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's Common Stock during the period from
July 29, 1997, through November 13, 1997, claims under: (i)
sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; (ii)
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and (iii) for common law
fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

The claims in the lawsuit relate principally to certain
statements made by the Company, or certain of its
representatives, concerning the efficacy, safety, sales volume
and commercial viability of the Company's NIASPAN product. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and costs, including
attorneys' fees and costs and expenses. Upon motion by the
Company, the case was transferred to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Company and the
individual Kos defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on January 7, 1999.


NETMANAGE INC.: Updates Company and Acquisition Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 9, 1997, a securities class action complaint, Head,
et al. v. NetManage, Inc., et al., No. 07763295, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, against
the Company and certain of its directors and current and former
officers. On January 10, 1997, the same plaintiffs filed a
securities class action complaint, Head, et al. v. NetManage,
Inc., et al., No. C-97-4385-CRB, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, against the same
defendants. Both complaints allege that, between July 25, 1995
and January 11, 1996, the defendants made false or misleading
statements of material fact about the Company's prospects and
failed to follow generally accepted accounting principles. The
state court complaint asserts claims under California state law;
the federal court complaint asserts claims under the federal
securities laws.

On September 10, 1997, a class action substantially similar to
the Head action was filed, Beasley v. NetManage, Inc., et al.,
C-98-1794 CRB (N.D. Cal.), seeking an unspecified amount of
damages. The federal court certified the purported class. On
December 30, 1998, the federal court granted without leave to
amend the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the Head federal action; plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On February 2, 1999, the federal court dismissed with
prejudice the Beasley action pursuant to its order in the Head
action. The Company believes there is no merit to these cases
and intends to defend them vigorously.

On March 21, 1997, a securities class action complaint,
Interactive Data Systems, Inc., et al. v. NetManage, Inc., et
al., No. CV764945, was filed in the Superior Court of
California, Santa Clara County, against the Company and certain
of its directors and officers. On June 19, 1997, one of the
plaintiffs in that action filed a securities class action
complaint, Molinari v. NetManage, Inc., et al., No. C-98-202-
CRB, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the same defendants. Both
complaints allege that, between April 18, 1996 and July 18,
1996, the defendants made false or misleading statements of
material fact about the Company's prospects. The state court
complaint asserts claims under California state law; the federal
complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws. Both
complaints seek an unspecified amount of damages. The federal
court certified the purported class.

On February 26, 1998, the state court entered judgement in favor
of the Company in the state case. Plaintiffs have filed a notice
of appeal as to the Company and have indicated that they will
file an amended complaint as to the individual defendants. On
December 30, 1998, the federal court granted without leave to
amend the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the
Molinari case. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company
believes there is no merit to these cases and intends to defend
these cases vigorously.

On October 10, 1997, a shareholder derivative action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against nine present and former officers and
directors of the Company. Sucher v. Alon et al., No. C-98-203-
CRB. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated various
fiduciary duties to the Company; the Company is named as a
nominal defendant. The complaint was predicated on the factual
allegations contained in the Head and Molinari class action
complaints, and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On
November 6, 1998, the court dismissed the complaint without
leave to amend on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to make
a pre-litigation demand on the Company's board of directors.
Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On November 26, 1997, a complaint was filed against the Company
in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, Shaw, et
al. v. NetManage, Inc., No. 716081. The plaintiffs, former
shareholders of AGE Logic, which the Company acquired in 1995,
allege that the Company and certain of its officers made
misleading statements in connection with the acquisition. The
complaint asserts causes of action for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, negligence and breach of contract, and seeks
an unspecified amount of damages. Trial of the case is scheduled
for November 1999. The Company believes there is no merit to the
case and intends to defend the case vigorously.

On March 14, 1996, a securities class action complaint, Greebel
v. FTP Software, Inc., et al., No. 96-10544, was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against FTP and certain of its former officers and directors.
The complaint alleged that between July 14, 1995 and January 3,
1996, defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements of material fact about FTP's
prospects. NetManage acquired FTP in August 1998. On September
24, 1998, the court granted defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment and granted without leave to amend defendants'
renewed motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal. FTP believes that there is no merit to this
case and intends to defend the case vigorously.

In February 1996, a securities class action complaint, Zeid, et
al. v. Kimberley, et al., Case No. C-96-20136SW, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Firefox Communications Inc. ("Firefox") and
certain of its former officers and directors. FTP acquired
Firefox in July 1996. The complaint alleged that, between July
20, 1995 and January 2, 1996, the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements
about Firefox's operations and financial results. On May 8,
1997, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss without
leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Oral
argument on the appeal was held on September 14, 1998. No
decision has been rendered by the court of appeals as of May 12,
1999. Firefox believes that there is no merit to the case and
intends to defend the case vigorously.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Bernstein Liebhard Expands Defrauded Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, which earlier this month
commenced a securities fraud class action lawsuit against
Network Associates, Inc. (NASDAQ: NETA) intends to file an
amended complaint extending the class period. The extended class
period will be January 20, 1998 through April 19, 1999 and will
include those people who purchased Network Associates common
stock or call options or sold put options during the extended
class period.

The complaint charges Network Associates and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
in the Company's public filings and public statements.

For more information, contact Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq., or
Michael S. Egan, Esq., at 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or at
egan@bernlieb.com via email.


TEXAS: Civil Rights Suit Seeks Share of Tobacco Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Texas Southern University law
professors have filed a pair of federal lawsuits against the
state, saying it discriminates against historically black
colleges with a segregated higher education system and with its
funding decisions.

AP says that one suit protests the nearly $1 billion set aside
for medical schools under the settlement of the state's lawsuit
against tobacco companies. "All of the money was allocated to
majority-white institutions," said Grover Hankins, a lawyer and
Texas Southern law professor. "None of it was allocated to Texas
Southern, Prairie View or the other nine historically black
colleges and universities. "Basically, we want a share of the
funds, and we want a substantial share," he told Associated
Press.

Only health, medical and science-related institutions with
graduate and research programs received endowments. The suit
seeks to block allocation of $956 million to those universities,
according to AP.

The class-action lawsuit names as plaintiffs Texas Southern
students, former students and residents who live near the
college. Associated Press reports that the complaint says the
state violated part of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits
entities receiving federal dollars from discriminating against
racial or ethnic groups.

The second lawsuit alleges Texas maintains a largely segregated
higher education system for whites and blacks. According to AP,
the suit is similar to the 1992 case in which the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled Mississippi had maintained separate higher education
systems, a violation of civil rights laws.

The Associated Press reports that a spokesman for state Attorney
General John Cornyn declined to comment.


VERSANT CORP: Awaiting Decision on Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------
VERSANT CORP and certain of its present and former officers and
directors were named as defendants in four class action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, filed on January 26, 1998, February 5,
1998, March 11, 1998 and March 18, 1998, respectively. On June
19, 1998, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the
above mentioned court, by the lead Plaintiff named by the court.
The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities
Exchange Act, in connection with public statements about the
Company's expected financial performance. The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages.

The Company vigorously denies the plaintiffs' claims and has
moved to dismiss the allegations. The Plaintiff has filed a
response to the Company's motion to dismiss and the Company has
filed an opposition to Plaintiff's response. The motion to
dismiss was submitted to the court for consideration on November
13, 1998 and the court has not yet issued a decision.


WWII REPARATIONS: German Firms Sued Over Polish Slave Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Xinhua English Newswire reports that Germany's Dresdner Bank
has faced a class action on behalf of some 22,000 Poles who had
been forced into slave labor by the Nazis during World War II.
Attorney Dieter Wissgott has filed 2,700 charges against the
bank, which he said was one of the dominant financing banks
during the Nazi era from 1933 to 1945. The suit, filed at the
state court in the German financial hub of Frankfurt, also
targets other 34 major German firms including BMW, Daimler
Chrysler, Siemens, Osram, Krupp and IG Farben. The suit seeks a
total compensation of 5.4 billion U.S. marks (2.9 billion U.S.
dollars).

According to The Xinhua English Newswire, Dresdner Bank refuses
to admit its links with the German Nazi Party and repeatedly
stressed that nowadays Dresdner Bank has nothing to do with the
bank bearing the same name back in Nazi days.

The Xinhua English Newswire quotes Wissgott as saying the bank's
response was a naked mock toward those mistreated and enslaved.
Noting that the Polish victims already reached an average age of
78 years old, Wissgott urged the issue to be solved as soon as
possible. He also urged the concerning companies to set up a
compensation fund.

During World War II, hundreds of thousands of Jews and people
from east European countries had been inmates in Nazi German
concentration camps and had been forced into labor for German
firms. The Xinhua English Newswire notes that the victims never
stopped their efforts to demand a compensation ever since the
end of the war. In August last year, a group of American Jews
already filed a similar suit against the German firms.



                            *********

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. Peter A. Chapman, Editor.

Copyright 1999. All rights reserved. ISSN XXXX-XXXX.

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  * * *