---

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

               Monday, October 4, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 169

                                 Headlines

AETNA U.S.: May Appeal To Sp Ct Liability Ruling By 3rd Cir In Phil.
AMERICAN ACCESS: Kazlow & Kazlow Files Securities Suit In New York
AMPLIDYNE INC: Berman, DeValerio Files Securities Suit In New Jersey
CANDIES INC: Faces Securities Suit In NY; SEC Makes Investigations
CENTURY BUSINESS: Finkelstein, Thompson Files Securities Suit In Ohio

COCA-COLA: Says Plaintiffs’ Accusations Of Document Shredding Malicious
FEN-PHEN: Floridians Spurn Deal And Keep State Suit; Others May Settle
FEN-PHEN: The Legal Intelligencer Says Ct Rejects $ 100 Mil Settlement
HEALTH INSURERS: Shares Fall On Threat Of Managed-Care Patients’ Suits
HMOs: Cable News Network Coverage On Potential Suits

HMOs: Shares Fall On Threat Of Lawsuits To Force Companies To Improve
HMOs: Slew of Suits Expected To Test Law; Tobacco Lawyers Are Ready
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Claims for Compensation Take Twists and Turns
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Swiss Fund Has More Money Than Applications
HUMANA INC: Ct Preliminarily Oks Health Insurance Settlement

KEYSTONE FINANCIAL: 3rd Cir Oks Dismissal Of RICO Claims Barred By PSLRA
MONTROSE GENERAL: Botched Vasectomy Victim Gets Record Award In Phil.
QUINTILES TRANSACTIONAL: Milberg Files Securities Suit In N. Carolina
QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit
QUORUM HEALTH: Contests Securities Suit In Tenn. Re Medicare Violations

QUORUM HEALTH: May Try To Settle Shareholder Derivative Suit In Tenn.
SUN CO.: Penn Ct Certifies Class Of Holders Of Depositary Shares
SUN COMPANY: Penn Super Ct Oks Class On Fraud & False Ad Under UTPCPL
TOBACCO LITIGATION: CA Judge Consolidates More Union Health Fund Suits
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal Of Suit By Funds

UNUMProvident Corp: Bull & Lifshitz File Securities Suit In Maine
UNUMProvident Corp: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit In Maine
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Fund Will Be Established To Settle Pre-Merger Suit
WYETH LAB: Can’t Apply Learned Intermediary Doctrine To Norplant In NJ
WYNDHAM INT’L: Settles For Del. Suit Re Investment & Restructuring

* Congress Will Act On A Series Of Proposed Health-Care Reforms

                             *********

AETNA U.S.: May Appeal To Sp Ct Liability Ruling By 3rd Cir In Phil.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna U.S. Healthcare is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court
following a federal appellate court ruling that federal law does not
exempt health maintenance organizations from medical malpractice claims.

In returning the case to state court, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Philadelphia concluded in its Sept. 16 decision that issues
raised by the plaintiff regarding the quality of care provided by the
health care plan are not automatically pre-empted by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The case was brought against U.S. Healthcare Inc. by Steven and Michelle
Bauman, whose newborn daughter, Michelina, died in 1995 from an
untreated strep infection the day after she was discharged from the
hospital. Among other charges, the Baumans said the HMO's 24-hour
precertified discharge policy was a factor in the baby's death and that
she ''did not receive timely diagnosis and treatment of the deadly
infection.'' (Business Insurance 9-27-1999)


AMERICAN ACCESS: Kazlow & Kazlow Files Securities Suit In New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued by the law firm of Kazlow & Kazlow:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a class action has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by
shareholders of American Access Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: AATK) on
behalf of all purchasers of American Access common stock during the
period of July 1998 through August 1999.

The Complaint charges that American Access and certain of its officers
and directors, and Capital International Securities Group, a
Florida-based securities brokerage house, and certain of its investment
consultants and officers conspired together, and agreed to artificially
inflate the price of American Access stock so that they could sell their
personal holdings at a large profit. Members of the proposed class
subsequently suffered substantial losses when the stock's price fell
precipitously.

During the Class Period, the defendants drove up the price of American
Access stock from $7-1/5 to $22-1/5 by, among other things:

a) having Capital execute unauthorized trades in which various stocks
   held in the accounts of certain class members were sold, and blocks
   of American Access stock were purchased in their place;
b) having Capital purchase additional blocks of American Access stock
   on margin for the accounts of certain class members without their
   consent;
c) having Capital fail to execute orders by certain class members to
   sell their shares of American Access stock; and
d) inducing the purchases of American Access stock by other class
   members through false or misleading representations concerning the
   corporation's business prospects, such misrepresentations being
   communicated by means of the United States mails and interstate
   wires.

While the price of the stock of American Access was artificially
inflated, the defendants sold substantially all of their own holdings of
American Access stock at a profit of millions of dollars. Subsequently,
when the price of the stock began to fall, in August 1999, defendants
caused Capital to liquidate the American Access holdings of certain
class members in response to margin calls. This accelerated the decline
of the stock's price, which plummeted from $16 back to $7-1/2 from
August 19, 1999 to August 20, 1999. As a result, the class members
suffered substantial losses.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Kazlow & Kazlow. If you
are a member of the proposed class, you may, not later than 60 days from
today, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class. In order
to serve as lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements.
Contact plaintiffs' counsel, Gene Kazlow, Victor Worms or Natalia
Gourari, of Kazlow & Kazlow, at 800-772-9870 or 212-947-2900.


AMPLIDYNE INC: Berman, DeValerio Files Securities Suit In New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP issues the following press release:

Amplidyne, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: AMPD) was charged with misleading
investors in a securities class action with respect to the financial
condition and business prospects of the Company. The case was filed as a
class action in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on October 1, 1999 on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the common stock of Amplidyne during the period September 9,
1999 through and including September 14, 1999 and who suffered losses on
their investments.

The action charges that Amplidyne and its President and Chief Executive
Officer issued materially false and misleading financial statements
during the Class Period. In particular, it charges that Amplidyne
provided false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the
present and future financial condition and business prospects of the
Company particularly involving the development of a new set of products
to offer high speed wireless internet access. As a result of these
misrepresentations and omissions, the price of Amplidyne's common stock
was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

If you purchased Amplidyne common stock during the period of September
9, 1999 through September 14, 1999, and suffered a loss on your
investment, you may wish to contact the lawyers at Berman DeValerio to
discuss your rights and interests:

Norman Berman, Esq.
Alicia Duff, Esq.
Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP
One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109
E-Mail: bdplaw@bermanesq.com.
(800) 516-9926 You can also visit website at http://www.bermanesq.com

In addition, under the federal securities laws you may, but not later
than sixty days from September 14, 1999, move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Class, if you so choose. To serve as lead plaintiff,
however, you must meet certain legal requirements. You may contact the
attorneys at Berman DeValerio & Pease LLP to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff.


CANDIES INC: Faces Securities Suit In NY; SEC Makes Investigations
------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 17, 1999, a purported stockholder class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors which together with certain other complaints
subsequently filed in the same court alleging similar violations were
consolidated in one lawsuit, Willow Creek Capital Partners L.P., v.
Candie's, Inc. A consolidated complaint was served on the Company on or
about August 24, 1999. The consolidated complaint includes claims under
sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sections 10(b)
and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of the Company between May 28, 1997 and May 12, 1999, and
alleges that the plaintiffs were damaged by reason of the Company's
having issued materially false and misleading financial statements for
Fiscal 1998 and the first three quarters of Fiscal 1999, which caused
the Company's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. An
unfavorable resolution of this action could have a material adverse
effect on the business, results of operations, financial condition or
cash flows of the Company.

On August 4, 1999, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission
advised the Company that it had commenced a formal investigation into
the Company's actions in connection with certain accounting issues and
transactions.


CENTURY BUSINESS: Finkelstein, Thompson Files Securities Suit In Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran hereby gives notice that a Class Action
Complaint was filed yesterday against CENTURY BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.
(Nasdaq: CBIZ) and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The suit is
brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Century between February 6, 1998 and
November 23, 1998, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Century and certain officers and directors with
violating federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements about the Company's true acquisition costs, revenue run rates
and goodwill amortization periods, and the effects these adverse
undisclosed conditions would ultimately have on Century's operations,
liquidity, and stock price. When the truth about the Company was
revealed, the stock price fell sharply.

Plaintiff is represented by Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran. If you are
a member of the Class, you may move the court, no later than 60 days
from September 17, 1999 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class. In
order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal
requirements. Contact Vincent Renzi, Esq., with Finkelstein, Thompson &
Loughran, toll free at (888) 333-4409, or at (202) 337-8000 or by e-mail
at VDR@FTLLAW.com


COCA-COLA: Says Plaintiffs’ Accusations Of Document Shredding Malicious
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in a racial discrimination
suit irresponsibly accused Coca-Cola of shredding documents and should
be punished by the court, the company said last Thursday.

While the company said that employees once discussed the possibility of
using shredders in a data collection room, Coca-Cola said the idea was
"immediately vetoed" and it has never shredded any documents.

"Plaintiffs' latest motion is at best reckless and disingenuous, and at
worst a deliberate attempt to mislead the court and manipulate public
opinion through demonstrably false and inflammatory allegations,"
Coca-Cola said in its formal challenge to the plaintiffs' accusations.

In a stinging 35-page brief, the Atlanta-based beverage company
repeatedly condemned the plaintiffs' attorneys, saying they are
"apparently unconstrained by any obligation even to attempt to verify"
the facts.

But Cyrus Mehri, one of the plaintiffs' lead attorneys, discounted the
company's response.

"This defense is the equivalent of I smoked pot but didn't inhale,'"
Mehri said. He added that the plaintiffs will now file a formal reply to
the company's statements.

Two weeks ago, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a motion alleging that
Coca-Cola shredded documents and should be punished by U.S. District
Court Judge Richard Story for making misleading statements about it.

The plaintiffs said affidavits and pre-trial depositions showed that
employees asked that shredders be placed in a special room that was set
up by the company to collect employment documents and data for the suit.

Plaintiffs' attorneys also alleged that eyewitnesses have seen shredders
in the room and that a custodian has removed bags of shredded material
left outside the room.

In its brief, Coca-Cola said that on May 26 its employees discussed
putting shredders in the data collection room. But, the company said,
"the idea of using shredders was immediately vetoed. Coca-Cola instead
decided to use two confidential refuse bins for any miscopies or extra
copies of confidential documents. ... Moreover, all trash created during
the data collection process, other than personal trash such as used food
containers and coffee cups, still exists in the confidential refuse bins
... No documents or data have been shredded, discarded or otherwise
destroyed."

Coca-Cola said the one person who said he saw two shredders in the room
has been contradicted by 17 other eyewitnesses. While the company denies
the existence of any shredder in its data collection room, one of its
attorneys said he purchased a shredder for his office. "I did so because
I knew there would be a large volume of confidential, legally privileged
documentation generated by this litigation that I would want to
discard," company attorney Robert Boas said in an affidavit. Boas said
he was concerned about employees who were potential "litigation
opponents" gaining access to his office, where he kept internal strategy
memos on the case. "At no time since I purchased a paper shredder for my
office have I (or anyone else at my direction) used it to dispose of any
documentation to which plaintiffs in this litigation would even arguably
be entitled," Boas said.

The company said the plaintiffs' attorneys have failed to conduct a
reasonable investigation before making their "malicious accusations." It
called the plaintiffs' motion a "calculated effort to damage the
goodwill and good name of the Coca-Cola Co. in their continuing effort
to coerce a settlement." In its brief, Coca-Cola asked the judge to
punish the plaintiffs' attorneys "for actions that are not only abusive
and reprehensible, but an affront to the judicial system itself."

The lawsuit was filed in April by four current and former employees. It
alleges that Coca-Cola has discriminated against African-American
employees in pay, promotions and performance evaluations. The plaintiffs
are seeking class-action status so they can represent 1,500 other black
salaried employees in the United States.

The company has strongly denied the suit's allegations. (The Atlanta
Journal and Constitution 10-1-1999)


FEN-PHEN: Floridians Spurn Deal And Keep State Suit; Others May Settle
----------------------------------------------------------------------
American Home Products is preparing a multibillion dollar settlement to
resolve a majority of the lawsuits the company faces over its diet
drugs, commonly called fen-phen.

But don’t expect the more than 3,000 Florida residents who are part of a
pair of class action suits to be part of the deal. Instead, they will
pursue their claims in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, according to one of the
Miami attorneys who represents them.

They’re trying to suck up every case, said Ervin Gonzalez of Miamis
Robles & Gonzalez. They’ve suggested $ 4 billion to settle lawsuits
brought by individuals who took fen-phen across the country.

More than 6 million people in the United States took the diet drugs
Pondimin and Redux, known as fen-phen when taken together. Many claimed
they suffered heart valve damage, hypertension or developed various
pulmonary diseases.

In 1997, Gonzalez, Coral Gables solo practitioner Diane Mason and the
Miami firm Leeds & Colby filed a pair of Florida class actions in the
Miami court against American Home Products and Zenith-Goldline.

One suit is designed to serve people who sustained injuries. The other
is aimed at monitoring the conditions of people who took the drug but
who are still healthy.

The proposed global settlement is aimed at resolving federal
multidistrict litigation overseen by U.S. District Judge Louis Bechtle
in Philadelphia. It would cover only those cases involving heart-valve
damage. More than 1,000 Florida residents, who are not in the state
cases, are part of that group. Under the deal, up to $ 2.8 billion would
be set aside for people who sustained injuries. The balance would fund
medical monitoring for people who took the drugs and have not shown any
signs of damage.

Gonzalez insists his clients would fare better in state court. If you’re
being treated en masse with thousands of individuals in one federal
court docket, there is no way you could get the adequate care and
treatment in state court with a jury of your peers and lawyers from your
town, he said. For extremely severe injuries, I never recommend a
group-type settlement. In those instances, cases should be heard
individually, he contends.

If you have a very serious injury, or the need for heart surgery, you
need individual treatment so the jury can decide how much you need for
your case, Gonzalez said.

The Florida state plaintiffs, though, were dealt a setback recently when
Circuit Judge Norman Gerstein dismissed the medical monitoring case,
saying there was no basis for it under Florida law.

Gonzalez appealed to the 3rd District Court of Appeal. We believe the
law allows it, or should allow it, Gonzalez said. The status of the law
is not clearly defined. We are going to create law one way or the other.

Oral arguments on the issue are scheduled for next Tuesday before a
three-judge panel. (Broward Daily Business Review 9-30-1999)


FEN-PHEN: The Legal Intelligencer Says Ct Rejects $ 100 Mil Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has nixed the proposed $ 100 million settlement by one
of the defendants named in the massive fen-phen and Redux diet-drug
litigation, finding that the class action fell short of the strict rules
that govern such "limited fund" settlements.

The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Louis C. Bechtle means that
Interneuron Pharmaceuticals Inc. must continue to defend itself against
a slew of lawsuits in both the state and federal courts. All of those
suits had been put on hold pending the ruling on the proposed
settlement, in which Interneuron had agreed to pay all of its available
insurance money, $ 28 million which it was quickly spending on defense
of the lawsuits along with $ 15 million in cash and a pledge of $ 55
million in royalties that could be converted to stock in the company.

Depending on the success of the company over the next few years, lawyers
said, the deal could ultimately be worth more than $ 120 million. But
Judge Bechtle found that the settlement suffered from several serious
flaws. Although Interneuron claims it will surely spend all of its money
on defending the lawsuits, Bechtle found that the settlement was not
structured as a true "limited fund." "While the court may be presented
with what the parties contend is a hard-fought bargain, the settlement
fund simply does not consist of the whole of Interneuron's assets as is
traditionally required," Bechtle wrote. "That results in the court's
inability to determine whether Interneuron is capable of making a
greater contribution to the class."

Bechtle found that the U.S. Supreme Court recently outlined the
requirements for a class action settlement under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1)(B) in its June 1999 opinion in Ortiz v. Fibreboard
Corp. Since such settlements are mandatory meaning class members cannot
"opt out" to pursue their own litigation Bechtle said the Supreme Court
noted that a defendant is traditionally required to turn over the
entirety of the fund so that the defendant "had no opportunity to
benefit himself ... by holding back on the amount distributed to the
class" and the claimants to that fund were thereby ensured that they
were "given the best deal."In the proposed Interneuron settlement,
Bechtle said, Interneuron would retain a portion of its assets in
exchange for a debt instrument to be borne by the class members. "The
settlement fund is far different from the limited fund of Interneuron's
assets," Bechtle wrote. "Here, the uncertainties in calculating the
value of the fund make it impossible for the court to ascertain whether
the class is receiving the best possible deal, regardless of the
parties' efforts in negotiating the settlement agreement. The fact that
the class would retain a creditor's interest in Interneuron's ongoing
business is alien to the nature of a limited fund under Rule 23."

Bechtle was clearly bothered by the concept of the class plaintiffs
participating in Interneuron's future. "Even if projected in an
optimistic light," he wrote, "[such a plan] is fraught with risk,
including the risks specifically found in Interneuron's industry and the
risks generally found in financial markets as a whole. Those risks are
better shouldered by Wall Street investors than the members of a
compulsory class under Rule 23."

Interneuron's lawyers argued that the settlement was the only way to
keep the company alive and get money to the plaintiffs. Ever since the
fen-phen drugs were pulled from the market, Interneuron has had no drugs
for sale. But it currently has two drugs that are well on their way to
winning FDA approval. Ceraxon, a stroke medication, is in the last
stages of Phase III clinical trials, and Pagaclone, an anti-anxiety
drug, has completed Phase II trials. Settling the fen-phen cases,
Interneuron said, would suddenly put the company in a much more
financially stable condition, and it would be able to raise the money it
needs to take on its future projects.

Plaintiffs' lawyers also urged the court to approve the class
settlement, arguing that it was the best possible deal they could get
since the only other alternative was a bleak one letting Interneuron
spend the rest of its money on litigation costs only to find nothing
left on the day they came to collect.

But there were also numerous objectors, including some of the state and
federal plaintiffs, the other drug manufacturers and health benefits
providers asserting subrogation claims.

Fen-phen is the popular name for a drug cocktail that combines
Fenfluramine with Phentermine. Interneuron developed a third drug,
dexfenfluramine, which came to be known as Redux, and was prescribed
either alone or in combination with Phentermine. The drugs enjoyed
incredible success between 1992 and 1996, quickly becoming the most
popular diet drugs in the United States. In 1996, the year Redux was
approved by the FDA, doctors wrote more than 18 million prescriptions,
accounting for more than $ 360 million in combined sales of the three
drugs.But in September 1997, the FDA requested the withdrawal of
Fenfluramine and Redux from the market after studies suggested possible
heart valve injuries that might have resulted from the drug cocktails. A
wave of lawsuits followed, and all of the federal cases were assigned to
Senior U.S. District Judge Louis C. Bechtle under the Multi-District
Litigation program.

At this point, discovery is nearly complete and waves of cases are about
to be sent back to their forum districts for trial. (Under the federal
MDL program, one judge presides over discovery and possible settlement,
but the cases are sent back to the plaintiff's home jurisdiction if they
must go to trial.)

Lead plaintiffs' attorney Arnold Levin, of Levin Fishbein Sedran &
Berman, argued that Interneuron has already spent nearly 25 percent of
the available $ 40 million in insurance funds on defense costs, and that
"without the imposition of a limited fund class, these policies will be
consumed by litigation costs, rather than payments to injured victims."

But Bechtle found that the proposed class action fell short of the
standards announced by the Supreme Court in Ortiz. The Ortiz court, he
said, held that "the first and most distinctive characteristic of a
limited fund is that the totals of the aggregated liquidated claims and
the fund available for satisfying them, set definitely at their
maximums, demonstrate the inadequacy of the fund to pay all the claims."
But Bechtle found that "the obvious difficulty facing the proposed
[Interneuron] class is that, as in many mass tort limited fund classes,
there are no liquidated claims. Instead, there is only the threat of
pending litigation and related legal obligations. "And since there has
been only one jury verdict rendered to date in a diet drug case and no
"white-knuckle" settlements, Bechtle found there was little evidence on
which to base an estimate of the plaintiffs' damages. "Unlike 'mature'
tort cases, such as the asbestos litigation at issue in Ortiz, the court
has no reasonable method by which to calculate, or even estimate with
comfortable certainty, the potential liability of Interneuron to ... the
class members ... let alone the total value of their claims," Bechtle
wrote.

And the way the proposed settlement was structured was not really a
"limited fund," he found. "The 'fund' of Interneuron assets which the
parties contend is inadequate to satisfy future litigation expenses is
significantly different from the fund which the settlement seeks to
create," Bechtle wrote. "The difficulty in identifying, with any
certainty, the scope of the fund and the total claims against it would
manifest itself in the distribution process. Because the true scope of
the fund is unknown until Interneuron either contributes $ 55 million to
the fund or the seven-year payment time ends, division of the fund by a
pro rata discount method would be difficult, if not impossible, until
the maturation of the debt instrument."

Finally, Bechtle also found the Interneuron settlement could not meet
the third "traditional characteristic" of a limited fund announced in
Ortiz that the claimants identified by a common theory of recovery are
"treated equitably among themselves." Bechtle said he had several
concerns with the proposed settlement when it was evaluated under this
characteristic. "The settlement leaves the resolution of the class
claims to a claims administration system to be created by the court. The
proposed class would consist of all persons who ingested Redux,
regardless of whether they presently have personal injury allegedly
caused by Redux.

Necessarily, there would have to be at least three subclasses, including
one for class members with PPH (Primary Pulmonary Hypertension), another
for those with heart valve injury and a third for those without known
injuries," he wrote. And to the extent that the causation analysis would
be different for those with valvular damage as opposed to the more rare
PPH condition, Bechtle said, "there is a fundamental difference in the
theory of liability and the grounds for recovery between these two
classes."

Even within the classes, Bechtle said, "there are interests which make
equitable distribution difficult." Many of the class members, including
lead plaintiff Sharyn Wish, ingested both Pondimin and Redux, Bechtle
said, and many class members may have ingested Pondimin for a far longer
time than Redux. But Interneuron was involved only in the marketing of
Redux. "Thus, those class members asserting injury claims who only
ingested Redux have far different claims than those class members who
ingested Pondimin as well as Redux, at least as it pertains to their
ability to recover from Interneuron," Bechtle wrote. "A class member who
only ingested Redux would have an interest in ensuring that those class
members whose injuries are possibly attributable to Pondimin, rather
than Redux, do not diminish the available compensation from the limited
fund. "The individual question of whether a class member ingested
Pondimin and for how long "is one that would complicate the claims
administration process and, absent a costly individual causation
analysis, it would be difficult to ensure that those with a common
theory of recovery are treated equitably among themselves," Bechtle
wrote.

(Copies of the 39-page opinion in In re: Diet Drugd, PICS NO. 99-1835,
are available from The Legal Intelligencer. Please refer to the
Pennsylvania Instant Case Service order form on Page 9.) (The Legal
Intelligencer 9-29-1999)


HEALTH INSURERS: Shares Fall On Threat Of Managed-Care Patients’ Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shares of Aetna Inc., the United Healthcare Corporation and other major
health insurers fell amid reports that trial lawyers were preparing
lawsuits on behalf of managed-care patients.

Aetna, the nation's largest health insurer, fell $10.5625, to $49.125,
an 18 percent drop. United Healthcare, the No. 2 health insurer, fell
$11.50, or 19 percent, to $49.

Lawyers who gained high profiles in tobacco litigation and other cases
are preparing to sue managed-care companies and seek class-action status
after some large legal judgments against the insurers, The Wall Street
Journal reported today. Such lawsuits could hurt companies' ability to
control health costs, analysts said.

"People in the investment community have their suspicions that it could
be a large negative, but you can't quantify either the potential
monetary liability or the time frame," said Greg Crawford, a health care
analyst at Fox-Pitt, Kelton. "A lot of this is saber-rattling stuff from
the attorneys."

Shares of the Cigna Corporation, the third-biggest health insurer, fell
$8.6875, to $78.3125. Pacificare Health Systems Inc. fell $2.4375, to
$43.625. The Morgan Stanley Health Care Payer Index, which tracks the
performance of big health insurers, fell as much as 10 percent.

Among lawyers working on the suits is Richard Scruggs, who led the
litigation against tobacco companies that resulted in a $206 billion
settlement, The Journal reported. Also involved is David Boies, the
lawyer who is leading the Justice Department's litigation against the
Microsoft Corporation, the paper said.

Managed health care plans, like health-maintenance organizations are a
form of health insurance in which insurers limit their coverage of
doctors, hospitals, procedures, drugs and other parts of health care to
hold down costs. Some patients, physicians and consumer groups have
complained that the plans go too far in their limitations, putting
profit before the well-being of patients.

Industry critics say the health plans skimp on care to improve profits.
Employers, however, credit health-maintenance organizations and other
forms of managed care with bringing their rising health costs under
control while starting to institute measures of quality to compare the
performance of health plans.

"What's different about this and tobacco is patients have a great deal
to lose if we go away," said Karen Ignagni, chief executive of the
American Association of Health Plans, a health insurance industry group.
(The New York Times 10-1-1999)


HMOs: Cable News Network Coverage On Potential Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Broadcast October 1, 1999 on Cable News Network

GUESTS: James Lane

    JAMES LANE, SALOMON SMITH BARNEY: Hi, Bill. Good morning.

    TUCKER: Good morning. You know, this is something -- obviously Wall
Street perceives this as something of a serious problem. Yesterday,
there were comparisons being made to the legal profession shifting its
eyes from big tobacco to the HMOs. Little wonder why people are upset.

Does this bode ill for the industry?

    LANE: More than anything else it's created a huge element of
uncertainty because of the manner in which the information was
disseminated. It didn't give any sort of specifics as to the grounds for
the potential lawsuits or, in any case, the potential motivations of
those law firms. I would point out a couple of differences: Unlike the
big tobacco companies, these are companies that have two to three
percent net margins, don't pay dividends out to shareholders and by and
large have an enormous amount of cash in their balance sheet, but most
of that is restricted for regulatory purposes.

So you know, you wonder where does the money come from if they're
successful? And what kind of capabilities do the companies themselves
have to handle such lawsuits?

    TUCKER: It represents something of a backlash, though, doesn't it?
As far as from where this is coming from. There are a lot of people,
either rightly or wrongly, very dissatisfied and very angry at their
health maintenance organizations and their healthcare providers it seems
a lot of that anger will be focused in and given to support of this
legal thrust.

    LANE: There have certainly been several lawsuits to date that have
been driven by dissatisfaction with health plans, but at the end of day
there's probably about 80 million people that are covered by HMO-type
health plans and if these law suits are successful, it's very likely
that there will be 20 million less people covered by those same health
plans.

So, in this economy we have a lot of tradeoffs. It will be interesting
to see the overall inflationary impact that such lawsuits could have on
the cost of health insurance in this country. It could be potentially
devastating.

    TUCKER: Yes, I mean, that's the great irony here, isn't it? Is that
you have a got lot of people angry at the quality of healthcare. They're
somewhat sympathetic against to any lawsuits against the industry, but
as you noted, the cash isn't there like it was with tobacco. So who's
going to bear the brunt of that? The very same people who are angry at
that quality of the healthcare they're getting.

    LANE: That's exactly right. And the question also from a sociology
point of view, is who benefits from this? Probably just those lawyers --
if the members of the class action get a few thousand dollars each
they'll be lucky. It will be those big law firms. It really seems from a
common sensical point of view, they're barking up the wrong tree, but
that doesn't mean they won't pursue it and that it won't create a cloud
over the stocks for several quarters to come.

    TUCKER: Really quickly, before we go, I'm curious -- Would you be a
buyer of HMO stocks at this point? Are there any out there that you
like? Are you more inclined to stay on the sidelines at this point to
see how things develop?

   LANE: We're more inclined to stay on the sidelines. We find it very
difficult to understand how portfolio managers at the large mutual funds
otherwise would feel compelled to own these stocks. We do think that
several of them are trading at levels that are below private market
values, that have been paid historically, but the complete uncertainty
as to whether or not there's any validity and the quantitative uncertain
of the potential size of liability really makes it difficult to say
you've got to own these stocks at this point.

    TUCKER: All right. Listen, thanks very much, James. Thanks for
coming by and offering your opinion. We really do appreciate it.

We've talking to James Lane. He is the Healthcare Analyst for Salomon
Smith Barney.


HMOs: Shares Fall On Threat Of Lawsuits To Force Companies To Improve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shares of major health-maintenance organizations and health insurers,
including PacifiCare Health Systems Inc. in Santa Ana, fell sharply last
Thursday after a report that prominent lawyers planned to file
class-action lawsuits to compel HMOs to provide better health care or
risk massive court judgments.

Among the attorneys taking aim at HMOs is David Boies of New York, the
man now heading the federal government's antitrust action against
Microsoft Corp., and Richard Scruggs, a Pascagoula, Miss., attorney who
has recently waged a class-action battle against tobacco companies, the
Wall Street Journal reported.

Peter Costa, an analyst with ABN Amro Securities, said the long-term
effects of such lawsuits on the industry remained uncertain. "Clearly it
will take a while for all of it to work its way out. The plaintiffs'
attorneys are a well-funded group. They could keep this alive for a long
time," Costa said. Costa said the HMOs getting hit the hardest Thursday
"are those with the deepest pockets."

PacifiCare shares slumped to a 52-week low of $ 42 before rebounding a
bit to close at $ 43.25, down $ 2.81, or 6.2%, in Nasdaq trading. Less
than five months ago, the stock moved above $ 100 a share.

On the New York Stock Exchange, Aetna Inc., the nation's largest health
insurer with 22 million customers, fell $ 10.44, or 17%, to close at $
49.25, and United Healthcare Corp., the No. 2 health insurer, fell $
11.81, or 20%, to close at $ 48.69. WellPoint Health Net works Inc.,
based in Thousand Oaks, ended down $ 6.19 to close at $ 57, also on the
NYSE. Another Nasdaq stock, Oxford Health Plans Inc. closed off $ 3.78
to $ 12.50.

HMOs, which combine the functions of health insurance companies and
health-care providers, have been accused by many consumers and
politicians of withholding vital services from patients to maximize
profits.

Congress is preparing to debate new regulations for HMOs designed to
make them more accountable to patients, including provisions that could
make it easier to sue health-care providers.

Tom Bantle, legislative counsel for consumer group Public Citizen's
Congress Watch in Washington, said he believed HMOs may tread more
carefully in the future because of fears of lawsuits. "I think what will
happen is there won't be a lot of litigation, but companies making
medical decisions will make them more carefully, and that's what we
really want," Bantle said. "There isn't much incentive now for the
health-care industry to do right on its own," he said.

One way lawyers hope to get their class-action suits in court is to
argue that insurers have not lived up to guidelines set by the federal
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, Stephen Neuwirth, an
attorney with Boies & Schiller in Armonk, N.Y., one of the firms
planning to file suit, told Bloomberg News. ERISA requires companies to
disclose benefit information, including details of their claims'
approval processes, Neuwirth said.

Consumers are expected to allege they've been denied information on
benefits, leaving them unable to tell whether they've spent more on
health care than they should have. "The disclosure requirements of ERISA
have not been satisfied," Neuwirth said.

The suits will ask a judge to order insurance companies to disclose such
information and will seek unspecified damages.

Some attorneys have specific companies in mind. Joseph Sellers, an
attorney with Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll in Washington, said his
firm will file a suit alleging fraud by "one of the industry leaders."
Although Sellers wouldn't name the company, he said the suit will
probably be filed next week in Florida, Illinois or Texas.

The prospect of class-action suits is making investors wary. "It's a
definite risk," said Brendan Healy, an analyst at USAA Investment
Management, which owns shares in Aetna and Cigna Corp. "I'm still trying
to think how it's all going to play out."

Bloomberg News and Reuters were used in compiling this report.
(Los Angeles Times 10-1-1999)


HMOs: Slew of Suits Expected To Test Law; Tobacco Lawyers Are Ready
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of plaintiffs' lawyers who earned millions suing the cigarette
industry are readying a new onslaught of lawsuits against another
unpopular target: health maintenance organizations.

In the coming weeks, an Atlanta-based affiliation of lawyers from the
tobacco wars will file class-action lawsuits based on a variety of
innovative legal arguments, hoping to wrest settlements from HMOs on
behalf of employers and individual patients. As this coordinated attack
unfolds, other lawyers across the country are stepping up separate
efforts to sue health insurers.

Until lately, insurance companies and health maintenance organizations
have been considered relatively immune to litigation because of a
quarter-century-old federal law. During the last few years, however, a
handful of HMO patients and their attorneys have begun to knock certain
chinks in that law, convincing juries they were harmed by inadequate
medical care. Now, trying to capitalize on widespread public antipathy
toward managed care, lawyers plan to broaden their legal strategy by
accusing HMOs of profiteering and fraud.

Some of these theories are risky and untested, and it remains unclear
how vulnerable insurers will be to this new legal assault. But
regardless of whether it succeeds, experts predict an unprecedented wave
of health insurance litigation that eventually might rival the
outpouring of private legal dollars spent battling cigarette makers and,
more recently, the gun industry.

"Many people five to 10 years ago thought the lawyers pursuing the
tobacco companies were out of their mind. As of a week ago, we find the
attorney general of the United States pursuing them," said Robert Perez,
a plaintiffs' lawyer in Cincinnati who specializes in suing health
insurers. "Things change."

This search by lawyers for new ways to hold health plans responsible for
their decisions amounts to a second line of attack on managed care at a
time when Congress and state legislatures are polarized over how hard to
chip away at the power and autonomy of HMOs. For the most part, these
plans have had a relatively unfettered hand in dictating the care their
patients receive.

The House is scheduled to vote next week on competing managed-care
bills, and members are divided over whether patients should have the
right to sue their HMOs. GOP leaders oppose the idea, which was omitted
from an HMO bill that passed the Senate in July, but it is favored by
Democrats and a few dissident Republicans, who appear likely to have
enough votes to prevail.

Paradoxically, the impending wave of lawsuits, reported in Wall Street
Journal, delighted lobbyists for the insurance industry, who said it
buttressed their view that litigation drives up health costs and
enriches trial lawyers at the expense of consumers and the employers who
pay for their insurance. The coming cases "out the real goals here for
the trial bar--suing health plans [and] feathering their nest being goal
number one," said Karen Ignagni, president of the American Association
of Health Plans.

The ability of most patients to sue their insurers has been largely
obstructed by the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It was
intended to protect Americans' pensions but has been largely interpreted
by the courts as prohibiting patients from suing insurers in state
courts or from collecting damages.

Recently, a few lawyers have won big awards on behalf of government
employees not covered by that law, and appellate courts in parts of the
country have begun to allow certain kinds of suits even by people who
are covered.

Last month, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals permitted a lawsuit by
the parents of a New Jersey couple who allege that their baby daughter
died of meningitis a few days after birth after an HMO refused to let
the baby be readmitted to a hospital or to send a nurse to visit her at
home. Just this week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that
challenges HMO policies giving physicians incentives to hold down
medical costs and stint on care.

Lawyers involved say the impending suits are designed to force HMOs to
hand back more of the cost savings they have extracted from doctors and
hospitals. "Managed care is in all likelihood here to stay, but our view
is that our clients--both individual members and corporate
employers--are entitled to receive the full economic benefit of what
they're paying for," said John Guttmann, a partner at Beveridge &
Diamond who is getting ready to file several suits against HMOs.

Much of the litigation is being orchestrated from a suite of offices in
downtown Atlanta, where a collection of plaintiffs' lawyers from a
number of states have established what they call a "law firm of law
firms." Herman, Middleton, Casey & Kitchens was born roughly a year ago,
funded primarily by lawyers who were awarded huge fees in the tobacco
litigation, which ended with a record $ 246 billion settlement.

Russ Herman, one of the firm's founding partners, declined to say how
much each participating lawyer anteed up to launch it, nor would he
discuss which HMOs the group plans to sue.

Lawyers plan to offer what Herman called a "gumbo" of arguments to
suggest that HMOs have pocketed ill-gotten profits by defrauding or
breaking their contractual obligations to employers and patients. Some
suits will contend that plans have systematically overcharged
participants; others will seek lost income for physicians who were
forced to take drastic pay cuts in order to work for HMOs.

Still other suits will push the theory that plans have breached a
fiduciary duty by failing to disclose how decisions are made about which
patients get how much care. "They use different criteria, and we believe
that the overwhelming criteria they use is cost," said Joseph Sellers, a
partner at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, a D.C. firm that is not
part of the Herman, Middleton group. (The Washington Post 10-1-1999)


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Claims for Compensation Take Twists and Turns
----------------------------------------------------------------
As the claims and litigation for damages to Holocaust victims increase,
the proliferation of cases in different jurisdictions is giving rise to
overlapping and conflicting claims, and making settlement difficult to
reach.

On September 13, two Federal judges in New Jersey in separate cases
dismissed class action lawsuits brought against companies involved in
Nazi slave labor and concentration camps, most of which have sizable
operations in New Jersey. While the judges acknowledged the human rights
abuses and other horrors of the camps, they decided they were not
appropriate for a Federal court. They ruled the issues concerned
international treaties between nations and foreign policy, hence they
were in the realm of the executive branch. (fn. 1)

------------------------------Start of Footnote------------------------

(fn. 1)Ronald Smothers, 2 Judges Dismiss Suits by Survivors of Nazi
Camps , N.Y. Times , Sept. 14, 1999, at A23, col. 2.

-------------------------------End of Footnote-------------------------

According to Judge Joseph A. Greenaway Jr., who handed down a 120-page
decision in one of the lawsuits brought against Ford Motor Company and
Ford Werke A.G., its former German counterpart in the World War II era,
courts cannot pass judgment upon the political negotiations of the
executive branch and the international community. Greenaway reasoned
that court intrusion into foreign policy would undermine the executive
branch's sole discretion in the field of international relations.

In a separate 78-page opinion for another group of four consolidated
class-action suits, Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise added that the court
did not have the right to engage in the process, partly because the
controversies are not just between private parties. According to Judge
Debevoise, (t)he critical issue, the resolution of which is dispositive
of these cases, is whether in light of post World War II diplomatic
history the plaintiff victims, and representatives of victims of the
Nazi regime can bring an action in this court against private German
corporations which participated in and profited from the atrocities
committed against plaintiffs and those they seek to represent". (fn. 2)
He pointed out that effectively the plaintiffs are asking the court to
refashion the reparations agreements the U.S. and other governments
concluded after World War II: "(w)hatever the final resolution of these
issues may be, there is nothing in the German litigation process or
potential outcomes that is inconsistent with the conclusion that
individual claims for forced labor against the German government and
against private industry were subsumed by national governments in the
treaties which concluded the war with Germany. Through the Transition
Agreement the subsuming governments delegated to Germany the
responsibility to provide for all these claims 'adequate compensation
consistent with t he capacity to pay of the Federal Republic.' The
German litigation is enmeshed in Germany's efforts to meet its
obligations under the Transition Agreement." (fn. 3)

------------------------------Start of Footnote------------------------

(fn. 2)Alice Burger-Fischer et al v. Degussa AG et al, U.S. Dist. Ct.,
D.N.J., C.A. No. 98-3958 (DRD), Memorandum Order and Opinion, at 10.
(fn. 3)Id . at 70.

-------------------------------End of Footnote-------------------------

Judge Debevoise reasoned that, although plaintiffs invite the court to
refashion the reparations agreements which the U.S. and other World War
II combatants concluded, the court does not have the judicial power to
do so. Instead, Judge Debevoise found that such a task is a political
question for which the courts are not suited. (fn. 4)

------------------------------Start of Footnote------------------------

(fn. 4)Id. at 72-77.

-------------------------------End of Footnote-------------------------

Judge Debevoise ruled on four consolidated cases, including claims
against Degussa A.G., the chemicals and precious metals company that
refined gold seized by the Nazis and that manufactured the deadly Zyklon
B gas used in the concentration camps. The other cases concerned Siemens
A.G., the multinational electric company and its aircraft manufacturing
operations during the war. The Plaintiffs claim that it used as many as
100,000 slave laborers provided by the Nazis.

The well reasoned and comprehensive nature of the two U.S. District
Court (New Jersey) opinions may have impact on other pending cases even
though they are only from one district court in New Jersey.

According to Melvyn Weiss, counsel for plaintiffs in the cases before
both judges, the rulings would be appealed.

The rulings were in five of an estimated three dozen cases in U.S.
courts that seek damages from companies said to have profited in Germany
during World War II. Most of the cases were brought in the aftermath of
the historic agreement by Swiss banks last year to settle $1.25 billion
in claims brought by Holocaust survivors who accused them of failing to
return their stolen assets after the war. (fn. 5)

------------------------------Start of Footnote------------------------

(fn. 5)Smothers, supra .

-------------------------------End of Footnote-------------------------

California Enacts Law Permitting Suits by Slave Labor Victims

On July 28, 1999, Section 354.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure, enacted by California Senate Bill No. 1245, Chapter 216
allows any World War II slave labor or forced labor victim, or his or
her heir, to file an action in a superior court of California against
any entity or successor in interest for whom the labor was performed,
either directly or through a subsidiary or affiliate. If brought on or
before December 31, 2010, an article brought under the Act cannot be
dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.

The Act defines a "Second World War slave or labor victim" as any person
taken from a ghetto or concentration camp, or from transportation from a
ghetto or to a concentration camp, by the Nazi regime, its allies and
sympathizers, or enterprises transacting business in any such occupied
or controlled area, to undertake unpaid labor for any period of time
between 1929 and 1945. As defined, a "Second World War slave labor
victim" is any member of a conquered civilian population, or a prisoner
of war, who was pressed to work under these conditions.

The Act permits the claim to seek as compensation the present value of
the wages and benefits due for the performed labor, plus damages for
injuries incurred. The Act calculates the present value as the
devaluation, plus annually compounded interest from the time of the
services to the date of full payment.

Under the Act, the State Treasurer, the Public Employee's Retirement
Fund, and the State Teacher's Retirement Fund must monitor investments
in businesses owing compensation to victims of slave labor. The Act went
into effect immediately as an "urgency statute" under Article IV of the
California Constitution as necessary to immediately preserve public
peace, health, or safety. (fn. 6)

------------------------------Start of Footnote------------------------

(fn. 6)For the text of the Act, see American Society of International
Law, Int'l Legal Materials (Nov. 1999) (forthcoming).

-------------------------------End of Footnote-------------------------

Germany and U.S. Continue Holocaust Settlement Negotiations

On September 7, 1999, the German Government warned its leading companies
they could face a trade war with the U.S. unless more companies
contribute to a compensation fund for Nazi-era slave and forced
laborers.

According to Otto Lambsdorff, the German Government's negotiator in
talks with the U.S. and the victims' groups, only 35 German companies
had said they were willing to pay into the fund that aims to compensate
more than a million of Holocaust survivors.

Mr. Lambsdorff said he was confident that an intermediate solution could
be achieved. Lambsdorff said the figure of more than $20 billion
proposed by the victims' counsel was way too high, whereas the
companies' position that they would only pay closer to $1 billion was
unrealistic. (fn. 7) The dispute has hardened over the number of people
who qualify as "forced laborers," and the amount of money that should be
paid. While companies argue that the people concerned probably number
500,000 to 800,000, lawyers for the plaintiffs have estimated the
victims as high as 2.3 million.

------------------------------Start of Footnote-----------------------

(fn. 7)Reuters, Germany Warns Firms to Join the Holocaust Fund , Int'l
Herald Tribune , Sept. 8, 1999, at 8, col. 1.

-------------------------------End of Footnote-------------------------

A reason for the wide difference comes from the fact that the companies,
which include Daimler-Chrysler, Deutsche Bank, Siemens and Volkswagen,
argue that only those put to work by private industry should be covered.
Counsel for plaintiffs have suggested that agricultural laborers and
state employees should also be compensated.

Since World War II, the German Government has paid about $80 billion in
war reparations and aid, most of it Jews who survived concentration
camps or fled. However, forced laborers, generally non-Jews deported to
Germany from Central and Eastern European countries, often have not
received compensation. (fn. 8)

------------------------------Start of Footnote------------------------

(fn. 8)Roger Cohen, Germans Lag in Reaching Slave Labor Settlement ,
N.Y. Times , Aug. 25, 1999, at A1l, col. 1.

-------------------------------End of Footnote-------------------------

Still another sticking point is when payments can start. (fn. 9)

------------------------------Start of Footnote------------------------

(fn. 9)Reuters, Future Immunity Agreed in Forced Labor Talks , Fin.
Times , Aug. 26, 1999, at 2, col. 6.

-------------------------------End of Footnote-------------------------

(International Enforcement Law Reporter, October, 1999)



HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Swiss Fund Has More Money Than Applications
--------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline for applications to a Swiss fund to help Holocaust
survivors has passed, with organizers saying there was still more than
22 million francs ($ 15 million) in its coffers.

The fund has so far allocated 251 million francs ($ 168 million) to
about 310,000 survivors of the Nazis, with payments typically of between
550 and 2,000 francs ($ 369-1,342), fund officials said. Some 88 million
francs ($ 59 million) has been distributed to Jews in Israel, with large
sums also going to the United States and Eastern Europe. Around 88
percent of the money in the fund is intended to help destitute Jewish
survivors of the Nazis, while the rest is for non-Jewish survivors,
including Gypsies, or Roma, homosexuals, the disabled, Jehovah's
Witnesses, Christians persecuted as Jews, and political opponents of the
Nazis.

The fund was set up by Swiss banks and industry in 1997 under pressure
from allegations that they helped supply the Nazi war machine. Its board
of governors included representatives of international Jewish
organizations. It is separate from a $ 1.25 billion fund set up by
Switzerland's two big banks last August in an out-of-court settlement in
the United States with lawyers in a huge class action suit.

Outstanding claims total 519,000 francs ($ 348,000), but the fund still
has the 22 million francs plus accrued interest to distribute. General
secretary Barbara Ekwall said the interest was around 10 million francs
($ 6.7 million) in 1999 alone. She said fund organizers would decide in
November what to do with the remaining millions.

New applications could still be accepted if they were considered be
hardship cases, the statement added. (AP Worldstream 10-1-1999)


HUMANA INC: Ct Preliminarily Oks Health Insurance Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
On August 23, 1999, Federal District Court Judge David Hagen gave
preliminary approval to the settlement of a class action lawsuit filed
against Humana Inc. and Humana Health Insurance Company of Nevada, Inc.
in Las Vegas, Nevada on March 29, 1989.

The lawsuit involves two classes. The first class consists of those
individuals who were insured by Humana Health Insurance of Nevada, Inc.
and incurred co-insurance obligations for hospital services during the
period 1984-88 obtained at Sunrise Hospital, formerly owned by Humana.
This class alleges that insureds' co-insurance obligations were
incorrectly computed based on gross (non-discounted) hospital charges
instead of net (discounted) hospital charges. Humana ceased this
practice nationwide more than eight years ago, and ceased this practice
in Nevada more than ten years ago. This class further alleges that
Sunrise Hospital monopolized the for-profit acute care hospital market
in Clark County, Nevada, leading to higher co-insurance payments by
Humana insureds.

The second class consists of employers and individuals who paid all or
part of insurance premiums to Humana Health Insurance of Nevada, Inc.
from 1984-88. This class alleges that Sunrise Hospital's alleged
monopolization caused them to pay higher premium payments for their
health insurance.

In 1994, the Court ruled that the contract between Humana and its
insureds required that co-insurance payments be calculated based on net
charges. The Court later dismissed all claims by those who paid
premiums, and set for trial the remaining claims of those who incurred
co-insurance obligations. With respect to those remaining claims, Humana
denies any liability.

Given the inherent uncertainties and expense of proceeding to a trial of
the unresolved claims in the lawsuit and the likelihood of appeals
thereafter, contrasted with the certainty of achieving a current
settlement, the parties agreed to resolve the matter after protracted
arm's-length negotiations. Counsel for the class believe that the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate given this uncertainty and
the previous court rulings.

Judge Hagen's preliminary approval gave the parties the green light to
provide notice of the settlement terms to the class members beginning
with direct mail notice on September 24, 1999. A summary version of the
settlement notice will appear in Las Vegas, Reno and national newspapers
beginning on September 30, 1999. The settlement agreement requires
defendants to contribute $ 16.1 million for payment to the two classes.
In addition, defendants have agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and costs in an amount to be decided by the Court upon application by
plaintiffs' counsel. Each member of the class of individuals who made
co-insurance payments who submits a timely claim in accordance with the
requirements set out in the settlement notice and whose claim is allowed
will receive at least 7.38 times the amount by which his or her
co-insurance payments exceeded the amount that would have been paid had
the co-insurance payments been calculated using discounted hospital
charges. Each member of the class of employers and individuals who paid
premiums who submits a timely claim in accordance with the requirements
set out in the settlement notice and whose claim is allowed will receive
a refund of at least 3.6% of their total premiums paid (and, depending
upon the number of claims made on the fund, potentially more).

The settlement class is represented by the following counsel:

J. Randall Jones, Esq., Will Kemp, Esq., Jennifer Popick, Esq.,
Harrison, Kemp & Jones, Chartered, 600 Bank of America Plaza, 300 South
Fourth Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101; Doug Cohen, Esq., Jones Vargas,
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Third Floor South, Las Vegas Nevada 89109;
and William B. Markovitz, Esq., Markovitz & Greiwe, 119 East Court
Street, Suite 500, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. These counsel can be
contacted for purposes of this settlement at 1-877-683-8331.

A copy of the settlement notice and a proof of claim form can be
obtained by sending a written request to Forsyth v. Humana Inc.,
Settlement Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co., P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael,
CA 94912-8040, or by calling the automated toll-free number
1-877-627-6759 and specifically requesting a copy of the settlement
notice. A proof of claim form can also be obtained by contacting the
Forsyth v. Humana web site at www.gilardi.com/forsythvhumana. CONTACT:
Class Counsel 877/683-8331


KEYSTONE FINANCIAL: 3rd Cir Oks Dismissal Of RICO Claims Barred By PSLRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bald Eagle Area School Dist. v. Keystone Financial, Inc., PICS Case No.
9901727 (3d Cir. Aug. 31, 1999) McKee, J. (8 pages).

Because defendant's conduct as alleged in plaintiffs' complaint would
have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities,
Section 107 of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
barred plaintiffs' civil RICO claims. Affirmed.

The plaintiff school districts filed a putative class action asserting,
inter alia, three civil RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. @ 1962(c) and one
claim for conspiracy to violate Section 1962(c) against defendant
Keystone Financial, Inc. Plaintiffs sought to recover $ 70 million lost
as a result of defendant's participation in a Ponzi scheme. Plaintiffs
alleged a scheme that involved the unauthorized pooling of clients'
funds, the investment of those funds in risky investments, the
fraudulent reporting of market values, and the infusion of more money to
keep the scheme going. Plaintiffs alleged wire, mail and bank fraud as
predicate acts. Defendant moved to dismiss the civil RICO claims.

The district court agreed with defendant's argument that Section 107 of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) barred
plaintiffs' civil RICO claims and granted defendant's motion to dismiss
those claims.

Plaintiffs appealed. The Third Circuit affirmed.

The court noted that Section 107 of the PSLRA had amended 18 U.S.C. @
1964(c). That section now provides that "no person may rely upon any
conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale
of securities to establish a violation of section 1962." The court also
noted that in Mathews v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., 161 F.2d 156 (3d
Cir. 1998), it had ruled that Section 107 eliminated "any conduct
actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities" as a
predicate act for a private cause of action under RICO. The court
examined plaintiff's allegations, which specifically described
defendant's participation in an elaborate Ponzi scheme. Finding that the
alleged conduct was "conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in
the purchase and sale of securities," the court concluded that it could
not constitute the predicate acts necessary for a RICO violation. The
court therefore concluded that Section 107 of the PSLRA barred
plaintiffs' RICO claims.

The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the challenged conduct
constituted bank, wire and mail fraud but not securities fraud.
Plaintiffs' contention that the conduct alleged as predicate offenses
was not connected with the purchase and sale of securities completely
ignored the reality that the conduct was an integral part of the
securities-fraud-based Ponzi scheme.

Finally, the court concluded that the district court had focused on the
proper standard in evaluating the predicate acts, i.e., on whether the
conduct was actionable as securities fraud. (Pennsylvania Law Weekly
9-27-1999)


MONTROSE GENERAL: Botched Vasectomy Victim Gets Record Award In Phil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
An upstate jury awarded $ 4.5 million to a Philadelphia law firm's
client who now suffers debilitating pain as a result of a botched
vasectomy. The verdict was the largest in Susquehanna County history,
according to plaintiff's counsel. The trial was the second for the
medical malpractice case. In 1997, a jury gave the plaintiff $ 950,000,
but that award was reversed on appeal. This time around the plaintiff
was also awarded nearly $ 2 million in delay damages. Lead plaintiff's
attorney John E. Kusturiss Jr., an associate at Villari Golomb & Honik,
also tried the case in 1997.

At no time did the defendant surgeon and hospital make any settlement
offer, said co-counsel Paul D. Brandes, also an associate at Villari
Golomb.

The plaintiff was a 33-year-old married father of two when he underwent
a vasectomy at Montrose General Hospital. The procedure was performed by
Dr. Jan C. Kletter. Instead of making an incision on the scrotum, the
surgeon made a cut on the base of the penis, injuring a nerve that runs
from the abdomen to the right leg. The misplaced incision, and the
resulting scar tissue, caused reflex sympathetic dystrophy, leaving the
plaintiff with chronic pain in his penis, testicles, groin and abdomen.

The damages included the wife's loss of consortium. Also, $ 1 million
was awarded for lost earning capacity. The surgeon's attorney was Howard
M. Levinson, a partner at Rosenn Jenkins & Greenwald in Wilkes-Barre.
The hospital's attorney was Richard Keith Hodges, a partner at O'Malley
& Harris in Scranton. Neither defense attorney was available for
comment. (Pennsylvania Law Weekly 9-20-1999)


QUINTILES TRANSACTIONAL: Milberg Files Securities Suit In N. Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Following is an Announcement by the Law Firm of Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed on
September 30, 1999, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Quintiles Transnational Corp.
(Nasdaq: QTRN), between July 16, 1999 and September 15, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Quintiles and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that Quintiles and certain of its officers and
directors issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding trends in the Company's business and the termination of a
series of significant clinical trials. As a result of these materially
false and misleading statements, plaintiff alleges that the price of
Quintiles common stock was artificially inflated during the Class
Period.

If you are a member of the class described above you may, not later than
sixty days from September 30, 1999, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead
plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements.

Plaintiff is represented by Milberg Weiss and Brown & Associates PLLC,
among others. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact, at Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, Steven
G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman at One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor,
New York, New York 10119-0165, by telephone 1-800-320-5081 or via
e-mail: endfraud@mwbhlny.com or visit our website at
http://www.milberg.com


QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued October 1 by the law firm of
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Quintiles
Transnational Corp. (Nasdaq: QTRN) from July 16, 1999 through September
15, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Quintiles Transnational Corp. and certain of its
officers and directors with issuing materially false and misleading
statements regarding trends in the Company's business and the
termination of a series of significant clinical trials.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP.
If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later
than November 29, 1999, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the
class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however,
you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP (Andrew L. Barroway, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com TICKERS:
NASDAQ:QTRN


QUORUM HEALTH: Contests Securities Suit In Tenn. Re Medicare Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In October and November 1998, some of the stockholders of Quorum Health
Group Inc. filed lawsuits against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee. In January 1999, the court
consolidated these cases into a single lawsuit. (M.D. Tenn. No.
3-98-1004) The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in March 1999. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of plaintiffs who purchased our
common stock from October 25, 1995 through October 21, 1998, except for
insiders of the Company and their immediate families. The consolidated
complaint names as defendants us, several of our officers and one of our
outside directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The plaintiffs claim that the Company materially inflated
its net revenues during the class period by including in those net
revenues amounts received from the settlement of cost reports that had
allegedly been filed in violation of applicable Medicare regulations
years earlier and that, because of this practice, this statement, which
first appeared in our Form 10-K filed in September 1996, was false: "The
Company believes that its owned hospitals are in substantial compliance
with current federal, state, local, and independent review body
regulations and standards." In May 1999, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to defend vigorously the
claims and allegations in this action.


QUORUM HEALTH: May Try To Settle Shareholder Derivative Suit In Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 2, 1998, a lawsuit was filed against Quorum Health Group
Inc, all of the Company’s current directors and two former directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. On January
14, 1999, this suit was transferred by agreement of the parties to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. (M.D. Tenn.
No. 3-99-0055)

On February 16, 1999, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
original complaint. The court then granted the plaintiff permission to
file a first amended complaint, which, when filed, mooted the original
motion to dismiss. On April 30, 1999, the defendants moved to dismiss
the first amended complaint. The court on July 1, 1999, granted
plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and
denied as moot the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.

The second amended complaint asserts four claims: a shareholders'
derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty; a shareholders'
derivative claim for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act; a shareholders' derivative claim for injunctive
relief; and a purported class action claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

As the basis for each of these claims, plaintiff alleges in the amended
complaint that the defendants in 1993 were aware that they were filing
allegedly false cost reports and that the defendants "mandated" that the
illegal acts continue in violation of applicable Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursement laws. The defendants have filed a new motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint. All of the defendants plan to vigorously
defend this litigation.

The Company finds it too early to predict the effect or outcome of any
of the ongoing investigations or the qui tam, class or stockholders'
derivative actions, or whether any additional investigations or
litigation will be commenced. If it is found to have violated federal or
state laws relating to Medicare, Medicaid or other government programs,
then it may be required to pay substantial fines and civil and criminal
penalties. The Company also may be excluded from participating in the
Medicare and Medicaid programs and other government programs. Similarly,
the amount of damages sought in the qui tam actions are substantial. The
Company could be subject to substantial costs resulting from an adverse
outcome of any of these actions. In an effort to promptly resolve one or
more of these matters, the Company may choose to negotiate a settlement.



SUN CO.: Penn Ct Certifies Class Of Holders Of Depositary Shares
----------------------------------------------------------------
To: All Persons Who Held Sun Company Inc. ("Sun") Depositary Shares
Representing a One-Half Share in Sun Series A Cumulative Preference
Stock ("Depositary Shares") Which Were Redeemed On or About May 28,
1998.

MARVIN E. FORMAN on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SUN COMPANY, INC., Defendant.
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division No.
9805-003157

This is to notify you that pursuant to Rule 1710 of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure and an order of this Court dated July 19, 1999,
the above-captioned action is certified as a class action on behalf of a
Class of all persons who held Sun Depositary Shares which were redeemed
on or about May 28.

Plaintiff claims that Class Members were underpaid by $ 236 per 100
Depositary Shares in connection with the redemption of their Depositary
Shares. Individuals who reside in Pennsylvania or entities which are
incorporated in Pennsylvania, have their principal place of business in
Pennsylvania, or are qualified foreign corporations or entities with
valid certificates of authority on file in Pennsylvania as of May 28,
1998 ("Pennsylvania Residents") are automatically included in the Class
unless you request exclusion from the class in accordance with the
instructions contained in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action
("Notice"), postmarked on or before Nov. 22, 1999. Non-Pennsylvania
Residents who want to be included in the Class must return the "opt-in"
postcard on or before Nov. 22, 1999.

If you have not yet received the full Notice and the "opt-in" postcard,
you may obtain copies of these documents by identifying yourself as a
member of the Class and by writing to: Sun Depositary Share Litigation,
P.O. Box 4390, Portland, Oregon 97208-4390. You may also contact
plaintiff's counsel: Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. or Lisa K. Buckser, Esq.,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas,
New York, NY 10019. 212/554-1400. Please do not call or write the court
for information or advice.


SUN COMPANY: Penn Super Ct Oks Class On Fraud & False Ad Under UTPCPL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertising * Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law * Class
Action * Certification

Weinberg v. Sun Co., PICS Case No. 99-1756 (Pa. Super. Sept. 10, 1999)
Cirillo, J.; McEwen, P.J., dissenting (51 pages).

Where plaintiffs brought claims against defendant for fraud and false
advertising under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for
class certification on the grounds that reliance must be proven on an
individual basis, because the element of reliance was relevant only to
plaintiffs' fraud claims under the statute. Affirmed in part; reversed
in part.

In its advertisements, defendant Sun Company claimed that use of its
more expensive high-octane gasoline leads to greater automotive
performance, when in fact high-octane gasoline has no such effect. The
Federal Trade Commission had twice taken action against such
advertising, and defendant had signed consent decrees to cease and
desist from such conduct. Thereafter, plaintiffs, as consumers of
defendant's high-octane gasoline, sued defendant under Pennsylvania's
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant's ads deceived consumers into thinking
that they would derive a benefit from the gasoline. Plaintiffs moved for
certification of a national class of consumers who purchased defendant's
high-octane gasoline from February 22, 1990 through May 6, 1992. The
trial court ruled, however, that Klemow v. Time, Inc., 352 A.2d 12 (Pa.
1976) precluded it from certifying a national class action. The court
further ruled that since all of plaintiffs' claims sounded in fraud,
plaintiffs could not meet the requirements of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1702 because
individual detrimental reliance on the ads would have to be shown.

Plaintiffs appealed.

The Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held
that a Pennsylvania court may certify a national class. Klemow expressly
acknowledged that a class may include non-residents who submit
themselves to the jurisdiction of the state courts, and Pa.R.Civ.P. 1711
provides a procedure for residents of other states to submit themselves
to Pennsylvania's jurisdiction and be included in Pennsylvania class
actions, the court explained. The court concurred with the trial court's
determination that plaintiffs' claims for marketing of altered or
inferior goods and for miscellaneous fraudulent practices sounded in
fraud, and thus that class certification would be inappropriate given
the issues of individual reliance.

The court concluded, however, that reliance was not a necessary element
for plaintiffs' false-advertising-based claims and thus that the claims
could be prosecuted as a class action. Plaintiffs established the
requisite elements for their false-advertising-based claims, the court
determined. During the first FTC proceedings, defendant admitted that
its claims of enhanced performance were false. The FTC also found that
the ads tended to deceive a substantial segment of their audience.
Plaintiffs testified that defendant's false representations made a
difference in their decisions to purchase gas, and plaintiff's economist
testified that he would be able to prove this at trial. Finally, the
court concluded that plaintiffs had met the requirements of Pa.R.Civ.P.
1702 and 1709. However, because the court could not determine whether
plaintiffs met all of the requirements of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1708, the court
remanded the matter for a hearing on those requirements. (Pennsylvania
Law Weekly 9-27-1999)


TOBACCO LITIGATION: CA Judge Consolidates More Union Health Fund Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager has granted motions by
three union health and welfare funds to consolidate their health care
cost recovery suits against suits against tobacco companies with another
proposed class action pending before the judge. In re Tobacco Cases II,
JCCP 4042 (CA Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., July 30, 1999).

The judge said consolidation of the three actions filed by U.A. Local
467 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, U.A. Local No. 393 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund, and North coast Trust Fund with the other pending class
action filed by Operating Engineers Local 12 Health & Welfare Trust is
appropriate because they all assert the same claims and factual
allegations and present numerous common issues.

A total of 26 health care cost recovery actions were transferred to San
Diego by the state judicial council for coordinated proceedings before
Judge Prager. Twenty-one of the cases have been dismissed, and the other
five have not been consolidated by the judge, who has selected Operating
Engineers Local 12 Health & Welfare Trust v. American Tobacco Company
Inc. et al. , No. BC 968, as the lead case. (See judge's order and list
of cases, Document Section G.) (Tobacco Industry Litigation Reporter,
August 27, 1999)


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal Of Suit By Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal magistrate in Providence, RI, has recommended the dismissal of
all claims asserted in a class action by union health and welfare funds
to recover their tobacco-related health care costs from tobacco
companies. U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lovegreen said that the funds
had failed to state a valid claim for relief, making dismissal pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) appropriate. Rhode Island Laborers' Health &
Welfare Fund et al. v. Philip Morris Inc. et al., No. 97-500L (D RI,
Aug. 11, 1999).

The funds' suit alleges that as a result of fraudulent
misrepresentations about the health risks of smoking by tobacco
companies and an agreement among the companies to forego development of
safer cigarettes, the funds were unable to make intelligent decisions
about he management of their resources and, consequently, were unable to
curtail use of tobacco by their members, resulting in vast expenditures
on tobacco-related illnesses that could have been avoided if the tobacco
companies had disclosed the health risks of smoking.

The funds assert multiple causes of action: violations of both the
federal and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts
(RICO); violation of federal and state antitrust law; fraud; failure to
perform a special duty; and violation of the Rhode Island Unfair Trade
Practice and Consumer Protection Act.

In their defense, the tobacco companies have argued that any injuries
sustained by the funds are purely derivative of the physical injuries
sustained by their members, and that the funds' injuries are therefore
too indirect and remote to allow recovery. They moved to dismiss the
suit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim
upon relief can be granted.

In his Aug. 11 report recommending that the court grant the dismissal
motion, Magistrate Judge Lovegreen first addressed the issue of whether
the injury alleged by the funds is too remote to allow standing under
the RICO and antitrust statutes, statutes which he said employ similar
standing requirements. The U.S. Supreme Court, he noted, has set out a
three-part test for assessing standing in RICO and antitrust cases, a
test which requires a court to determine whether there are more direct
victims of the alleged wrongful conduct who can be counted on to
vindicate the law; (2) whether it will be difficult to ascertain the
amount of damages attributable to the defendants' wrongful conduct; and
(3) whether the court will have to adopt complicated rules to apportion
damages in order to minimize the risk of multiple recoveries.

The magistrate found that there are more direct victims of the
defendants' alleged wrongdoing -- the smokers themselves -- who can be
counted on to vindicate their direct injuries caused by the alleged
misconduct. He found that the funds' damages would be difficult to
ascertain, not because of any difficulty in calculating the actual
amount spent to reimburse smokers for their medical expenses, but
because of problems in establishing to what extent smokers would have
been affected by initiatives the funds might have taken to reduce
smoking, He also found that the filing of suits in Rhode Island by
individual smokers against tobacco companies has increased the potential
for duplicative recoveries.

"It is clear that all three factors weigh in favor of finding the Funds'
injury too remote to confer standing on the Fund to bring its RICO and
antitrust claims for damages," the magistrate wrote.

The funds' claim for injunctive relief under the RICO and antitrust
statutes must also be dismissed, the magistrate c ontinued, because the
funds' cannot show that their injuries were proximately caused by the
tobacco companies' actions.

" Because proximate cause is an essential element of the Fund's claim
and because the Fund has not pled the alleged causal connection in a way
that substantially removes the claim for injunctive relief from the
realm of contingency, speculation, and conjecture, I recommend that the
fund's RICO and antitrust claims for injunctive relief be dismissed."

The magistrate then addressed the funds' claims under the Rhode Island
Unfair Trade Practices Act. He noted that the Act provides a private
right of action to "any person who purchases or leases goods or services
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and thereby
suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal,
as a result of the use or employment by another person of a method, act,
or practice declared unlawful" by the Act. The funds lack standing under
the Act because they have not alleged that they purchased or leased any
of the defendants' goods or services, he concluded.

Finally, the judge recommended dismissal of the funds' conspiracy and
failure-to-perform-a-special-duty claims for failure to adequately
allege that their injuries were proximately caused by the tobacco
companies' wrongdoing.

The funds are represented by Michael Spencer with Milberg, Weiss,
Bershad, Hynes & Lerach of New York, and by George L. Santopietro with
Coia & LePore Ltd., of Providence. Defense attorneys involved in the
case include David A. Wolin with Adler, Pollock & Sherehan, P.C., of
Providence, and Kenneth J. Parsigian with Goodwin, Procter & Hoar, L
L.P., of Boston.  (Health Law Litigation Reporter, September 1999)


UNUMProvident Corp: Bull & Lifshitz File Securities Suit In Maine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following was released today by Bull & Lifshitz LLP:

Notice is hereby given that on September 30, 1999, a securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maine against UNUMProvident Corp., Inc. (NYSE: UNM)
(formerly Provident Companies, Inc.(formerly NYSE: PVT)) and certain
officers and directors of the Company on behalf of the shareholders of
UNUMProvident and former shareholders of UNUM Corporation("UNUM")
(formerly NYSE: UNM) who purchased shares of UNUMProvident or UNUM
during the period February 4, 1998 and August 2, 1999, inclusive or were
issued UNUMProvident stock pursuant to a joint proxy/registration and
prospectus statement (the "Joint Proxy").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, by making false and misleading statements in
press releases, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
including the Joint Proxy concerning, among other things, understating
reserves for disability insurance claims, and merger costs, which
resulted in the overstatement of UNUMProvident's and UNUM's total
assets, shareholders' equity, and net income.

The complaint further alleges that in connection with the merger between
UNUM and Provident Companies, Inc., defendants, issued the false and
misleading Joint Proxy, which failed to disclose, among other things:

* the adverse impact of increased disability insurance claims on the
  earnings of UNUMProvident;
* that Provident was allegedly deriving a material portion of its
  income by improperly denying disability insurance claims and that
  there had been law suits filed against Provident for such; and
* that both UNUM and Provident due diligence reviews in regard to the
  merger were limited in scope by agreement.

Plaintiff is represented in this class action by the New York law firms
of Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP and Bull & Lifshitz, LLP, both
of which members have extensive experience representing shareholders in
class actions. If you purchased UNUMProvident, UNUM, or Provident shares
during the Class Period or were issued UNUMProvident common stock for
your UNUM or Provident shares you may, not later than November 30, 1999,
move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff, provided you meet certain
legal requirements.

If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this matter,
please contact the following:
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP 488 Madison Avenue, New York New
York 10022 Telephone: 877-935-7400 (toll free)
Robert I. Harwood, Esq. rharwood@whhf.com
Daniella Quitt, Esq. dquitt@whhf.com
Frederick W. Gerkens, III, Esq. fgerkens@whhf.com
You may also contact:
BULL & LIFSHITZ LLP classlaw1@aol.com
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Peter D. Bull, Esq. 246 West 38th Street New
York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 869-9449


UNUMProvident Corp: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit In Maine
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that on September 30, 1999, a securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maine against UNUMProvident Corp., Inc. (NYSE: UNM)
(formerly Provident Companies, Inc.(formerly NYSE: PVT)) and certain
officers and directors of the Company on behalf of the shareholders of
UNUMProvident and former shareholders of UNUM Corporation ("UNUM")
(formerly NYSE: UNM) who purchased shares of UNUMProvident or UNUM
during the period February 4, 1998 and August 2, 1999, inclusive or were
issued UNUMProvident stock pursuant to a joint proxy/registration and
prospectus statement (the "Joint Proxy").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, by making false and misleading statements in
press releases, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
including the Joint Proxy concerning, among other things, understating
reserves for disability insurance claims, and merger costs, which
resulted in the overstatement of UNUMProvident's and UNUM's total
assets, shareholders' equity, and net income.

The complaint further alleges that in connection with the merger between
UNUM and Provident Companies, Inc. ("Provident"), defendants issued the
false and misleading Joint Proxy, which failed to disclose, among other
things: the adverse impact of increased disability insurance claims on
the earnings of UNUMProvident; that Provident was allegedly deriving a
material portion of its income by improperly denying disability
insurance claims and that there had been law suits filed against
Provident for such; and that both UNUM and Provident due diligence
reviews in regard to the merger were limited in scope by agreement.

Plaintiff is represented in this class action by the New York law firms
of Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP and Bull & Lifshitz, LLP.
If you purchased UNUMProvident, UNUM, or Provident shares during the
Class Period or were issued UNUMProvident common stock for your UNUM or
Provident shares you may, not later than November 30, 1999, move the
court to serve as a lead plaintiff, provided you meet certain legal
requirements.

If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this matter,
please contact the following:
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP 488 Madison Avenue, New York New
York 10022 Telephone: 877-935-7400 (toll free)
Robert I. Harwood, Esq. rharwood@whhf.com Daniella Quitt, Esq.
dquitt@whhf.com
Frederick W. Gerkens, III, Esq. fgerkens@whhf.com
You may also contact: BULL & LIFSHITZ LLP classlaw1@aol.com
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Peter D. Bull, Esq. 246 West 38th Street New
York, New York 10018 Phone: 212-869-9449


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Fund Will Be Established To Settle Pre-Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Inc. (WMI), Houston, and Arthur Andersen LLC will
establish a $ 220 million fund to settle class-action lawsuits brought
by shareholders in the "old" WMI before its merger with USA Waste,
company spokesman Bill Plunkett told SWR Sept. 22. The U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently approved the
arrangement. (Solid Waste Report, September 23, 1999)


WYETH LAB: Can’t Apply Learned Intermediary Doctrine To Norplant In NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prescription drug companies that market their products directly to
consumers without providing adequate safety warnings cannot hide behind
the learned intermediary doctrine, the New Jersey Supreme Court has
ruled. In Perez v. Wyeth Laboratories, No. A-16-98 (N.J. Aug. 9), a
class action against the maker of the Norplant contraceptive, the high
court held that drug companies in such cases cannot claim that the
information they provided to physicians is sufficient and that there is
no need to provide further information directly to consumers.

Under the learned intermediary doctrine, drug companies are relieved
from an independent duty to warn prescription drug users of potential
side effects or other risk factors as long as they supply physicians
with such information, which the physicians can pass on to their
patients. Plaintiff's attorney Richard Galex of East Brunswick, N.J.'s
Galex, Tortoreti & Tomes noted that "pharmaceutical companies cannot use
the learned intermediary doctrine as a defense where it does not
belong....It cannot be used as a defense in those elective situations
where the manufacturer has gone to the public directly to get a bigger
market."

The court, however, also agreed with defense attorney John Vardaman of
Washington, D.C.'s Williams & Connolly that since drug companies must
comply with strict FDA advertising regulations, plaintiffs in cases in
which defendant companies complied with FDA requirements would not be
able to obtain punitive damages, and it would even be hard to collect
compensatories. (Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy, September 1999)


WYNDHAM INT’L: Settles For Del. Suit Re Investment & Restructuring
------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 20, 1999, Wyndham International, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, issued a press release, as attached in its filing with the
SEC and extracted below, announcing the settlement of certain class
action litigation and the record date for its rights offering.

WYNDHAM INTERNATIONAL, INC. ANNOUNCES SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
LITIGATION AND RECORD DATE FOR RIGHTS OFFERING

Wyndham International, Inc. (NYSE:WYN) announced today that it has set
September 30, 1999 as the record date for its previously announced
rights offering. The offering will grant holders of the company's class
A common stock and holders of certain outstanding limited partnerships
units transferable subscription rights to purchase in the aggregate up
to 3 million shares of the company's series A convertible preferred
stock at a subscription price of $100 per share.

Before setting the record date, the company said that it entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement on September 17, 1999 agreeing to settle the
consolidated class action lawsuit pending in the Delaware Chancery Court
related to the $1 billion equity investment and related restructuring of
the company completed on June 30. The registration statement filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission must be declared effective and
the Delaware Chancery Court must approve the proposed settlement before
the company expects to distribute the rights to holders of class A
common stock and holders of certain outstanding limited partnership
units.

Under terms of the offering, holders of the company's Class A common
stock would be entitled to one share of transferable subscription rights
for each share of Class A common stock, held at the close of business on
the September 30, 1999 record date. In accordance with customary trading
practices, investors must acquire shares of the company's class A common
stock by the close of business on September 27, 1999 in order to receive
the rights attendant to such shares.

Holders of outstanding units in Patriot American Hospitality
Partnership, L.P. would be entitled to 0.95 rights per unit and holders
of outstanding units in Wyndham International Operating Partnership,
L.P. would be entitled to .05 rights for each unit at the close of
business on the record date.

It is currently estimated that approximately 57 rights would be required
to purchase one share of the preferred stock. The company will use the
cash proceeds from the rights offering to redeem shares of its
outstanding series B preferred stock.

The company will not be obligated to complete the rights offering if the
court declines, in any respect, to enter a final order approving the
stipulation of settlement in a form satisfactory to the parties; there
is a pending court order, motion, legal proceeding or other action to
enjoin, prevent or delay the rights offering; or the rights offering
cannot, despite the company's good faith efforts, be completed by
December 17, 1999.

The Registration Statement for the rights offering has not yet become
effective. As soon as practicable after the effective date of the
Registration Statement, the Company expects to mail to holders of class
A common stock and holders of limited partnership units as of the record
date a prospectus for the rights offering accompanied by a subscription
warrant and related explanations for exercising or selling the rights.
The prospectus will contain a description of the rights offering and
other information.

Wyndham International, Inc. owns, leases, manages and franchises
primarily upscale and luxury hotels representing a combined portfolio of
318 properties with a total of more than 74,000 rooms in 38 states as
well as Canada, the Caribbean and Europe.

                         Cautionary Statement

The Registration Statement for the rights offering has not yet become
effective. The underlying series A preferred stock may not be sold nor
may offers to buy be accepted before the time the Registration Statement
becomes effective. This release shall not constitute an offer to sell or
the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of such
series A preferred stock in any state in which such offer, solicitation
or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under
the securities laws of any such state.


* Congress Will Act On A Series Of Proposed Health-Care Reforms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Health care is back. Poll after poll in recent months show Americans
again are putting health-care reform near the top of their list of
things Congress should act on. And Washington is listening.

Next week, Congress will act on a series of proposed health-care
reforms, including changes in how health-maintenance organizations
(HMOs) do business and new ways to boost health-care access.

The impact is already being felt on Wall Street. Shares of HMOs have
rolled over (see chart) as the calls for reform have grown louder.

What has the markets so worried? Last Thursday, shares plunged on a
report that a prominent group of lawyers plans to file massive
class-action suits to force HMOs to do a better job - and to pay huge
settlements if they don't.

California Gov. Gray Davis signed a ''patients' bill of rights'' into
law that lets consumers sue HMOs for bad care.

But new reforms winding their way through Congress also have cast a pall
over the industry.

One bill, in particular, stands out. Sponsored by Rep. Charlie Norwood,
R-Ga., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., that bill would let consumers sue
their HMOs for unlimited damages. The legislation also includes a spate
of new rules that would force HMOs to cover services that hadn't been
provided in the past. ''The Norwood-Dingell bill is a political
solution,'' said Angie Hunter, spokeswoman for the Council for
Affordable Health Insurance, an industry group. ''The best solution is
tax equity, not lawsuits and a bunch of new regulations.''

Hunter points to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Norwood-
Dingell bill. It shows the legislation would boost health-care costs by
$ 57.2 billion a year and cause 1.4 million people to lose their health
insurance.

Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., echoed these concerns earlier this week.
''While the Democrats say they're for health-care reform, I must point
out that none of their managed-care proposals they support comes close
to providing coverage for the uninsured,'' noted Hastert. ''What does
the Dingell-Norwood bill do for the uninsured? Nothing. In fact, it has
the dubious distinction of actually adding millions more people to the
ranks of the uninsured because they increase health-care costs,'' he
added.

Economists, too, are worried about costs. ''I have an abiding discomfort
with legislative regulations on health-care providers,'' said Henry
Aaron of the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. ''It is a real
concern that Congress will get into micro-managing HMOs.''

But Aaron doesn't think that opening HMOs to lawsuits has to be a bad
thing. ''The right to sue for damages is a reasonable right,'' he noted.
He added that any new law should create alternatives to court. It should
also create ''obstacles to lawyers doing cases on spec that don't have
legal merit but might have emotional appeal to a jury,'' Aaron said.

But another problem complicates health-care reform: the tax code. Many
of today's woes can be traced all the way back to tax changes made
during World War II. At the time, with millions of young men at war, the
U.S. faced serious labor shortages. American companies also faced
wage-and-price controls, which made it hard to attract new workers. To
help businesses, the IRS let them offer health care to employees as a
form of nontaxable benefit. After WWII, the arrangement stayed in place.
By the 1950s, it became law.

Throughout most of the 1950s and 1960s, health insurance was offered on
a fee-for-service basis. But as health-care costs skyrocketed over the
last 30 years, employers demanded action.

That's where HMOs came in. HMOs were created to ''restrict and control
access to medical services so that employers can offer health care to
employees and at the same time have some control over health- care
costs,'' noted one industry executive.

''But since employers pay for health care, people are disconnected
between what they want and what they would actually pay for
themselves,'' he added. ''This has resulted in frustrations for some
people who find it difficult to have their options limited.''

Republicans agree. They say concerns about quality are best addressed by
allowing people more choices. ''People don't want to sue their HMOs;
some people just want to fire them,'' said a GOP leadership aide. ''But
under the current tax code, you just can't do that without paying
heavily for that decision.'' The Republican leadership argues that the
best solution for people who are unhappy with HMOs is to give them more
choices and the same tax breaks that businesses get. So they've rallied
around a bill sponsored by Rep. James Talent, R-Mo., which will also
come up for a vote next week.

The Talent bill includes tax-free Medical Savings Accounts, 100% tax
deductibility of individual insurance premiums for the self-employed and
uninsured, as well as the creation of new kinds of insurance pools that
let small businesses and individuals participate.

''The Norwood-Dingell bill does nothing to expand access to insurance to
those 40 million Americans who don't have it,'' said Michelle Davis,
spokeswoman for the majority leader of the House, Dick Armey of Texas.
''What we are interested in doing is making insurance more affordable
and more accessible for small businesses, self- employed people and
those who work for employers who can't afford to offer health
insurance,'' she added. ''Giving lawyers the right to sue does
absolutely nothing for those who can't afford insurance or those sitting
in a hospital desperate for a decision who are told you'll get your day
in court someday.''

But the GOP's Norwood says his party's leadership is offering a false
choice. He says both bills are important and Congress should not confuse
two separate issues. ''We desperately need to restore patient rights and
guarantee quality health plans,'' said Norwood. ''But we also need to
ensure that Americans can afford those health plans to begin with. We
have to deal with both issues, and that requires a two-way street on
bipartisanship.'' He added: ''GOP leadership is afraid of restoring the
right to sue HMOs that breach their contract. Democratic leadership is
afraid of giving people the right to choose how they spend their own
health dollars through Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) and
HealthMarts.''

Opponents worry that the Norwood- Dingell bill will give government more
control than ever over the nation's health-care system. ''There are some
in Congress whose ultimate goal is to have the federal government design
the health-care delivery system of the 21st century, rather than letting
consumers and patients make those decisions for themselves,'' said Rep.
John Boehner, R-Ohio. ''Ultimately, patients and consumers will shape
the ideal health-care delivery system in America - not the federal
government. That is the essence of health-care reform,'' added Boehner.

Despite the opposition to the Norwood-Dingell bill by the GOP House
leadership, most observers expect the measure to pass. But that may not
be the last word.

Earlier this year, Sens. Don Nickles, R-Okla., and Phil Gramm, R-Texas,
led the effort to defeat a Democrat-sponsored reform similar to the
Norwood- Dingell bill. In its place, the Republican-dominated Senate
OK'd a bill that made it easier for some to get health-care coverage and
imposed new rules on HMOs.

Many analysts predict the split between the House and Senate on health
care will lead to a stalemate this year. And both parties may not want
to do much in this, an election year, says national pollster John Zogby.
''I just don't see how it hurts either party if they don't pass
anything,'' he said. ''Both parties will have a chance to make their
case on this and other issues in the 2000 elections.'' (Investor's
Business Daily 10-1-1999)


                               *********


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 and Peter A. Chapman, editors.

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  * * *