---

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

               Friday, December 17, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 223

                               Headlines

ADAM'S MARK: DOJ Charges Hotel Chain of Bias; Claims to be Consolidated
BAKER HUGHES: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Suit in Texas
BAKER HUGHES: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in Texas
BAKER HUGHES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in Texas
BAKER HUGHES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Texas

BELMONT OVERBILLING: L.A. School System's Auditor Finds $2M Overbilling
BISHOP NURSING: PA. Suit Claims Illegal Billing by Nursing Homes
COMCAST CORP: Calls Suit Blatant Attempt to Reduce Internet Competition
GPU INC: 3rd Cir Remands Some Test Cases over Nuclear Accident
GUN MANUFACTURERS: Officials Appeal in Miami & Vow Unity in Washington

HITSGALORE COM: Files Motion to Dismiss Consolidated CA Securities Suit
HMO: Harvard Pilgrim Defends Its $5 Fee in Response to Boston Suit
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Clinton Praises Compensation Deal
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: U.S. Counsel to Meet With Reps. from German Industry
L.A. PROBATION: Ct Oks Dept’s Settlement for Employees Racial Bias Suit

LIVENT INC: Deloitte and Outside Directors Cleared of Securities Claims
MICROSOFT CORP: N. Carolina Consumers Sue; Milberg Is Handling Action
MONSANTO: AFP Sees World Legal Action; British Writer Sees Social Issue
MONSANTO: Environmentalists Arrange to Sue in Different Jurisdictions
MONSANTO: Lieff, Cabraser Takes Lead in Biotech Suit in Washington

NAVIGANT CONSULTING: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit in Il.
PERDUE FARMS: Chicken Processing Employees Sue in Dela over Wage and OT
PERITUS SOFTWARE: Contests Securities Suit in MA. over Acquisition
SMART CHOICE: Intends to Contest Vigorously Securities Suit in Florida
TYCO INT'L: Donovan Miller Files Securities Suit in New Hampshire

TYCO INT'L: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
TYCO INT'L: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in New York
TYCO INT'L: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Suit in New York
XEROX CORP: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in Connecticut

                            *********

ADAM'S MARK: DOJ Charges Hotel Chain of Bias; Claims to be Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Justice Department on December 16 charged that the Adam's Mark hotel
chain discriminated against blacks by charging them more than whites,
offering them less desirable rooms and requiring more security from
them.

The St. Louis-based chain owns 21 large, full-service hotels around the
country. The chain was sued earlier this year by blacks who said the
Adam's Mark's Daytona Beach, Fla., hotel singled them out as security
risks. That private case has become a class-action lawsuit joined by the
NAACP. ''It is hard to believe that 35 years after the Civil Rights Act
was passed by Congress, this type of discrimination still exists,''
Attorney General Janet Reno told a Justice Department news conference.
''This isn't fair. It isn't right. And it's against the law.''

The state of Florida also filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in
the private lawsuit, and it was expected that the Justice Department
would move to consolidate the lawsuits. Joining Reno here, Florida
Attorney General Bob Butterworth said the Adam's Mark hotel in Daytona
Beach treated blacks in a ''degrading, dehumanizing and despicable''
way. ''The fact that it was part of an overall corporate strategy should
shock the conscience of us all.'' ''The blatantly racist policies of
Adam's Mark'' were not only ''morally reprehensible,'' Butterworth said,
but also threatened to harm tourism, which he called Florida's
lifeblood, by ''sending a message that in some places in Florida blacks
are not welcome.'' But Butterworth said, ''Florida has zero tolerance
for discrimination.''

The Justice Department suit was filed on December 16 in U.S. District
Court in Orlando, Fla. The hotels were charged with engaging in a
pattern and practice of racial discrimination against blacks in its
hotels, clubs, restaurants and lounges.

In St. Louis, Fred S. Kummer, president and chief executive of the
privately held chain, declined to comment on the government lawsuit
until he had an opportunity to read it.

The lawsuit said the hotel chain applied ''different and more onerous
terms and conditions to nonwhite persons at its hotels with regard to
such things as prices for goods and services, provision of services and
requirements related to security, identification and reservations, than
those applied to white persons.'' The lawsuit also said the chain
offered and rented ''less desirable hotel rooms'' to nonwhites than to
whites during comparable stays and had a practice of ''segregating
nonwhite persons in rooms in less desirable locations than those offered
and rented to white persons.'' Further, the lawsuit said, the chain
implemented procedures to exclude or limit the number of nonwhite
clients in its hotels, restaurants, bars and lounges.

The government said these practices violated the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations. The
government sought a court order barring the chain from such practices.

In the private lawsuit filed last May, five black vacationers who went
to Daytona Beach for a black college reunion this year alleged the
Adam's Mark Hotel made black guests wear orange wristbands and used
security guards to intimidate them during the annual spring break
weekend. The private suit also alleged the hotel gave black guests rooms
without phone service and basic housekeeping. Pictures were stripped
from hotel room walls and minibars were kept locked, according to the
private lawsuit.

Adam's Mark Hotel officials declined to comment on the private lawsuit
but said they had always supported the black college reunion and
maintain a racially diverse work force. ''Adam's Mark Hotels have a
corporatewide commitment to diversity not simply because we believe it's
the right thing to do, but because it makes good business sense,'' the
hotel said in a statement last May. (AP Online December 16, 1999)


BAKER HUGHES: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a Class action lawsuit in the
Southern District of Texas, on behalf of purchasers of shares in Baker
Hughes Inc. (NYSE:BHI) during the Class Period from May 3, 1999 through
and including December 8, 1999.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
continuously disseminated materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's current financial performance and business
conditions. On May 3, 1999, BHI issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the first quarter of 1999 ended March 31, 1999.

The operating earnings for the quarter were $0.13 per share (diluted)
compared to $0.35 per share (diluted) in the first quarter 1998.
Revenues were $ 1.324 billion and operating profit before tax was$65.7
million.

In the August 3,1999 press release, BHI stated its financial results for
the second quarter of 1999 ended June 30, 1999 as follows: operating
earnings were $ 0.06 per share (diluted) compared to $0.36 per hare
(diluted) in the second quarter of 1998. Revenues were $1.211 billion
and operating profit before tax was $28.2 million.

On November 1, 1999, BHI's press release announcing its financial
results for the third quarter ending September 30, 1999, was as follows:
operating earnings were $0.03 per share (diluted) compared to$0.20 per
shares (diluted) for the same quarter of 1998. Revenues were$1.208
billion and operating profit before tax was $14.2 million.

On December 1, 1999, BHI issued a press release announcing that it may
see a small operating loss in its fourth quarter. BHI was taking a
pretax charge of approximately $130 million in December 1999 relating
primarily to the disposition or idling of certain marine, ocean bottom
cable and land seismic acquisition assets.

On December 8, 1999, BHI shocked the investment community when it
announced that its internal audit department discovered "various
accounting issues" at its INTEQ business unit that will require its
previously reported financial statements to be restated.

Specifically, the defendants published false and misleading statements,
including the fact that BHI's financial statements that were materially
overstated by at least $40 to $50 million.

Contact: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan Gross, Esq. Tina
Moukoulis, Esq. 800/849-3120 or 215/561-3600 E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or tina@bernardmgross.com  Website:
http://www.bernardmgross.com


BAKER HUGHES: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following was released on December 15 by Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox
LLP:

Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Baker
Hughes, Inc. (NYSE: BHI) ("Baker Hughes" or the "Company") between July
24, 1998 and December 8, 1999 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, Baker and certain of
its top officers and directors reported favorable earnings and failed to
disclose that there were accounting issues at the Company which caused
Baker Hughes stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. On December
8, 1999, after the close of the market, defendants announced that its
internal accounting department had discovered "various accounting
issues" at its Inteq drilling services unit which could have a
cumulative pretax effect "in the range of $40 million to $50 million,
including the possible restatement of prior periods." Following these
disclosures, the price of BHI common stock dropped to $19-1/4 per share
from a Class Period high of $36-1/4 per share.

Contact: Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Joel B. Strauss, Esq. Adrienne L.
Valencia, Esq. Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP 805 Third Avenue - 22nd
Floor New York, NY 10022, (800) 290-1952, (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212)
687-7714 E-mail address: mail@kkf-law.com


BAKER HUGHES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel hereby gives notice that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Baker Hughes Inc. (NYSE: BHI) common stock during the
period between May 3, 1999 and Dec. 8, 1999 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges BHI and an officer and director with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BHI services the oil and gas
industry, providing reservoir-centered products, services, and systems
to the worldwide oil and gas industry, provides products and services
for oil and gas exploration, drilling, completion and production, and
manufactures and markets a variety of roller cutter bits and fixed
cutter diamond bits.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants reported
favorable earnings and represented that there were no accounting issues
at the company, which caused its stock to trade at artificially inflated
levels. On 12/1/99, BHI announced it expected 4Q 99 earnings to be short
of expectations. Then on 12/8/99, Baker announced it might restate its
past results due to accounting issues in its Inteq unit that would
require charges of $40-$50 million be taken. On these disclosures, BHI's
stock declined as much as 26% to as low as $15 on volume of 28 million
shares. As a result of the defendants' false statements, BHI's stock
price traded at as high as $36-1/4 during the Class Period.

Contact: Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 210
West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106, by telephone
at 888-643-6735 or 215-625-9999, by facsimile at 215-440-9475, by e-mail
at Mhenzel182@aol.com or Website is at http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182



BAKER HUGHES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following announcement was issued by Wechsler Harwood Halebian &
Feffer LLP on December 15:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
behalf of all purchasers of Baker Hughes, Inc., (NYSE: BHI) common stock
between May 3, 1999 and December 9, 1999, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint charges Baker Hughes and one of its executive officers
with violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings concerning Baker
Hughes' revenues and earnings. As a result, the price of Baker Hughes'
common stock was inflated throughout the Class Period. On December 9,
1999, Baker Hughes shocked the market by announcing that it had
discovered "accounting issues" at its Integ oil-exploration unit that
may require the Company to restate its financial results for prior
periods.

Contact: Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10022, or call toll free 877-935-7400, or e-mail --
Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq., at jhaber@whhf.com


BELMONT OVERBILLING: L.A. School System's Auditor Finds $2M Overbilling
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The top auditor of the Los Angeles school system said on December 14
that his investigation into the Belmont Learning Complex has found more
than $ 2 million in overbilling and that millions more could be
unearthed.

Don Mullinax, head of internal audits and the special investigations
unit of the Los Angeles Unified School District, said the overbilling
was discovered in just the most recent payment demands, representing
only a fraction of the invoices on the $ 200-million project. "I am
astonished that companies could even attempt to overbill the school
district at the time we had an investigation going," he said.

Concluding the second part of his inquiry into the Belmont fiasco,
Mullinax blamed poor accounting controls both within the district and on
the part of outside consultants for allowing the hemorrhage of funds.

Mullinax recommended that the district consider suing its auditing firm,
Ernst & Young, and that it file another lawsuit against its former law
firm, O'Melveny & Myers.

He also, for the first time, squarely laid responsibility for Belmont on
Dominic Shambra, the tough-talking former head of the district's office
of planning development, which was created to spearhead joint
construction projects with outside contractors.

Unlike Mullinax's first report on Belmont, released in September, this
one did not recommend new employee discipline. It added details to the
public record, such as the amount of overbilling suspected so far, but
did not break substantial new ground.

Responding to the report, Chief Operating Officer Howard Miller said he
had demoted the district's chief financial officer and recommended that
the board fire Ernst & Young. "Our intention is to drive a stake through
the heart of the culture that produced these results," Miller said.

Mullinax said he referred information to three federal, state and local
prosecuting agencies for investigation of possible illegal activity. He
declined to specify any individuals or companies, however.

Ernst & Young's L.A. office referred calls on December 14 to a New York
spokesman, who was not available.

The school board is already suing O'Melveny based on allegations in
Mullinax's first report, which said the firm failed to properly advise
the district on handling environmental cleanup at the project site.

Mullinax alleged that O'Melveny partner David Cartwright gave district
employees bad advice by encouraging them to relax their accounting
controls over Belmont subcontractors. "Because the overall construction
price is substantially controlled by the guaranteed maximum price
feature, there is less reason for the district to perform intensive
review of the invoice documentation. . . ," Cartwright said in a 1998
memo to district staff. Mullinax attached a copy of the memo to his
report.

O'Melveny & Myers released a statement on December 14 calling the
allegations "completely wrong" and saying the investigators
misunderstood the memo and the Belmont contract.

Regarding Shambra, the report said that he pushed the Belmont project
forward without a clear budget and that he kept information about
environmental problems out of applications for state funds. The report
quoted him as saying that including such information "would not be a
smart political move and could jeopardize the application." Mullinax
said: "He didn't have a structure where he had to submit a budget. He
just paid the bills."

Shambra attacked the report as replete with error and innuendo. He said
he put no environmental contingency in the application for state funds
because the state had announced that it was no longer funding
environmental cleanups. He conceded weaknesses in the budgeting
procedures but said he was only following district procedures. "That's
not anyone's fault, Shambra said. "That's the way the system was. In
retrospect, it's probably wrong."

Shambra was one of 14 district employees Mullinax accused in his
September report of failing to exercise proper oversight of the project.
Several of them, including general counsel Richard K. Mason and Chief
Administrative Officer David Koch, have left the district. Several
others face potential discipline.

Shambra, who retired nearly two years ago, before the disclosures about
the environmental problems that led to the Belmont investigation, faces
no discipline, however.

Roger Carrick, an attorney who worked on Mullinax's report, said he
expected Shambra's punishment to be the cloud over his name.

The new report also accused two project management firms of failing to
protect the district's interests. It said Hamscomb Inc. and Daniel,
Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, both hired to monitor the accuracy and
appropriateness of work and expenditures, failed to meet their mandate.
Their failure allowed subcontractors to bill for work they had not yet
completed, the report found.

A spokesman for Daniel, Mann denied that the firm was responsible for
project management, and Hamscomb declined to comment.

In related actions on December 14, the school board:

   -- Voted unanimously to have the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be a
project manager for safety and technology projects and new school
construction, including the selection of campus sites. The total cost
of the agreement is $ 1.2 million through March 31.

    -- Hired two law firms to represent the district in the O'Melveny
litigation. Girardi & Keese of Los Angeles and Cotchett, Pitre & Simon
of San Francisco will serve as co-counsels. Thomas Girardi has
represented plaintiffs in cases that resulted in large judgments against
Pacific Gas & Electric and Lockheed. Joseph Cotchett was lead
counsel in the class action suit that ended in a $ 1.75-billion
verdict against Lincoln Savings & Loan.

    -- Postponed a decision on whether to ask the Army Corps to study
the cost of completing Belmont. Miller said he was withdrawing the
recommendation due to concerns about a potential conflict of interest
involving Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera. Caldera was formerly a
lawyer at O'Melveny and supported the Belmont project when a member
of the Legislature representing L.A.

In a statement, Caldera said he had no "knowledge or involvement" in the
negotiations between the corps and the district. Miller said he would
retain an ethics expert to analyze whether Caldera's Army post poses a
conflict. (Los Angeles Times, December 15, 1999)


BISHOP NURSING: PA. Suit Claims Illegal Billing by Nursing Homes
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Philadelphia woman has filed a prospective class-action lawsuit
against her deceased husband's former nursing home in Delaware County,
alleging multiple counts of deceptive trade practices through "double
billing" and unlawful collection practices. The lawsuit, filed in
Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, alleges that certain Delaware County
nursing homes tried to make family members assume financial
responsibility for nursing home residents already covered by third-party
insurance. It also alleges that the defendants routinely double-billed
patients for supplies already paid for by other insurance.

The plaintiff, Eleanor Conley, is represented by Jerold E. Rothkoff of
the Law Offices of Abramson & Denenberg in Philadelphia.

Defendants are the Bishop Nursing Home Inc., Walter M. Strine, Walter M.
Strine Jr. and William B. Strine, in addition to their company
Commonwealth Real Estate Investors, doing business as Dowden Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center, all of Newtown Square, and Keystone Care Center
of Media.

David J. Otis of Beatty Cramp Kauffman and Lincke said he is
representing the Strines. "The quality of care in the Strine facilities
are excellent," he said. "The allegations in the class action deal with
administrative practices only and we intend to vigorously defend those
practices." Otis said it remains to be seen whether this case will be
certified as a class action and "whether it will remain in the
Philadelphia court system."

Rothkoff said he has received numerous calls from former residents of
the nursing homes, from physicians and even funeral directors who have
been sued by the defendants to collect illegal charges. "There's clearly
fraud going on here," Rothkoff said. "I think it goes deeper than I
imagined."

The complaint says that Eleanor Conley brought her class action on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, who have been residents of
defendant nursing homes and from whom the defendants have attempted to
collect debts for nursing care services. Conley claims that the nursing
homes and their owners took advantage of nursing home residents and
their families by making families sign financial responsibility
contracts before admitting residents to the home, an illegal practice.
Conley's complaint states, "Given the fact that a nursing home resident
is under 24-hours-a-day control by a facility, many residents and their
family members are unwilling to contest the facility's actions." As a
result, the complaint contends, family members have assumed and paid for
debts that are not owed.

The complaint says that Conley, age 66, was sued by defendants for debts
she denied owing in connection with the stay of her late husband, Abram
Conley, at Dowden Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center. It says that
Abram Conley was a resident at the Dowden Nursing Home for six months in
1996 and that upon Abrams' admission to Dowden, Eleanor was required to
sign an admission agreement for her husband. When she couldn't pay the
ensuing debt, the nursing home sued her.

Although the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act requires a nursing home to
inform a patient of its "basic fee schedule," so that they would know
what was included in the daily rate, the Conleys were never informed
about the basic rate at Dowden, says the complaint. The complaint says
that the Conleys were overcharged for a "multitude of unjustified extra
charges" such as "unsterile gloves, barrier pads, underpads, bedside
commodes, bed pans, trapeze bars, tissues, gowns, sheets, pillowcases"
and more, all of which should have been included in the basic rate.

Similarly, the complaint alleges that the defendants routinely
double-billed patients for supplies already paid for by other insurance.
The complaint also charges the defendant nursing homes with classifying
residents as "private pay" patients even though residents are covered by
Medicare or Medicaid insurance. The complaint says that on information
and belief, the nursing homes were billing residents directly at a
higher rate, instead of billing an applicable third-party source for
payment, in direct violation of federal law.

Conley claims violations of the Pennsylvania Debt Collection Trade
Practices Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act and the
Federal Nursing Home Reform Act.

The plaintiffs seek an injunction and restitution on behalf of Conley
and other members of the class, of all money received by defendants as a
result of their "unlawful business practices," and actual and treble
damages. (The Legal Intelligencer December 15, 1999)


COMCAST CORP: Calls Suit Blatant Attempt to Reduce Internet Competition
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSK, CMCSA) on December 15 blasted GTE's
anti-competitive campaign to slow the efforts of Comcast and other
competitors to provide new high-speed cable Internet services to
consumers.

GTE has complained to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania that the offering by Comcast and others of a
consumer-friendly, competitive cable Internet service violates the
antitrust laws. In its "Answer" filed, Comcast denied the charges, and
asserted that GTE is "attempting to use our nation's antitrust laws to
reduce and damage competition - that is, to achieve results
diametrically opposed to the basic goals of the antitrust laws."

"For years, GTE and other telephone companies owned the only on-ramp to
the information superhighway, and collected easy profits rather than
developing and rolling out advanced high-speed services to consumers,"
said David Juliano, senior vice president and general manager of Comcast
Online. "Telephone companies have had DSL technology for nearly a
decade, but they sat on it. They only began to aggressively roll it out
- and dramatically lowered their asking price - after cable companies
brought competition to the Internet services market."

"Now, as they play catch-up, GTE and other telephone companies are
attempting to block the cable industry's investment in competitive
high-speed Internet service," Juliano continued. "GTE and other phone
companies have pushed an agenda, falsely labeled 'open access,' that is
really intended to saddle cable competitors with crippling regulations.
The FCC, Congress and hundreds and hundreds of local governments have
told GTE and the others that they should invest and compete rather than
complain. In this proceeding, GTE is trying yet again to use the courts
to slow down competition - just as they have tried to slow down local
telephone competition - and we won't let them do it."

As recently as two years ago, high speed Internet service was simply too
expensive or not available to the average consumer. Comcast was one of
the first companies to test high-speed cable Internet service, and has
invested billions of dollars to bring this and other advanced services
to communities throughout its service area. Experience shows that in
markets where telephone companies have introduced DSL services, they
have slashed prices - by 30-40 percent and more - and accelerated
deployment when cable companies introduce a competing service. Cable
investment in these services has also propelled other competitors,
including competitive local exchange carriers, satellite companies, and
wireless companies, to bring even more high-speed competition to market.

"Where cable introduces high-speed Internet services, competitors
follow, and consumers win big," Juliano said. "Competition may be more
difficult than litigation, but it's time for GTE to get on with
investing and competing."

Juliano concluded, "We are confident that the Court will find that the
market is working, and will reject GTE's blatant attempt to reduce
Internet competition."

Comcast Corporation (http://www.comcast.com)is principally involved in
the development, management and operation of broadband cable networks
and the provision of programming content, through principal ownership of
QVC, Comcast-Spectacor and Comcast SportsNet, a controlling interest in
E! Entertainment Television and through other programming investments.

Comcast's Class A Special Common Stock and Class A Common Stock are
traded on The Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbols CMCSK and CMCSA,
respectively.


GPU INC: 3rd Cir Remands Some Test Cases over Nuclear Accident
-------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported, on November 2, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit affirmed a 1996 U.S. District Court order
dismissing ten initial "test cases" of the pending 2,100 personal injury
claims brought against GPU, Inc. and the GPUE companies as a result of
the March 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island Unit No. 2, but set
aside the District Court's dismissal of the remaining claims and
remanded them to the District Court for further proceedings.

On November 16, 1999, GPU, Inc. and the GPUE companies filed petitions
with the Court of Appeals seeking a rehearing and reconsideration of the
Court's decision regarding these remaining claims. The "test case"
plaintiffs have also requested a rehearing, or rehearing en banc, of the
Court's decision upholding the dismissal of their claims. There can be
no assurance as to the outcome of these proceedings.


GUN MANUFACTURERS: Officials Appeal in Miami & Vow Unity in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Undaunted by a Miami-Dade circuit judges dismissal of their suit against
gun makers, county officials and their lawyers are pressing ahead in
both local courts and in Washington, D.C.

It does not deter from our efforts to compel the gun industry to design
safer guns and change their negligent marketing efforts, said Joe
Ramallo, Mayor Alex Penelas assistant director of policy.

In its forthcoming appeal of Judge Amy Deans Monday ruling, the county
will be contesting virtually every legal conclusion in the nine-page
order, said Dennis Henigan, director of the Legal Action Project for the
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence in Washington, who has taken a lead
role in arguing the county’s case.

Judge Deans scorched-earth ruling shot down every argument advanced by
the county on why it should be allowed to recover from gun makers the
money it has spent on police, ambulances and other services associated
with gun violence. Dean, who had signaled her reservations about the
suit in a November hearing, is the third state judge to toss suits by 28
city and county governments against the gun industry.

I think the order is a very fair reflection of the status of the law,
said Chicago lawyer Anne Giddings Kimball, who represents gun makers.

But Henigan disputes Dean’s conclusion that the county has no standing
to bring the suit because there is no state law that would allow it and
because any harm sustained by the county is purely derivative of those
suffered by the victims of gun violence, and therefore are not
recoverable.

Only the Legislature can regulate the gun industry, and the county can’t
end-run elected officials by going to court, she ruled. Further, the
county’s argument that gun sales and marketing programs create a public
nuisance does not apply to the design, manufacturer and distribution of
a lawful product, she wrote.

Henigan, however, said the county is not asking for the same damages
incurred by victims of gun violence. The county has its own, the
millions it spent providing medical and other services to those victims.
There also is no need for a specific state statute to allow the county
to file the suit. Even though the Legislature regulates gun sellers, the
county still has the ability to sue under common law. The state Supreme
Court supported that conclusion two years ago when it ruled that Florida
statutes do not abrogate common law, he said.

Her opinion is clearly incorrect in its claim that this kind of lawsuit
is preempted by state law, Henigan said.

Yet the county is not pinning all its hopes on a favorable ruling from
the 3rd District Court of Appeal. Penelas and officials of nearly 20
other governments that have filed suits spent Tuesday and Wednesday in
Washington, discussing the possibility of joining a proposed federal
class action that would be brought by more than 3,000 public housing
authorities against gun makers.

Those talks with U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew
Cuomo and White House domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed are intended to
put pressure on gun manufacturers to settle the existing lawsuits.

They are using the threatened HUD suit simply as a way to bring pressure
on the industry, said gun industry counsel Kimball. They know and we
know there is no legal or factual basis for such a suit.

With three legal victories so far under its belt, the industry would
seem to have little reason to settle with the governments. But Henigan
said gun manufacturers would be particularly vulnerable to a suit by
housing authorities that are directly impacted by gun violence.

The prospect of such a huge class action where there is absolutely no
standing problem must be quite threatening to the industry, he said.

Kimball, though, contends the standing problem would persist. You cant
say the halls are dirty because of gun violence, she said of public
housing projects. You cant say there is a general air of criminal
activity because of illegal manufacture of firearms. Those are
conditions that HUD has a responsibility to take care of.

Even though government suits have not fared well in court so far, the
tide could turn, he added.

What has to concern the industry is the prospect of some of the suits
breaking through the first stage and into full-scale fact discovery --
where industry files are opened, industry officials are put under oath
in depositions and the prospect of continued substantial legal expenses,
Henigan said. (Broward Daily Business Review, December 16, 1999)


HITSGALORE COM: Files Motion to Dismiss Consolidated CA Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 13, 1999, May 16, 1999 and June 11, 1999, separate putative class
action suits were filed against the Company, Mr. Steve Bradford and Mr.
Dorian Reed in the United States District Court, Central District of
California (Case Nos. 99-5060, 99-5151R and 99-6925R, respectively),
involving the purchase of the Company's securities during periods
specified in the complaints.

On September 20, 1999, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three lawsuits into one and appointing the lead plaintiff and lead
counsel for the consolidated lawsuit (the "Consolidation Order").
Pursuant to the Consolidation Order, on or about October 8, 1999, a
single consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") was filed by the plaintiffs in the consolidated putative
class action under Case No. 99-5060R. The Amended Complaint seeks to
assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws against the
Company and Messrs. Bradford and Reed based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions of fact purportedly made in the
Company's press releases and certain SEC filings during the period from
February 17, 1999 through August 24, 1999 (the "Class Period"). The
Defendants believe the claims to be without merit and intend to
vigorously contest the lawsuit.

On November 10, 1999, a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was
filed on behalf of the Company and Messrs. Bradford and Reed. All
discovery is stayed in the matter pending disposition of the motion to
dismiss. A decision on such motion is not expected until later this year
or early 2000. It is not possible to predict the likely outcome of these
cases or the likelihood or amount of any losses, if any, in the event of
an adverse outcome. No provision has been made in the accompanying
financial statements related to these matters.


HMO: Harvard Pilgrim Defends Its $5 Fee in Response to Boston Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, New England's largest HMO, has a new worry.
On top of a projected $100 million in losses this year and controversy
over a state-guaranteed bond issue to raise needed capital, a
class-action lawsuit filed in federal District Court in Boston alleges
that Harvard Pilgrim has been "secretly" pocketing the profit when
prescriptions cost the HMO less than the $5 copayment it charges
subscribers for common generic drugs. Nursing homes plan State House
rally over Medicaid proposal. "We're alleging that for many commonly
prescribed drugs, such as penicillin, Harvard Pilgrim is only paying
approximately $3 per prescription, not counting further volume
discounts, but it's charging a $5 copayment," said Fredric L. Ellis, a
Boston attorney who filed the suit on behalf of two Harvard Pilgrim
members. The HMO, he said, "has misrepresented to consumers that they
are making a copayment on a prescription and that health insurance is
covering the rest."

The HMO's chief spokesman, Alan Raymond, called the charge "inflammatory
and inaccurate" and countered that Ellis and his clients have "a
fundamental misunderstanding of how things work." Raymond said Harvard
Pilgrim's policy is to charge the subscriber less than the $5 copayment
if the pharmacist's "usual and customary charge," or the standard retail
price, is less than $5. He said that does occur in practice, both within
the larger Harvard Pilgrim network of independent drug stores and at
Harvard-Vanguard Health Center pharmacies.

Raymond, however, said that the HMO does not pass on all the savings
from its drug discounts because it uses those savings to subsidize
losses on more expensive drugs. "There's nothing fraudulent going on.
That's the nature of insurance," Raymond said. "They're saying we should
pass along all the savings but none of the extra costs."

Ellis said Harvard Pilgrim subscribers should pay no more than the
discounted price that the HMO enjoys on many common drugs - not the
retail price for those drugs. "They have been secretly profiting from
their $5 copayments that most members pay for prescription drugs," Ellis
said. His clients are seeking the return of "millions of dollars,
because we believe this has gone on for many years."

According to a legal brief filed with US District Court Judge Patti B.
Saris, at least 11 commonly prescribed generic drugs cost Harvard
Pilgrim approximately $3 for a 30-day supply. These drugs include
penicillin, the antibiotic amoxicillin, the antidepressant amitriptylin,
the antifungal medicine nystatin, and the high blood pressure medicine
atenolol.

The named plaintiffs are two Harvard-Vanguard subscribers, James Alves
of Mattapoisett and Hillel Stavis of Cambridge. Neither was available
for comment.

Ellis said the suit originated from a doctor's report that Harvard
Pilgrim officials were urging his physician group to prescribe drugs
that cost less than the $5 copayment. "We allege that they have met with
their groups of doctors and urged them to prescribe 'for-profit drugs,'
the ones they make a profit on," Ellis said.

Raymond said there is nothing wrong with urging physicians to prescribe
lower-cost drugs. "Like everyone else, Harvard Pilgrim is trying to
bring costs down," the HMO spokesman said.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, a prominent critic
of HMOs, said the lawsuit raises "a legitimate issue, no question about
it." But Galvin also worried that the suit comes at a bad time. "The
concern I have is that in their current fragile situation, I'm not sure
Harvard Pilgrim can withstand a class-action suit," Galvin said. "With
all the problems I have with Harvard Pilgrim, I think it's important for
them to remain alive. But this points up the need for more regulation of
the operations of HMOs in general." (The Boston Globe, December 15,
1999)


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Clinton Praises Compensation Deal
----------------------------------------------------
President Clinton said on December 15 he was personally involved in
reaching a deal to compensate former Nazi slaves and forced laborers
that allows the world to help ''start a new millennium on higher
ground.'' ''We close the 20th century with an extraordinary achievement
that will bring an added measure of material and moral justice to the
victims of this century's most terrible crime,'' Clinton said at the
White House, according to a report by AP Online, December 15.

Clinton said he has worked with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
''for some time'' to reach the settlement between U.S. and German
negotiators. The deal will establish a $5.2 billion fund to compensate
hundreds of thousands of people forced to work for the Nazis and German
companies during World War II. The fund would be administered by an
independent German foundation.

German companies would pay roughly half the restitution, with the German
government making up most of the rest. American firms that had German
subsidiaries during the war, including Ford and General Motors, are
expected to contribute.

U.S. officials estimate about 240,000 former slave laborers survive.
About half that number are Jews held in concentration camps under
horrible conditions. The much larger group of former forced laborers
were mostly non-Jews brought from the Soviet Union, Poland and other
countries east of Germany and put to work making war goods and other
products for the Nazi regime. Under the deal, forced laborers would be
paid between $2,600 and $3,125, while slave laborers who were held in
concentration camps would receive about $7,800.

Across central Europe, victims said they were disappointed by the sum
but relieved to see a deal had finally been reached. ''We understand it
will not be possible to get more than 10 billion marks ($5.2 billion)
and these people have no time to go to court,'' said Jozef Wolan, 74, a
former slave laborer who lives near Szczecin, Poland. ''It is better to
give less but sooner, than more later, which would mean never for these
aging people,'' he said.

A forced-labor survivor from Port Charlotte, Fla., said the financial
details aren't the central issue. ''It doesn't matter how much money it
is at least they admitted they are wrong,'' said Maria Viets, 75. Viets,
who is not Jewish, was taken from her home in Russia by Germans when she
was 18 and forced to work in a factory near Grotz, Austria. She had to
make wires, nails and tools for almost three years. ''They have to pay
for it,'' she said. ''They made us work day and night. Starved us! We
suffered over there.''

U.S. officials, along with class-action lawyers and Jewish groups based
in the United States, drove the negotiations despite the fact that only
an estimated 100,000 victims are Americans. In return for paying into
the fund, German firms such as Volkswagen and Daimler-Chrysler would be
offered some protection from future lawsuits over the use of forced
labor.

According to a White House Briefing reported by the Ferderal News
Service on December 15, Mr. Eizenstat said that the amount to be paid
for the attorneys will be a negotiated sum, rather than a percentage of
the total amount, as one would get in a normal contingent-fee or
class-action amount and that we will be setting a process up to
determine that negotiated amount.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: U.S. Counsel to Meet With Reps. from German Industry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, a San Francisco plaintiffs'
firm, and other U.S. counsel for Nazi era slave laborers are meeting
with representatives of German industry and finance in Berlin on Friday,
December 17, 1999, to conclude discussions regarding the settlement of
Holocaust-era and slave labor claims. Lieff, Cabraser is among other
counsel involved in the Holocaust-era litigation against German
industrial concerns for slave labor, German banks for Aryanization and
other German financial institutions for illicitly profiting from
Nazi-era misconduct.

"If, as we expect, that the discussions on Friday are successful, a
settlement in principle will be reached not only resolving the claims of
victims against German industry for using slave labor, but also German
banks for the Aryanization' or confiscation of Jewish and other property
during the Holocaust and German insurance companies for refusing to pay
on policies of victims of Nazi persecution," said Lieff, Cabraser
partner Morris A. Ratner, who has been involved in the settlement
discussions since they commenced roughly eight months ago.

The settlement, if reached, would resolve scores of class action
lawsuits pending against German companies in California, New York, New
Jersey, and elsewhere. The exact amount of the fund to be established by
German enterprise will not be disclosed until Friday.

"At this time, the parties are expected to reach agreement only on an
overall number for the resolution of these Holocaust-era claims against
German companies," said Lieff, Cabraser's Elizabeth J. Cabraser, who has
been active in the litigation against German companies nationally.
"Difficult issues will remain to be addressed even after a settlement in
principle is reached, including the manner in which the funds are to be
allocated among the victims," noted Cabraser. The class members in the
U.S. actions pending against the German companies are predominantly
non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, including most significantly
Eastern Europeans who were forced to perform slave labor, many of whom
emigrated to the United States after the war, and even greater numbers
of whom still reside in Eastern Europe.

"The efforts in the next few days should cap approximately three years
of intense litigation efforts in the United States," said Lieff Cabraser
partner Ratner. The litigation has been complimented by intense public
scrutiny, investigations by public officials, and the support of the
German people themselves for a resolution of this issue before the end
of this century. "We are proud of what we think we will accomplish this
week," said Ratner. "The settlement, if concluded, will finally bring a
measure of justice to victims of Nazi persecution who have waited 50
years for compensation."

Estimates of the number of effected persons vary to some extent, but the
consensus is that there are approximately 2.3 million surviving slave
and forced laborers, who could potentially benefit from the multibillion
dollar settlement being expected to be announced this Friday.

Contact: Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, 415/956-1000 Morris A. Ratner, Esq., 415/956-1000


L.A. PROBATION: Ct Oks Dept’s Settlement for Employees Racial Bias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has given preliminary approval to a massive $ 2-million
settlement of a long-running class action civil rights lawsuit over the
management of Los Angeles County's probation department.

The 5-year-old lawsuit alleged that the department shortchanged the
inner city in its allocation of resources and passed over blacks for
promotions.

The settlement includes monetary damages to black probation officers
whose careers were allegedly damaged by discrimination, as well as a
requirement that the county track how it deploys its resources and send
more staff into the inner-city. U.S. District Court Judge Christine A.
Snyder gave preliminary approval to the settlement on Monday. (Los
Angeles Times December 16, 1999)


LIVENT INC: Deloitte and Outside Directors Cleared of Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Deloitte & Touche has won dismissal from a securities class
action stemming from disclosures that Livent Inc., the Canadian-based
theatrical production company, used accounting artifices to overstate
its income by more than $ 98 million (in Canadian dollars) over three
years.

Southern District Judge Robert W. Sweet similarly dismissed damage
claims for securities fraud against three outside directors of Livent
but ruled that the class action could proceed against four of the
company's executives, including the two men who founded Livent in 1989,
Garth H. Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb.

Judge Sweet in In re: Livent Inc. Securities Litigation relied on
findings by the Securities and Exchange Commission that the inside
directors and executives had gone to great lengths to conceal their
alleged financial manipulations from outsiders. He concluded that
neither Deloitte & Touche nor the outside directors, who were members of
Livent's Audit Committee, had been "reckless" in their failure to
uncover the improprieties.

Nonetheless, Judge Sweet left the door open for the plaintiff class to
replead specific knowledge of the insiders' capacity to conceal their
actions and their failure to make further inquiries. The stock of
Livent, which has produced such Broadway hits as "Ragtime," "Phantom of
the Opera," and "Fosse," plummeted by more than 95 percent from $ 6.75 a
share (in U.S. dollars) to 28 cents following the company's announcement
in November 1998 that it had overstated income by $ 98.2 million in
Canadian dollars for its fiscal years 1995 through 1997.

An SEC investigation and civil suit quickly followed, and last January
federal prosecutors in Manhattan filed criminal charges against
Drabinsky and Gottlieb, accusing them of stealing $ 4.6 million from the
company and then doctoring its books to cover their alleged
thefts.Meanwhile, bankruptcy proceedings were filed in both Manhattan
and Toronto, and in July, Livent sold its assets, which consisted mostly
of theaters in New York, Chicago and Toronto, to SFX Entertainment, the
largest U.S. producer of live music shows, for approximately $ 128
million.

The frauds were uncovered by a new management team installed by former
Walt Disney head Michael Ovitz after a company he headed invested $ 20
million in Livent, taking a 12 percent stake in the company. Those
schemes, which form the basis of both the governmental actions and the
private class action before Judge Sweet, include the following claims:

* A number of sales agreements Livent negotiated with other companies
  had side agreements for paybacks, with the consequence that the
  income from the "sales" should have been booked as loans, not
  revenues.

* Costs associated with some shows were improperly classified as fixed
  assets, which meant that they were written off over a period of 40
  years rather than five years.

* Costs associated with currently operating shows were improperly
  shifted to shows that had not opened.

* Expense and account payable entries were removed from Livent's books.

Since concededly neither Deloitte & Touche nor the outside directors A.
Alfred Taubman, H. Garfield Emerson and Martin Goldfarb participated in
the fraud, the plaintiffs had to plead facts demonstrating that they had
been "reckless" in failing to uncover the fraud, Judge Sweet wrote. That
allegation was necessary, he pointed out, in order to meet the
requirement for "scienter" necessary to establish securities fraud under
@ 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

A central unresolved question in the 2nd Circuit, Judge Sweet observed,
is whether the pleading requirement of "recklessness" can be established
by the mere size of the fraud alleged. In refusing to make such a
connection, Judge Sweet observed, "it does not seem reasonable to infer
recklessness on the part of an auditor solely from the magnitude of the
fraud, particularly where, as here, the Complaint and the SEC complaint
describe in detail how the magnitude of the fraud was accompanied by the
thoroughness of its concealment."

Judge Sweet gave the plaintiffs an example of the type of allegation
they would have to add to a new complaint in order to meet the scienter
requirement with respect both to the accounting firm and the outside
directors. He pointed out that, according to the complaint, the Livent
executives had the computer capacity to remove entries from their
accounting system without raising any "red flags." If the plaintiffs
could allege that either Deloitte & Touche or the outside directors were
aware of the capacity to erase entries and failed to make further
inquiries, a renewed complaint would stand. This story originally
appeared in The New York Law Journal. (The Legal Intelligencer, December
13, 1999)


MICROSOFT CORP: N. Carolina Consumers Sue; Milberg Is Handling Action
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer class action was filed in Denver, North Carolina against
Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) on behalf of consumers who purchased personal
computers loaded with Microsoft's Windows '95 and Windows '98 software.
The suit alleges Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct drove up the price
of personal computers that were loaded with Microsoft's operating
software. Kenneth Vianale, the attorney at class-action firm Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP who is handling the action, said that:
"the action seeks recovery for people who purchased PC's with Windows
installed, as well as individuals who purchased Windows products
separately to upgrade existing software programs."

Contact: Kenneth J. Vianale or Jack Reise, both of Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach LLP, 561-361-5000; or Donald M. Brown of Brown &
Associates, PLLC, 704-542-2525


MONSANTO: AFP Sees World Legal Action; British Writer Sees Social Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The suit alleging cartel and the sale of potentially dangerous goods
chiefly targets the American firm Monsanto, but the scope of challenge
to the giants of agricultural biotechnology is worldwide, according to
an article on the Agence France Presse of December 15. The article
quotes the words of Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation of
Economic Trends, a non-governmental group which filed the suit in a US
Federal Court in Washington on December 14, "This is landmark
litigation," Rifkin said on December 15 while on a visit to Paris. "This
is the first global class-action lawsuit." It opened the way for
governments and activists in Europe and elsewhere to follow suit, he
predicted.

The lawsuit says Monsanto plotted to set up a worldwide cartel in
genetically-modified seeds with "co-conspirators" DuPont, Dow Chemical,
Novartis, AstraZeneca and other big biotechnology firms. It also alleges
that their products went on the market without sufficient testing to
prove they were safe for health and the environment.

Monsanto dismisses the lawsuit as groundless. "The claims that are being
made are outrageous. We are very confident that we will prevail in this
case," said Alex Woolfall, a spokesman in London for for the firm's
British unit, Monsanto plc.

The suit, which demands "signficant" but unspecified damages, has been
filed by Rifkin's group and the National Family Farm Coalition, linking
American family farmers in 35 states. They say that the environmental
and commercial risks of genetically-modified seeds were never spelled
out. Farmers who converted to the new product have lost 200 million
dollars in exports to the European Union (EU), where there are
widespread public objections to the new crop, they allege. And those who
stayed with conventional seeds or are organic growers had seen their
fields contaminated by pollen from the new crops, giving rise to soil
degradation and loss of fears for their own market in Europe.

Ten of the largest anti-trust law firms in the United States have taken
up the litigation, on a "no-win, no-fee basis." They include companies
with experience in class-action against tobacco firms, Microsoft, Exxon
and German firms that abetted the Holocaust. "We've put together the
green Dream Team of litigators," said Rifkin confidently.

The lawsuit is the latest public relations disaster for Monsanto, which
is already struggling against a campaign by European environmentalists
to brand it a Frankenstein-like tinkerer with Nature.

Roughly half of the US corn and soybean crop comes from
genetically-modified seed. Bio-engineered crops contain changes to their
genetic structure that endow them with a natural pesticide against grubs
and caterpillars or makes them resistant to types of weedkiller. Their
manufacturers insist that by requiring less chemicals, the crops are
safe, offer big savings to farmers and are also beneficial for the
environment. Scientists are generally cautious about endorsing or
condemning the new seeds. There have also been two studies this year --
both in laboratory conditions -- pointing to potentially adverse effects
for modified corn on the environment.

Rifkin said his group had acquired "internal documents" from Monsanto
that were a "smoking gun" proving its case. Speaking about the risks of
market domination, he gave an example of Monsanto contracts under which
farmers were obliged to sign a "licensing arrangement" for the firm's
genetically-engineered seed. Under this, the farmer does not buy the
seed but has the right to use its DNA for one growing season, but no
more. This amounts to a lease on a human staple, said Rifkin. "If
Monsanto gets its way, no farmer would ever own a seed again... everyone
would be completely at the beck and call of the supplier." He drew a
parallel with the anti-trust action against the US giant Standard Oil at
the start of the century.

Genetic science is the contemporary equivalent of oil in terms of
economic potential, and this key sector could not be exposed to a cartel
of half a dozen companies, he charged. (Agence France Presse December
15, 1999)

According to the Financial Times (London) of December 15, 1999, the
suit, filed by a consortium of top US law firms with the support of
farmers and environmental groups, is vast in its ambitions. At most, its
backers hope to give the anti-GM movement legal teeth to stop the
scientific revolution under way in agriculture since the early 1990s. At
least, they intend to trigger a legal, commercial and philosophical
rethink of the increasing control a handful of companies now enjoy over
the human food chain.

"This case plugs into the enormous unease we saw at the WTO about the
growing influence of an increasingly small number of companies," said
Andrew Simms, from the New Economic Foundation, an environmental think
tank. "The public is aware the regulation hasn't caught up with the
realities of a global market place, where national borders are
increasingly irrelevant."

The law firms, led by Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, are not only
challenging the very US regulatory system under which dozens of GM crops
have already been approved for release. They are also suing for millions
of dollars in damages on behalf of farmers in the US and abroad who,
they claim, are unable to market their "miracle" GM crops.

The suit, based on novel legal theories in both US and international
law, has obvious echoes of "social issue" litigation aimed at changing
public policy towards tobacco and handguns. And those who filed it know
they are striking at a particularly sensitive time in the continuing
debate over the rights and wrongs of GM foods.

Having seen the area of the world sown with genetically engineered crops
multiply 15 times between 1996 and 1998, when it totalled 27.8m
hectares, the five main biotech companies watched in dismay as Europe
rejected GM foods.

At the same time, consumers in the US - one of the few markets that
seemed safely established - are belatedly waking up to the controversial
aspects of GM technology. At public hearings staged by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), which approves GM foods for public consumption,
scores of consumer groups recently challenged the efficacy of the
regulatory system.

The FDA concluded the system worked, but many observers believe US
labelling of GM ingredients is inevitable, and a move that could have a
dramatic impact on domestic sales. Having recently harvested their
crops, US farmers are now wondering whether to plant more GM seeds, and
risk finding no buyers, or revert to conventional hybrids. Analysts'
predictions of the fall in GM seed sales next year range from as much as
50 per cent to as little as 10 per cent.

Poor sales prospects have helped accelerate the restructuring of the
agrochemicals sector, with life sciences companies Novartis and
AstraZeneca recently announcing they were merging their agribusinesses
to create the world's largest agrochemical company.

None of the companies involved looks more vulnerable than Monsanto, the
lawsuit's main target which produces maize and cotton engineered to
resist insects, and soyabean, cotton, maize and canola treated to
tolerate Roundup Ready herbicide.

An Dollars 8bn acquisitions spree - reflecting the concentration of the
industry that so alarms environmentalists - has left Monsanto heavily
indebted and its share price has sagged alarmingly since a planned
merger with American Home Products collapsed last year.

Pressure on the company has been particularly intense since the
Novartis-AstraZeneca merger. Only last week, reports were rife that
Monsanto directors were about to sell off the agricultural products
business in order to realise the value of its pharmaceuticals division.

But industry analysts predicted Monsanto would adopt a "grin and bear
it" approach. Having so far balked at proposals that would mean
abandoning chief executive Bob Shapiro's cherished "life sciences"
concept, a weakening of nerves now seems unlikely.

"This lawsuit definitely complicates things for Monsanto," said Sano
Shimoda, head of Biosciences Securities, a San Francisco company. "But
this is the time when CEO's really earn their pay. When their back is
against the wall they have to know how to grit their teeth and say 'a
bad deal is not a deal'."

Environmentalist groups predicted the lawsuit, which raises the spectre
of millions of dollars in potential damage, would prompt serious second
thoughts in the entire sector.

"I can't imagine it won't have an effect on research and development on
GM," said Peter Roderick, legal adviser to Friends of the Earth. "They
are going to have to sit down and make some very hard decisions."

But industry experts said the biotech sector, accustomed to costly
research and development programmes that take 10-15 years to bring
returns, is more likely to look to the long term.

The paper continues to talk about the issue on December 16 saying that
Americans get wise to agricultural revolution and the debate over
genetically modified crops is heading across the Atlantic.

In a reversal of normal practice, whereby health crazes, fashion trends
and other seismic shifts in the zeitgeist are first born in America and
then travel to Europe, the GM issue is heading west across the Atlantic.
One measure of the change was this week's decision by a group of leading
US law firms to file a class action against Monsanto and its rival
biotech companies, accusing them of trying to establish a global cartel
in GM seeds.

The weeks before saw a series of public hearings hosted by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), the body that vets crops for human
consumption, to discuss the issues raised. Held in Washington, Chicago
and California and attended by consumer groups, food scientists,
environmentalists and seed companies, the meetings represent a departure
from an establishment that once fretted solely over the impact European
rejection of GM products could have on US exports.

Today its concern lies closer to home: the stance a domestic audience
will adopt as it belatedly grasps the extent of the agricultural
revolution under way in its own country.

Until six months ago, the sowing of thousands of hectares with GM
soyabean and maize, accounting for 57 per cent and 30 per cent of the US
crop respectively, had passed with scarcely a murmur from the US public.

Comparing this calm response with the frenzied British rejection, GM
advocates cite public trust in the three-pronged regulatory system -
under which GM crops must be passed by the FDA, Environmental Protection
Agency and US Department of Agriculture - in explanation. "Our public
trusts the regulatory authorities," is the refrain from US officials,
which comes with more than a hint of superiority. "If only Britain had
its own version of the FDA."

But polls suggest something rather different lies behind the calm. In an
October survey by the International Food Information Council, 63 per
cent of US consumers polled said they knew "little or nothing at all"
about biotechnology being used to improve crops. On the question of how
well-informed they felt about biotechnology, only 2 per cent marked
themselves 10 out of 10, while 26 per cent gave themselves zero. When
asked whether GM crops were already on their supermarket shelves, 38 per
cent said "no" - the wrong answer. Environmentalists say such ignorance
extends beyond GM crops. "Less than one in 10 of Americans know what the
FDA stands for, let alone what it does," says Brian Halweil, from
Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research group. "The level of
apathy is huge."

The poll figures expose the danger looming over a political
establishment that enthusiastically welcomed the new technology: with a
vacuum of ignorance where solid support should be, no one can predict
what reaction knowledge will bring.
"When it comes to public support, this is an issue built on air," says
Carol Tucker Foreman, head of the Consumer Federation of America's food
policy institute. "In not gradually building up support from a basis of
consumer knowledge, the companies have been very dumb. One incident, and
the technology will be back on the shelf alongside food irradiation in
terms of acceptability."

That gap in awareness is gradually being filled. The first warning
signals were raids inspired by Greenpeace's "direct action" in the UK,
in which groups such as Reclaim the Seeds, Future Farmers and The Bolt
Weevils uprooted crops.

But some commentators see GM products as a high-emotion issue around
which a coalition of interest groups - ranging from rightwing Christian
fundamentalists to leftwing environmentalists - could easily rally.
While the broad mass of consumers are likely to remain indifferent, US
politics present myriad examples of how effectively lobby groups can
influence policy.

Hoping to avert such a scenario, the biotech industry has been
expressing support for one of the demands voiced during the public
hearings: changing the legislation to make it mandatory for companies to
share the science behind their GM products with the FDA.

Opponents say that by embracing a non-controversial change - the biotech
companies already work closely with the FDA, even if not legally obliged
to - executives hope to avert a far more dangerous development:
obligatory labelling of GM ingredients.

Jarring with blithe official assurances about trust in the system,
surveys indicate that when Americans are made aware of genetic
modifications, they share much of their European counterparts'
instinctive unease.

One Gallup poll showed 27 per cent believed GM foods posed a serious
health hazard and 41 per cent opposed use of biotech in food production.

Still smarting from the public rejection of irradiated food, food and
farm groups fear a double-helix DNA label - the suggested symbol to
indicate GM content - will act as the shoppers' equivalent of the skull
and crossbones. Too bad, respond consumer groups who feel they have won
the argument on what they regard as a human rights issue. Retailers will
be anxiously monitoring the fate of a labelling bill, introduced by 40
Democrats and a handful of Republicans, in Congress next year. "When
retailers start talking about voluntary labelling, you know mandatory
labelling can't be far behind," says Caroline De Waal, of the Center For
Science in the Public Interest. Campaigners such as Mr Halweil believe
changes are taking place.

The crux of the commercial case is: did Monsanto rush seeds to market
without adequate testing? And did this endanger the profits of farmers
who bought the seeds, only to find overseas sales thwarted by safety
concerns? That claim may not be easy to prove: surely Monsanto cannot be
blamed for the loss of overseas markets because of complaints by the
very environmental groups that are now pressing litigation on behalf of
farmers?

The paper also says, the more serious question, for Monsanto, is whether
it did indeed create a worldwide cartel to fix the price of corn and
soya bean seeds. The judge does not need to set any new international
antitrust or public health standards to evaluate that claim. Existing US
antitrust law and its courts are equal to the task.

Jeremy Rifkin, the US biotech activist who masterminded the Monsanto
suit, says he wants to cut out the regulatory middleman and "go straight
to the relationship between global companies and their customers". The
paper says he should not be allowed to use the US courts for that task;
they have ventured too far into domestic politics already - this is not
the time for them, too, to go global.


MONSANTO: Environmentalists Arrange to Sue in Different Jurisdictions
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The environmental activists and farmers who have initiated a court
action in the US against the world's largest developers of GM foods,
Monsanto, are arranging for similar actions in other jurisdictions, it
has emerged, Kevin O'Sullivan writes. They have filed a class action
lawsuit in US District Court in Washington, claiming insufficient
testing of GM foods was carried out before they were made widely
available.

Monsanto, it is claimed, defrauded farmers when it told them the seeds
were safe and that the public would accept GM crops, because according
to the plaintiffs the company should have known no nation's standards of
testing are adequate to guarantee such safety.

The court filing "refocuses the discussion" of genetic modification,
said Mr Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends.
(The Irish Times, December 16, 1999)


MONSANTO: Lieff, Cabraser Takes Lead in Biotech Suit in Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph R. Saveri, a partner with the law firm of Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced on December 15 that his firm has
taken a leading role in the prosecution of a class action on behalf of
farmers and consumers in the United States and abroad against the
Monsanto Company (NYSE:MTC).

The suit, filed in United States District Court in Washington, D.C.,
alleges that Monsanto, together with other life sciences companies,
formed a global cartel through which they have fixed prices on
genetically modified ("GM") seeds, and conspired to restrain trade in
the GM corn and soybean seed markets.

The complaint further alleges that Monsanto failed to adequately test GM
seeds and crops for human health and environmental safety prior to
marketing them, thereby causing a collapse in international consumer and
regulatory confidence in GM food products. The complaint also alleges
that Monsanto and the cartel made deceptive statements or omissions
concerning the testing and approval of GM foods and crops.

"Plaintiffs assert that Monsanto has sought and acquired the power to
control a substantial portion of the world's bio-engineered seed
supply," stated Saveri. "Through this litigation, plaintiffs seek to
establish landmark precedents in the field of bio-engineered food
products. Plaintiffs seek to halt further alleged economic losses for
farmers and to require adequate testing to ensure genetically-altered
crops are safe for human health and the environment."

The complaint raises not only traditional antitrust claims, but also
novel claims under international law for: 1) abusive and restrictive
business practices adversely affecting international trade; and 2)
failing to adequately test GM seeds and crops before releasing them into
the global food supply and environment.

Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of treble damages for violations of
U.S. antitrust law, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive
relief prohibiting Monsanto's alleged anticompetitive behavior.
Plaintiffs also ask the Court to mandate adequate testing of GM seeds
and crops, subject to independent scientific review and disclosure to
the public.

Contact: Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Joseph R. Saveri,
415/956-1000


NAVIGANT CONSULTING: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit in Il.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. hereby gives notice that a class
action complaint has been filed against Navigant Consulting, Inc.
(NYSE:NCI) in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased Navigant Consulting, Inc. securities from May 6, 1999 through
November 19, 1999.

The Complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors issued materially false and misleading statements in violation
of the federal securities laws during the Class period specified above.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Navigant improperly accounted
for business combinations by failing to include in its interim 1998
financial statements the operating results for seven non-public
companies that it acquired during the second and third quarters of 1998
and the first quarter of 1999. In addition, Navigant failed to properly
disclose the substance and nature of $17 million in loans made to the
Company's top officers, and misrepresented a $10 million loan to Robert
P. Maher, an individual named as a defendant in the suit. The Complaint
alleges that the loan was made to Maher to pay for $10 million in
Navigant common stock that was purchased in the name of another
individual named as a defendant in the lawsuit, Stephen J. Denari's. The
$10 million stock purchase was made just before Navigant announced that
it was exploring "strategic alternatives, including a potential merger
with a larger company."

Contact: Karen M. Hanson Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. 100 Washington
Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401, (612) 339-6900
kmhanson@locklaw.com


PERDUE FARMS: Chicken Processing Employees Sue in Dela over Wage and OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven current and former chicken processing employees of Perdue Farms,
Inc. filed an employment class action lawsuit in federal court in
Wilmington, Delaware on December 16.

The suit charges that Perdue, which is one of the largest chicken
processors in the United States, requires its hourly chicken processing
employees to work "off-the-clock" without compensation or benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and various state wage and hour laws.
The suit involves employees of Perdue's chicken processing plants, which
are located in 8 Eastern States.

"This action has been brought to ensure that poultry workers in Perdue's
chicken processing plants receive all of the compensation and pension
benefits to which they are entitled for all of the work they have
performed," said plaintiffs' attorney James M. Finberg of Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP of San Francisco, California.

"With the filing of this lawsuit, yet again the chickens have come home
to roost. We expect that this suit will mark the beginning of the end of
the unlawful wage and hour and pension practices at this large poultry
producer and in the poultry industry in America," said plaintiffs'
attorney Joseph M. Sellers of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
of Washington, D.C.

Perdue has approximately 16 chicken processing plants and approximately
16,000 employees. The plants are located in Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.

The complaint alleges that Perdue has engaged in a pattern and practice
of unlawful conduct by failing to record, credit and compensate its
non-exempt hourly chicken processing employees for all of the time
Perdue requires or permits such employees to perform work. "Every week
at Perdue I was forced to work an extra four hours and was not paid for
that time. Although four hours a week may not seem like a lot to some
people, here in North Carolina those four hours a week were the
difference between paying all of my bills on time and struggling to
choose which ones to pay on time each month," says plaintiff Marilyn
Gilliam, who was employed at Perdue's chicken processing plant in
Lewiston, North Carolina.

"I was forced to work without pay during lunch, and was not paid for any
time I spent putting on or taking off the safety equipment and
sanitation things Perdue made us wear," says plaintiff Diana Webster,
who was employed at Perdue's chicken processing plant in Cromwell,
Kentucky.

Plaintiffs are being represented by six law firms, including the
national class action firms Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
of San Francisco, California, and Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C. of Washington, D.C., as well as Heimann, Aber, Goldlust & Baker
of Wilmington, Delaware; Kahn, Smith & Collins, P.A. of Baltimore,
Maryland; Public Justice Center of Baltimore, Maryland; and Sigman,
Lewis & Feinberg, P.C. of Oakland, California.

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP has tried and/or settled over
20 class actions, including many of the largest class actions over the
past ten years. Successful class action prosecutions participated in by
the firm include: the recent $1.18 billion State Farm imitation parts
verdict; and the $87.5 million Home Depot gender discrimination
settlement.

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has been involved in some of
the most significant class actions in recent years. The firm's cases
include serving as lead counsel in the race discrimination class action
against Texaco which resulted in $176 Million in monetary relief to the
class and in the suit on behalf of Holocaust Survivors which resulted in
$1.25 Billion in monetary relief. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll is
currently representing thousands of chicken processing workers who
allege similar wage and hour violations in a class action against Tyson
Foods pending in federal court in Birmingham, Alabama.

Current and former employees of Perdue who may have information about
illegal labor practices are encouraged to contact the attorneys at
1-877-868-8660.

Source: Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. Contact: Deborah
Schwartz, 301-897-8838, or cell phone: 240-355-8838, for Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.; or Jill Cashen of the United Food
and Commercial Workers International Union, 202-728-4797


PERITUS SOFTWARE: Contests Securities Suit in MA. over Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peritus Software Services Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
were named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Robert
Downey on April 1, 1998, by Scott Cohen on April 7, 1998, by Timothy
Bonnett on April 9, 1998, by Peter Lindsay on April 17, 1998, by Harry
Teague on April 21, 1998, by Jesse Wijntjes on April 29, 1998, by H.
Vance Johnson and H. Vance Johnson as Trustee for the I.O.R.D.
Profit-Sharing Plan on May 6, 1998, by John B. Howard, M.D. on May 21,
1998 and by Helen Lee on May 28, 1998 (collectively, the "complaints").

The complaints principally alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements and by failing
to disclose material information concerning the Company's December 1997
acquisition of substantially all of the assets and assumption of certain
liabilities of the Millennium Dynamics, Inc. business from American
Premier Underwriters, Inc., thereby allegedly causing the value of the
Company's common stock to be artificially inflated during the purported
class periods. In addition, the Howard complaint alleged a violation of
federal securities laws as a result of the Company's purported failure
to disclose material information in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on July 2, 1997, and also named Montgomery
Securities, Inc., Wessels, Arnold & Henderson, and H.C. Wainwright &
Co., Inc. as defendants. The complaints further alleged that certain
officers and/or directors of the Company sold stock in the open market
during the class periods and sought unspecified damages. On or about
June 1, 1998, all of the named plaintiffs and additional purported class
members filed a motion for the appointment of several of those
individuals as lead plaintiffs, for approval of lead and liaison
plaintiffs' counsel and for consolidation of the actions. The Court
granted that motion on June 18, 1998.

On January 8, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint applicable to all previously filed actions. The Consolidated
Amended Complaint alleges a class period of October 22, 1997 through
October 26, 1998 and principally claims that the Company, two of its
former officers and its president violated federal securities laws by
purportedly making false and misleading statements (or omitting material
information) concerning the MDI acquisition and the Company's revenue
during the proposed class period, thereby allegedly causing the value of
the Company's stock to be artificially inflated. Previously stated
claims against the Company and its underwriters alleging violations of
the federal securities laws as a result of purportedly inadequate or
incorrect disclosure in connection with the Company's initial public
offering are not included in the Consolidated Amended Complaint.
Although the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
claims made in the Consolidated Amended Complaint and intends to contest
the action vigorously, an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and results
of operations in the period in which the litigation is resolved. The
Company is not able to reasonably estimate potential losses, if any,
related to the Consolidated Amended Complaint.


SMART CHOICE: Intends to Contest Vigorously Securities Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------------
During March 1999, certain shareholders of Smart Choice Automotive Group
Inc. filed two putative class action lawsuits against the Company and
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(collectively, the "Securities Actions"). The Securities Actions purport
to be brought by plaintiffs in their individual capacity and on behalf
of the class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company
publicly traded securities between April 15, 1998 and February 26, 1999.

These lawsuits were filed following the Company's announcement on
February 26, 1999 a preliminary determination had been reached that the
net income announced on February 10, 1999 for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1998 was likely overstated in a material, undetermined
amount at that time.

Each of the complaints assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and
Exchange Commission as well as a claim for the violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
prepared and issued deceptive and materially false and misleading
statements to the public, which caused plaintiffs to purchase Company
securities at artificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages. The Company intends to contest these claims
vigorously. The Company cannot predict the ultimate resolution of these
actions. The two class action lawsuits have subsequently been
consolidated.


TYCO INT'L: Donovan Miller Files Securities Suit in New Hampshire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Donovan Miller, LLC, announced on December 15 that a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Hampshire against Tyco International, Ltd.
("TYCO")(NYSE: TYC - news), its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer, on behalf of all persons who purchased TYCO
securities between October 1, 1998 and December 8, 1999, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), Case No. C-99-587-B.

The plaintiff in the case is a stock purchaser who is alleged to have
sustained losses as a result of defendants' alleged violations.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, TYCO and the two
officer defendants (collectively, the "Defendants") violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other
things, issuing materially false and misleading statements to the
investing public which concealed the fact that TYCO had employed certain
accounting devices and methods which made it appear certain recently
acquired businesses were experiencing extraordinarily healthy growth
rates which would not have been the case absent use of the undisclosed
accounting devices.

The Complaint further alleges that the price of TYCO's shares was
artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' omissions of material
fact and that the officer defendants sold a significant amount of their
personal holdings of TYCO stock while in possession of the undisclosed
material facts.

Contact: Donovan Miller, LLC, Philadelphia Michael D. Donovan,
800/619-1677 or 215/732-6020 Fax: 215/732-8060 or by e-mail at
mdonovan@dmlaw.com  Website at http://www.dmlaw.com


TYCO INT'L: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. on December 15 gives notice that a
class action complaint has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a Class of
persons who purchased the common stock of Tyco International, Ltd.
(NYSE:TYC) ("Tyco" or the "Company") at artificially inflated prices
during the period December 10, 1998 through December 8, 1999 ("Class
Period") and who were damaged thereby.

The complaint alleges that defendants, Tyco and certain of its officers,
violated the federal securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by utilizing accounting methods which
made it appear that companies Tyco acquired were experiencing healthier
growth than they actually were after being acquired by Tyco.

Contact: Robert P. Frutkin, Esquire Barbara A. Podell, Esquire Savett
Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia,
PA 19106 Telephone: 215/923-5400 or 800/993-3233 E-mail: sfprpc@op.net


TYCO INT'L: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody gives notice that a class action lawsuit was filed
on December 15, 1999 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf all persons who purchased the
securities of Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) ("Tyco" or the
"Company") between October 1, 1998 and December 8, 1999 (the "Class
Period").

The lawsuit alleges that Tyco and certain of its top officers and
directors violated certain of the securities laws and regulations of the
United States. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that during
the Class Period, Tyco misled investors by utilizing accounting methods
which made it appear that the companies Tyco acquired were experiencing
healthier growth than they actually were after being acquired by Tyco.
During the Class Period, certain officers of the Company sold more than
2.7 million shares of Tyco stock, at allegedly artificially inflated
prices, for proceeds of at least $270 million. On December 9, 1999, Tyco
announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission was conducting an
informal inquiry relating to charges and reserves taken in connection
with the Company's acquisitions.

Contact: Stull, Stull and Brody Tzivia Brody, Esq. toll-free
1-800-337-4983 e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com fax: 212/490-2022


TYCO INT'L: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement by the law firm of Weiss & Yourman on
December 15:

A class action lawsuit against Tyco International, Ltd. ("Tyco" or the
"Company")(NYSE:TYC) was commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Tyco
securities. If you purchased Tyco securities between October 1, 1998 and
December 8, 1999, your rights may be affected.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint
alleges that defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements during the Class Period concerning the Company's revenue
growth rate. The misrepresentation of information artificially inflated
the price of the Company's securities.

Contact: Mark D. Smilow or James E. Tullman at (888) 593-4771 or (212)
682-3025 or via Internet electronic mail at wynyc@aol.com or by writing
Weiss & Yourman, The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New
York City 10176.


XEROX CORP: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. hereby gives notice that a class
action complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of a Class of persons who
purchased the common stock of Xerox Corporation (NYSE: XRX) ("Xerox" or
the "Company") at artificially inflated prices.

The complaint alleges that defendants, Xerox and G. Richard Thoman,
violated the federal securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by issuing materially false and
misleading statements concerning the current financial and business
condition, as well as the future earnings expectations of Xerox. As a
result of these misrepresentations and omissions, the price of Xerox's
common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

Contact: Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. Robert P. Frutkin, Esquire
Barbara A. Podell, Esquire 215/923-5400 or (800) 993-3233 E-mail:
sfprpc@op.net


                               *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, DC.  Theresa Cheuk 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  * * *