United States: Y2K Lawsuit Summaries (continued)

Kaczmarek v. Microsoft Corporation

• Product: software development tools
• Venue: U.S. Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Illinois (Eastern Div.)
• Date Filed: December 10, 1998

Summary: The first class action lawsuit against computer software giant Microsoft Corporation was filed by a computer software developer seeking injunctive and compensatory relief and alleging breach of warranty and related causes of action. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased FoxPro software products Versions 2.5 and 2.6 and/or Visual FoxPro 3.0 ("FoxPro Products"). FoxPro is a software product designed to be used by software developers as a "tool" to customize DOS and Windows based database applications. Kaczmarek alleges that the FoxPro Products do not allow for the accurate use of two digit entries for years beyond 1999 and that Microsoft knew or reasonably should have known of the purported latent defect in the FoxPro software since the computer industry has been aware of the Year 2000 problem since the early 1980s. The complaint alleges six causes of action, including violation of the Illinois Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Uniform Decepade Practices Act, negligence, breach of warranty, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Source Data Systems, Inc. et al.

• Product: not applicable
• Venue: U.S. Dist. Court for the Northern Dist. of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Div.
• Date Filed: December 4, 1998

Summary: The first insurance coverage Year 2000 action was filed on December 4, 1998. Cincinnati Insurance Company (ACincinnati@) filed a declaratory relief action against its insured Source Data Systems, Inc. (ASDS@) seeking a judgment from the court that it does not owe a duty to defend or indemnify SDS regarding a Year 2000 underlying action filed by the Pineville Community Hospital Association (Athe Pineville Action@). (The Pineville Action is number 21 on our index of Year 2000 lawsuits.) In addition to a declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify, Cincinnati seeks a declaration that it has no obligation to pay defense expenses already incurred on SDS= behalf.

According to the Cincinnati Insurance Company=s complaint, SDS tendered the defense of the Pineville Action to Cincinnati and sought indemnity coverage as an additional insured to policies issued to the SCI Financial Group. Cincinnati issued policies in effect from September 30, 1991 to September 30, 1994 that recognized SDS as an additional insured. These policies were renewed for a three-year term, but SDS was removed from them as an additional insured effective November 7, 1995. Cincinnati accepted the tender of defense under a full reservation of rights and brought this action to establish that it owes no coverage to SDS.

After setting forth various sections of the insurance policies at issue, the complaint asserts that SDS is not entitled to defense or indemnity on the following grounds:

• (1)the underlying action does not allege an Aoccurrence@ as defined by the policies because the causes of action are based on fraudulent conduct and breach of contract
• (2) the underlying action does not allege Aproperty damage@ as defined by the policies
• (3) the underlying action does not allege that an Aoccurrence@ or Aproperty damage@ happened during the policy period as required by the insurance contract
• (4) the underlying action does not seek recovery for sums paid Aas damages@ as required by the policies;
• (5) the underlying action alleges a loss that was a known loss from the standpoint of SDS
• (6) the underlying action alleges a loss that was not fortuitous from the standpoint of SDS
• (7) the underlying action alleges a loss that was in progress; and
• (8) SDS= efforts to invoke insurance coverage for the alleged loss are barred by principles of equity. Additionally, Cincinnati alleges SDS is not entitled to a defense or indemnity because one or more exclusions in the policies eliminate coverage with respect to the Pineville Action.

ASE Limited v. INCO Alloy International, Inc.

• Product: retail computer system
• Venue: Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
• Dated Filed: Not known at this time

Summary: ASE Limited (AASE@) filed an action for breach of contract and injunctive relief against defendant INCO Alloys International, Inc.(AINCO@) regarding a September 1995 contract for ASE to provide software design services to INCO. ASE is a computer systems integrator;INCO manufacturers industrial alloys. Although not specifically referenced in ASE=s complaint, part of the parties= dispute concerns a claim by INCO for $3.9 million in damages for Year 2000 remediation costs. INCO claims that ASE failed to remediate its Year 2000 problems as required under the contract. INCO also alleges that as a consequence of ASE=s breach of contract, it was forced to pay IBM $3.9 million to fix its Year 2000 problems. INCO seeks reimbursement from ASE for the $3.9 million paid to IBM.

Cobb & Shealy, et al. v. Equitrac Corp., et al.

• Product: copier and telephone billing systems
• Venue: Houston County, Alabama Circuit Court
• Date Filed: Not known at this time

Summary: A class action lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Cobb & Shealy on its own behalf alleging breach of contract and related claims against Equitrac Corporation in connection with its telephone billing system, AEquitrac Disbursemate Teletrac@ (Athe call accounting system@). The action was also brought on behalf of all persons or entities in the State of Alabama who purchased the call accounting system and accompanying ASystem Maintenance Agreement@ for a period of time extending beyond January 1, 2000. According to the complaint, Equitrac sent a notice to Plaintiff advising that its system was not Year 2000 compliant and that the cost of upgrading/updating the system would amount to $2,000. Equitrac allegedly has refused to remedy the problem free of charge even though the plaintiff is paying monthly service fees under its service agreement with Equitrac. The lawsuit alleges four causes of action including, declaratory judgment, injunction, restitution and breach of contract.

Highland Park Medical v. Medical Manager, et al.

• Product: medical management software
• Venue: USDC, Northern District of Illinois
• Date Filed: November 3, 1998

Summary: A sixth class action lawsuit was brought against Medical Manager Corporation (AMMC@) in connection with its AMedical Manager Software@ (AMMS@) prior to Version 9.0, which allegedly is not Year 2000 compliant. Like the previous complaints, this action generally alleges that MMC knew or should have known that its software was non-compliant, but nevertheless aggressively marketed it to the public. Unlike the earlier lawsuits, however, this complaint alleges that the noncompliant software Aposes a clear and present danger@ of risk and harm to the plaintiffs patients who are monitored by the software and who will be irreparable harmed in the event of a failure. For instance, the MMS allegedly monitors various Acritical areas,@ including scheduling of patients for chemotherapy, patient tracking in radiology and scheduling patients for procedures and post surgical appointments in obstetrics. The complaint includes causes of action for injunctive relief, violation of Illinois= Consumer Fraud and Decetive Business Practices Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties.

MVA Center for Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Medical Manager Corp.

• Product: medical management software
• Venue: Western District of Massachusetts.
• Date Filed: November 2, 1998.

Summary: The MVA Center for Rehabilitation has filed a fifth class action lawsuit against Medical Manager Corporation containing allegations similar to those asserted in the Highland Park action, which was filed on the following day.

Hannah Films, Inc. v. Micron Electronics, Inc.

• Product: personal computers
• Venue: Idaho District Court of the Third Judicial District
• Date Filed: October 26, 1998

Summary: Hannah Films, Inc. filed a class action lawsuit asserting breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and related claims in connection with allegedly defective personal computers (APCS@) sold by Micron Electronics, Inc. The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities worldwide who purchased any PC from Micron that is not Year 2000 compliant and has not been repaired or updated free of charge. Plaintiff alleges that certain PCS sold by Micron, including those using the Micron and NetFRAME brand names, are unable to recognized and process dates in the Year 2000 and that Micron is improperly requiring its customers to pay for the upgrade that will remedy the alleged defect. According to the complaint, the Year 2000 defect in the Micron PCS presently renders the products unfit for ordinary purposes for which they are to be used. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Product Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.' 2301 et. seq., fraud and deceit, and violation of Idaho's Consumer Protection Act, and claims damages in excess of $10,000.00.

SPC, Inc. v. NeuralTech, Inc.

• Product: credit card processing
• Venue: USDC, District of Nebraska
• Date Filed: October 23, 1998

Summary: SPC, Inc. filed a lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief against NeuralTech, Inc. in connection with its licensing agreement with NeuralTech involving a software system known as CADRE Merchant ("CADRE"). SPC, operating under the trade name of "First of Omaha Merchant Processing," processes Visa, MasterCard and other credit card transactions and disputes for merchants across the United States. The CADRE system licensed by NeuralTech provides client/server processing, relational data management and imaging technology.

The complaint alleges that NeuralTech has breached its express warranty that the CADRE system was Year 2000 compliant, has not corrected failures in CADRE within 30 days to meet the specifications in the software, and has refused to deliver updates to the software and CADRE New Release Version 4.0. According to SPC, if NeuralTech discontinues its technical support of the CADRE software system and fails to deliver Version 4.0 by October 31, 1998, it will be impossible to re-engineer the system into a Year 2000 compliant application within the remaining time frame.

SPC asserts that it will be irreparably damaged if the system is not made compliant because its operations will be disrupted, which will cause SPC to lose customers and potentially violate federal banking regulations. The compliant seeks damages and a temporary restraining order and a permanent mandatory injunction enjoining NeuralTech from ceasing to provide technical support for the CADRE system and from failing to deliver Version 4.0.

Young v. Baker

• Product: retail computer system
• Venue: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court Division
• Date Filed: August 28, 1998.

Summary: Andersen Consulting, LLP brought an action for declaratory relief against J. Baker, Inc. to determine whether Andersen was in breach of contract or violated any duty owed to J. Baker, Inc. when it assisted J. Baker in the selection, design, customization and implementation of a third-party retail computer software merchandising system. According to the complaint, filed by plaintiff Michael Young as a representative of Andersen Consulting, J. Baker had demanded reimbursement for money it has spent to make a computer system installed by Anderson in 1991 Year 2000 compliant. The complaint alleges that beginning in 1989, leadership personnel from J. Baker and Andersen worked jointly in the selection, customization and implementation of the new computer merchandising system, which was completed in 1991. Andersen asserts that during that time, there were only two viable mainframe software packages available to support J. Baker's needs, neither of which was Year 2000 compliant, and that J. Baker apoved the ultimate choice of software installed. The complaint further asserts that customizing any of the then available software packages would have been substantially more expensive to J. Baker than the costs of repairs that J. Baker has incurred to date to make its system Year 2000 compliant. Andersen contends that it was forced to bring the declaratory action in order to protect its reputation and seeks a declaration from the court that it did not commit any wrongdoing and fulfilled all its contractual obligations to J.Baker.

College v. Medical Manager Corporation

• Product: medical practice management software
• Venue: Florida Circuit Court, Hillsborough County
• Date Filed: August 25, 1998

Summary: This is the fifth class action suit brought against Medical Manager Corporation in connection with its medical practice management software. It contains the same allegations as the Courtney complaint. This complaint, however, includes the allegation that the substantial costs associated with upgrading to Version 9.0, the only Year 2000 compliant version of the software, include the cost of purchasing a new computer on which to run Version 9.0, since the compliant version requires a computer with a Pentium II processor which was not offered at the time the non-compliant versions of Medical Manager software were sold. The lawsuit asserts three causes of action, alleging that Medical Manager Corp. violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (F.S. 501.201 et. seq.), breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and breach of the express warranty contained within the Software License Agreement.

Glusker v. Medical Manager & Sales Inc. and

• Medical Manager Corp.
• Product: medical practice management software
• Venue: California Superior Court, Santa Clara County
• Date Filed: August 3, 1998

Summary: A third class action was filed against Medical Manager Corporation (AMMC@) and its wholly owned subsidiary Medical Manager Sales & Marketing, Inc. (AMMS&M@), in connection with its medical practice management software. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the AClass@ (defined as all persons or entities who purchased Medical Manager software prior to Version 9.0) and a ASubclass@ (comprised of all persons or entities who purchased Medical Manager software prior to Version 9.0 and entered into a software support or maintenance contract with the defendants or one of the resellers they acquired). This third class action contains generally the same allegations as those made in Courtney and Women's Institute. This complaint is different from the previous two brought against MMC, however, because it adds allegations that MMC has acquired resellers of its software and has thereby succeeded to the obligations of those resellers under the sales contracts. The complaint alleges three causes of action, including, breach of contract on behalf of the ASubclass@, fraud and deceit by all members of the Class, and violation of California=s Unfair Business Practices Statute (Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code " 17200 et seq.)

Women's Institute for Fertility Endocrinology and Menopause v.Medical Manager Corp.

• Product: medical practice management software
• Venue: Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court
• Date Filed: August 3, 1998

Summary: A second class action lawsuit was brought against Medical Manager Corporation on behalf of all persons or entities in the United States who have purchased Medical Manager Software versions which are non-year 2000 compliant. This suit contains the same general allegations as the Courtney complaint. This lawsuit, however, includes some additional allegations not found in the first complaint against Medical Manager Corporation. Among other things, the plaintiff contends Medical Manager Aactively concealed@ the fact that its software was not Year 2000 compliant. The plaintiff also provides information concerning Medical Manager's potential exposure to Year 2000 related claims, alleging that AMedical Manager software is the most widely used physician practice management system in the United States with a client base of over 110,000 physicians and 24,000 site installations. The lawsuit alleges three causes of action including, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence and negligentmisrepresentation, and fraud and deceit.

Pineville Community Hospital v. Keane, Inc., et al

• Product: medical practice system
• Venue: Commonwealth of Kentucky, Bell Circuit Court
• Date Filed: July 31, 1998

Summary: The Pineville Community Hospital Association (APineville@) filed a lawsuit against three defendants arising out of its purchase of a software product called AMEDNET Hospital Information System@ (AMEDNET@). The named defendants are Keane, Inc., Source Data Systems, and Gary Ford, an individual. According to the complaint, in July 1995 Pineville and Source Data Systems entered into a contract whereby Pineville agreed to purchase MEDNET froom Source Data for a price of approximately $570.000. Source Data and Ford purportedly warranted that MEDNET was Year 2000 compliant during the course of negotiating the sales contract. On July 31, 1996, Pineville was advised that MEDNET was not Year 2000 compliant, would not be made Year 2000 compliant and would not operate after 1999. As a result, Pineville asserts it has been forced to purchase and install one or more computer systems to replace MEDNET at a cost of $75,000 to $1,250,000. The complaint includes causes of action for breach of contract, remission, fraud, and anticipatory breach of contract, and breach of good faith and fair dealing.

Against Gravity Apparel, Inc. v. Quarterdeck Corp.

• Product: communications software
• Venue: Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Date Filed: July 30, 1998

Summary: A class action was brought against Quarterdeck Corporation on behalf of all persons or entities in the United States who purchased its Procomm Plus version 4.0 for Windows 95, which allegedly is unable to process dates containing the year 2000 and thereafter. The software is a combined telecommunications application web-browser and fax management package. The complaint alleges that Quarterdeck sold and marketed its defective software despite knowing or being in a position to know that it was not Year 2000 compliant. Plaintiff also asserts that the software fails to conform to the written specifications included with the product and that Quarterdeck has failed to provide a free upgrade to remedy the alleged defects. The complaint alleges three causes of action-violation of the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Product Warranty Act, New York=s Consumer Protection From Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, and breach of express warranties.

H. Levenbaum Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Active Voice Corporation

• Product: communications software
• Venue: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court Department of the
• Trial Court.
• Date Filed: July 28, 1998

Summary: A class action lawsuit was brought against Active Voice Corporation in connection with its voice-processing systems and computer telephone integration products. The suit was brought on behalf of all businesses or entities located in Massachusetts who purchased Active Voices software including, Repartee Version 7.42 and all releases of the Replay and Replay Plus products released prior to Version 7.44. Plaintiffs allege the products at issue are unable to process entry dates after 1999 and that Active Voice is requiring its customers to pay an estimated $1,000.00 to $5,000.00 to purchase upgrades that would remedy the date recognition problem. The complaint alleges two causes of action, including violation of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A which prohibits unfair and/or deceptive practices, and breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

Qual-Craft Industries, Inc. v. Realworld Corp.

• Product: accounting/financial software
• Venue: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Norfolk
• Date Filed: June 26, 1998

Summary: Qual-Craft Industries, Inc. (AQual-Craft@) filed a class action lawsuit against RealWorld Corporation (ARealWorld@) alleging that its accounting and business software products, prior to Version 7.5, are unable to process dates after December 31, 1999. The action is brought on behalf of all businesses or entities located in Massachusetts that purchased RealWorld Accounting and Business Software Products (ARealWorld Software Products@) prior to Version 7.2. According to the complaint, RealWorld is requiring customers who own non-compliant software versions prior to Version 7.2 to purchase upgrades in order to remedy the Year 2000 problem at an estimated cost of $3,000 to $5,000. However, RealWorld has purportedly stated that it will provide a free upgrade to Version 7.5, which is Year 2000 compliant, for customers who already own Version 7.2. Like many of the other complaints, this action asserts the computer software industry knew of the potential for Year 2000 problems since at least the 1990s, and that therefore, RealWorld knew or should have known of the Year 2000 defects in the software at the time it sold the product to the plaintiff class. The complaint alleges three causes of action, including violation of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, which prohibits unfair and/or deceptive practices, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation, fraud and deceit.

Stein v. Intuit, Inc.

• Product: accounting/financial software
• Venue: Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Date Filed: June 25, 1998

Summary: A sixth class action, brought on behalf of all persons whose Quicken versions contain a Year 2000 defect, was filed against Intuit on June 25, 1998. Like the previous 5 lawsuits against Intuit, this complaint alleges that certain Quicken versions contain a latent Year 2000 defect and that Intuit has failed to provide a free Afix@ for the defect. The four causes of action alleged are violation of the Magnuson Moss Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, violation of New York=s General Business Law, and breach of the implied warranties for merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

Peerless Wall & Window Coverings, Inc. v. Synchronics, Inc.

• Product: retail software
• Venue: U.S.D.C. for the Western District of Pennsylvania
• Date Filed: June 24. 1998

Summary: A class action was filed against Synchronics, Inc. on June 24, 1998, on behalf of all persons who, beginning as early as 1984 through December 31, 1995, purchased V6.5 Synchronics Software, Synchronics Inventory Plus Software, Synchronics Point of Sale Software or other similar software. Synchronics= accounting software is designed to perform cash register inventory, accounting, credit card approval and other similar functions for retail business. The complaint alleges Synchronics knew or should have known since 1984 that the computer software it designed would be unable to process dates after 1999. It also asserts that Synchronics= sales literature misrepresented that its software could be used beyond the year 2000 and alleges that substantial expenses will be incurred because of the Year 2000 defect; it is not specifically alleged, however, that any plaintiff has suffered actual harm as a result of this defect. The plaintiff alleges five causes of action, including breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud and negligence.

Courtney v. Medical Manager Corp.

• Product: medical practice management software
• Venue: New Jersey Superior Court
• Date filed: June 1998

Summary: A Year 2000 class action lawsuit was brought against the Medical Manager Corporation in connection with its physician=s practice management software, AThe Medical Manager.@ The action was filed on behalf of persons or entities who purchased AThe Medical Manager@ software prior to Version 9.0, which is the only version that is Year 2000 compliant. The complaint alleges that Medical Manager Corp. knew or should have known that, the software at issue contained a Year 2000 problem and that the computer industry has been aware of the computer problems associated with the change of the century since at least the mid-1970s. Plaintiff also alleges that the company is not providing free upgrades to Version 9.0, even though Medical Manager touts its software as allowing clients to add incremental capabilities to existing information systems while preserving and minimizing the need for capital investments.@ Plaintiff alleges three causes of action-Medical Manager breached warranty claims and violated the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Product Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. ' 2301 et seq.) and the New Jersey Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Colbourn v. Intuit, Inc.

• Product: accounting/financial softwareVenue: Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
• Date Filed: June 4, 1998

Summary: A fifth class action against Intuit, was filed on June 4, 1998. This complaint is identical to the Rubin complaint, containing the same allegations and six causes of action.

Rubin v. Intuit, Inc.

• Product: accounting/financial software
• Venue: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
• Date Filed: May 27, 1998

Summary: A fourth action was filed against Intuit on May 27, 1998 again in connection with its Quicken Software Versions 5 or 6. This fourth class action, brought on behalf of all persons or entities in the United States who purchased the software at issue, generally contains the same allegations as the Faegenburg and Chillelli complaints that the online banking feature will not functionproperly for dates after 1999. The lawsuit alleges six causes of action, including violation of the Magnuson Moss Consumer Protection Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. ' 2301 et seq.), violation of California=s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, fraud, deceit and false and misleading advertising.

Faegenburg v. Intuit, Inc.

• Product: accounting/financial software
• Venue: Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau Date
• Filed: May 26, 1998

Summary: A third Year 2000 class action was filed on May 26, 1998 against Intuit. The complaint, styled Faegenburg v. Intuit, Inc., is pending in the County of New York. This third lawsuit generally contains the same allegations and causes of action as in the prior Chilelli action. This latest complaint, however, includes some additional allegations not found in the prior suits against Intuit. Among other things, the plaintiff contends that "the Computer Industry in general has been aware of the Year 2000 problem since the early 1970s." The plaintiff also alleges that "computer manufacturers of financial software and other programs, knew about the Year 2000 problem for over twenty years but ignored it because it was simply too expensive to reconfigure two digit date recognition commands to 4 digit date recognition commands." The complaint further contends that despite knowing, or having been in a position where it should have known of the Year 2000 defect inherent in its Quicken versions 5 and 6, Intuit nevertheless aggressively continued to market and sell these defective Quicken versions.

Rocco Chilelli v. Intuit Inc.

• Product: accounting/financial software
• Venue: Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau Date
• Filed: May 13, 1998

Summary: A second Year 2000 class action lawsuit was filed against Intuit on May 13, 1998 concerning its Quicken versions 5 or 6 software packages. This action was filed in Nassau County New York and is styled Chilelli v. Intuit Inc. The Chilelli complaint alleges that Intuit knew or should have known that the Quicken versions at issue were unable to process dates after December 31, 1999 and that Intuit has not offered free software to correct this defect. The lawsuit alleges Intuit violated the Magnuson Moss Consumer Protection Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.), New York's Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

Issokson v. Intuit, Inc.

• Product: accounting/financial software
• Venue: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.
• Date Filed: April 28, 1998

Summary: A Year 2000 class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 1998 against Intuit Inc., which develops and markets Quicken software and other consumer finance software products. The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Quicken Software Version 5 or 6 for Windows or Version 6 or 7 for Macintosh. The complaint alleges that these Quicken versions contain a Year 2000 defect and that Intuit is not providing a free Afix@ for the defect. The complaint, styled Issokson v. Intuit, Inc., is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Clara. The lawsuit alleges five causes of action, including breach of implied warranty and fraud.

Update: A Santa Clara County trial court judge granted Intuit's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint, with leave to amend, on the grounds that: (1) the plaintiff and the class had not yet experienced any damage since the software presently works; and (2) the plaintiff failed to allege he had requested a free "fix" from Intuit and been denied. An amended complaint has been filed on October 9, 1998.

Paragon Networks International v. Macola, Inc.

• Product: accounting software
• Venue: Court of Common Pleas in Marion County, Ohio
• Date Filed: April 1, 1998

Summary: Another Year 2000 class action lawsuit has been filed. The complaint was filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Marion County, Ohio on April 1, 1998. The suit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased Macola Progression Series Software, Version 6.0.The complaint alleges breach of warranty and fraud in connection with Macola's accounting computer software. According to the complaint, the software is defective in that it does not recognize and process dates starting in the Year 2000. Additionally, Macola is allegedly requiring its customers to pay substantial fees in order to purchase upgrades that would remedy the date recognition problem.

Jean Marie Cameron v. Symantec Corp.

• Product: antivirus software
• Venue: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
• Date Filed: unknown

Summary: Symantec has been hit with another lawsuit in connection with their Norton AntiVirus Software. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in Santa Clara County. The complaint alleges that the Norton AntiVirus Software is defective prior to Version 4.0 and does not have the ability to recognize or process dates starting in the year 2000.

Richard Capellan v. Symantec Corp.

• Product: antivirus software
• Venue: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.
• Date Filed: February 19, 1998

Summary: Symantec, a provider of application and system software products has been sued over alleged defects in their computer software. The suit focuses on Symantec's Norton AntiVirus software prior to Version 4.0 and alleges that the software cannot recognize or process dates starting in the year 2000. The suit also alleges upgrades in order to remedy the defect. The suit is filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County and alleges breach of implied warranty and related claims. Symantec has responded to the lawsuit stating that there are significant new changes to the Norton AntiVirus Version 4.0. Additionally, Symantec maintains that customers who have purchased a maintenance agreement with Symantec are entitled to receive a new upgrade.

Atlaz International, Ltd. v. Software Business Technologies Inc., et al.

• Product: accounting software
• Venue: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Marin
• Date Filed: December 2, 1997

Summary: Atlaz International Ltd., an Inwood, New York computer reseller has filed a year 2000 class action lawsuit against Software Business Technologies Inc., and its subsidiary, SBT Accounting Systems. Atlaz bought SBT Pro Series version 2.5i from the San Rafael, California software company in 1995. The software was warranted to operate "in substantial conformity with their written specifications" for five years, according to the complaint that was filed by Atlaz. According to Atlaz, the software is not year 2000 compliant and it will cost more than $50 million to upgrade customers.SBT is planning to issue a free software patch to correct non compliant versions of the SBT Pro Series.

Produce Palace International v. Tec-America Corp.

• Product: retail hardware system
• Venue: Macomb County Circuit Court
• Date Filed: August 4, 1997

Summary: On August 4, 1997, the first Year 2000 lawsuit was filed in Macomb County Circuit Court, outside of Detroit. The suit, filed by Produce Palace International, a fruit and vegetable store, alleged that a cash register system purchased from the defendant Tec-America Corp. repeatedly crashed when credit cards utilizing a double 00 were utilized. Also named was the local service vendor, All American Cash Register, Inc. Update: The parties settled their dispute on September 9, 1998, for $250,000. TEC America, Inc., the manufacturer of the computer system purchased by plaintiff paid $250,000 and co-defendants All American Cash Register, the system installer, paid $10,000.