/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/990308.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, March 8, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 22


ABLE TELCOM: Company Awaiting Consolidated Amended Complaint
ADAC LABORATORIES: Believes 11 Shareholder Suits Have No Impact
AETNA, INC.: Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Granted
BASSETT FURNITURE: Customer Plaintiffs Appeal Class Action Ruling
BORICS HEALTH: Sued for Refusal to Straighten Ethnic Hair

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Two New Complaints Follow Liability Ruling
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Fairness Hearing to Commence in April, 1999
COREL CORPORATION: Motions to Dismiss & Strike Fully Briefed
DVL, INC.: Company Makes Cash Tender Offer for Settlement Notes
ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in Iowa

LASER TECHNOLOGY: Vows to Defend Shareholder Lawsuits
LYCOS, INC.: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Massachusetts
LYCOS, INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi File Complaint in Massachusetts
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Motions to Dismiss Shareholder Suits Pending
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL: Ill Employee Suit Drags; No Trial in Sight

ORANGE & ROCKLAND: Shareholders Appeal Order Dismissing Suit
ORBITAL SCIENCES: Shapiro Haber Files Complaint in Virginia
PRECISION SYSTEMS: Shareholder Class-Action Suit Dismissed
QUARTERDECK CORP.: Continues Defense of Procomm Customer Y2K Suit
QUARTERDECK CORP.: Delaware Suit Filed to Block Symantec Merger

SCHOOL SPECIALTY: No Indemnification Request from U.S. Office Yet
THERAGENICS CORP.: Rabin & Peckel File Complaint in Georgia
USG CORP.: Status Report Concerning Asbestos Litigation
Y2K LITIGATION: Senate Commerce Committee Sends Y2K Bill To Floor


ABLE TELCOM: Company Awaiting Consolidated Amended Complaint
On or about September 10, 1998, Shipping Financial Services Corp.
("SFSC") filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida against ABLE TELCOM HOLDING
CORP., and former officers Gideon Taylor, Frazier L. Gaines,
Jesus Dominguez, and Mark A. Shain (collectively, the
"Defendants").  At or near that time, five additional plaintiffs
filed substantially similar lawsuits.  By order dated December
30, 1998, all of these cases have been consolidated with the SFCS
case.  Plaintiffs have not yet filed their consolidated amended
complaint . The Company expects the consolidated amended
complaint will be substantially similar to that filed by SFCS,
and will assert claims under the Federal Securities Laws against
the Company and certain of its former officers alleging that the
Defendants caused the Company to falsely represent and mislead
the public with respect to two acquisitions, COMSAT and MFSNT,
and the ongoing financial condition of the Company as a result of
the acquisitions and the related financing of those acquisitions.
Additionally, plaintiffs are expected to seek certification of a
class action on behalf of all similarly situated investors and
seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  Management is
currently assessing the allegations set forth in the lawsuits and
the Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

The Company is aware that an additional shareholder lawsuit has
been filed.  To date, this lawsuit has not been served on the
Defendants.  The allegations in this lawsuit appear to be based
on the same facts and circumstances as those set forth in the
SFCS lawsuit.  The Company is currently assessing the allegations
in this lawsuit and intends to defend this matter vigorously when
and if the Defendants are served.
The Company is subject to a number of shareholder and other
lawsuits and claims for various amounts which arise out of the
normal course of its business.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself in these matters.  The disposition of all pending
lawsuits and claims is not determinable and may have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position.

ADAC LABORATORIES: Believes 11 Shareholder Suits Have No Impact
Commencing in December 1998, a total of eleven class action
lawsuits were filed in federal court by or on behalf of
stockholders who purchased ADAC LABORATORIES stock between
January 10, 1996 and December 28, 1998.  These actions name as
defendants the Company and certain of its present officers and
directors. The complaints allege various violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with restatement of the
Company's financial statements and seek unspecified but
potentially significant damages.  The Company intends to contest
these actions vigorously.  A stockholder derivative action,
purportedly on behalf of the Company and naming as defendants
Company officers and directors was also filed in state court
seeking recovery for the Company based on stock sales by these
defendants during the above time period.  The Company is also a
defendant in various legal proceedings incidental to its
"While it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of
these actions at this time," ADAC says, "management is of the
opinion that any unaccrued liability resulting from these claims
would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash

AETNA, INC.: Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Granted
Purported Class Action Complaints were filed against AETNA, INC.,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on November 5, 1997 by Eileen Herskowitz and Michael
Wolin, and on December 4, 1997 by Pamela Goodman and Michael J.
Oring.  Other purported Class Action Complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
November 25, 1997 by Evelyn Silvert, on November 26, 1997 by the
Rainbow Fund, Inc., and on December 24, 1997 by Terry B. Cohen.
The Connecticut actions were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the
"Court") for consolidated pretrial proceedings with the cases
pending there.  The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and Amended
Complaint (the "Complaint") seeking, among other remedies,
unspecified damages resulting from defendants' alleged violations
of federal securities laws.  The Complaint alleged that the
Company and three of its current or former officers or directors,
Ronald E. Compton, Richard L. Huber, and Leonard Abramson, are
liable for certain misrepresentations and omissions regarding,
among other matters, the integration of the merger with U.S.
Healthcare and the Company's medical claim reserves.  The
Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint on July 31, 1998. On February 2, 1999, the Court
dismissed the Complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to file
a second amended complaint.  On February 22, 1999, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint against the Company, Ronald E.
Compton and Richard L. Huber.  The litigation is still in the
preliminary stages, and the Company is defending the actions

BASSETT FURNITURE: Customer Plaintiffs Appeal Class Action Ruling
A suit was filed in June, 1997, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles (the "Superior
major retailers and certain current and former employees of the
Company. The suit sought certification of a class consisting of
all consumers who purchased certain mattresses and box springs
from the major retailers which were manufactured by a subsidiary
of the Company, E.B. Malone Corporation, with different
specifications than those originally manufactured for the sale by
these retailers.  The suit alleged various causes of action,
including negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty,
violations of deceptive practices laws and fraud.  Plaintiffs
sought compensatory damages of $100 million and punitive damages.
In 1997, the Superior Court twice sustained the Company's
demurrers to several of plaintiffs' causes of action, but granted
the plaintiffs leave to amend.  In February, 1998, the Superior
Court sustained the Company's demurrers to many of the individual
claims, this time without granting plaintiffs leave to amend.  
The Superior Court also sustained the Company's demurrer to the
class action allegations in plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint,
without granting leave to amend, and transferred the entire
action out of the class action department.  Plaintiffs have filed
a notice of appeal from the class action ruling.  Plaintiffs also
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or other extraordinary
relief seeking immediate review of the other demurrer rulings,
which petition was denied.  The suit was subsequently transferred
from the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles to the
Superior Court for Orange County.  After the case was transferred
to Orange County, the plaintiffs stipulated to a dismissal with
prejudice of all individual defendants.  Additionally, all
remaining claims against the Company were stayed by the Court
pending Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of their class action
allegations.  Although it is impossible to predict the ultimate
outcome of this litigation, the Company intends to vigorously
defend this suit because it believes that the damages sought are
unjustified and because this case is inappropriate for class
action treatment.  Because the Company believes that the two
major retailers were unaware of the changes in specifications,
the Company has agreed to indemnify the two major retailers with
respect to the above.

BORICS HEALTH: Sued for Refusal to Straighten Ethnic Hair
A federal class-action lawsuit filed against Canadian-based
BoRics Hair Care Ltd. accuses the firm that operates 350 salons
in 27 states of refusing to treat black women's hair according to
a United Press International report.  The lawsuit was filed in
Cleveland federal court by two unidentified women.  The
plaintiffs' lawyer, Patrick Perotti, told UPI: "What it's boiling
down to is, 'Yes, Ms. Negro, you go get your hair done, but you
got to go to the black salon.  We have equal facilities for you,
but they're separate - separate, but equal.'"

Court documents say the NAACP investigated the complaint and sent
"testers" to a northeast Ohio BoRics salon.  The NAACP testers
were told by employees that they "don't do black people's hair"
as a matter of policy.

A BoRics employee in the Cincinnati area told UPI, "We don't have
the right because black hair takes a different type of solution
(because) the hair is more delicate."

Perotti, however, said the salons routinely straighten white
women's hair using chemicals that are virtually identical for
white or black hair.

BoRics' documents said the company's policy is to "serve all
people regardless of race or color," but that it does not offer
such common black treatments as perms to straighten hair.

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Two New Complaints Follow Liability Ruling
Two additional lawsuits were brought against Brunswick in
February 1999 claiming Brunswick Corporation violated various
provisions of federal or state antitrust and consumer protection
laws in connection with its sales of MerCruiser sterndrive and
inboard engines and seeking to rely on the liability findings of
Concord Boat Corporation, et al. v. Brunswick Corporation

The first of these additional suits was brought on February 10,
1999, by a former dealer of Brunswick boats in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  This suit, Amo
Marine Products, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation (Amo) seeks class
status purporting to represent all marine dealers who purchased
directly from Brunswick sterndrive or inboard engines or boats
equipped with sterndrive or inboard engines during the period
January 1, 1986 to June 30, 1998.  Sales by Brunswick of boats
equipped with sterndrive or inboard engines to dealers accounted
for less than half of such engines produced during the time
period covered by the complaint; sales of such engines directly
to dealers were de minimis.  The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and requests injunctive relief.

The second of these additional suits was filed on February 16,
1999, in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Tennessee, by an
individual claiming that the same conduct challenged in the
Concord action violated various antitrust and consumer protection
laws of 16 states and the District of Columbia.  In this suit,
Couch v. Brunswick (Couch), plaintiff seeks to represent all
indirect purchasers in those states of boats equipped with
Brunswick sterndrive or inboard engines.  The plaintiff claims
damages in an unspecified amount during the period from 1986 to
the filing of the complaint and requests injunctive relief.

On June 19, 1998, a jury awarded $44 million in damages in the
Concord suit, which was brought in December 1995 by Independent
Boat Builders, Inc., a buying group of boat manufacturers and 22
of its members.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and alleged
that the Company unlawfully monopolized, unreasonably restrained
trade in, and made acquisitions that substantially lessened
competition in the market for sterndrive and inboard marine
engines in the United States and Canada. Under the antitrust
laws, the damage award has been trebled, and plaintiffs will be
entitled to their attorneys' fees and interest. Under current
law, any and all amounts paid by the Company will be deductible
for tax purposes.

The trial court judge denied the Company's post-trial motions
seeking to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.  The judge
also denied all forms of equitable relief sought by the
plaintiffs in connection with the jury verdict, including their
requests for divestiture of the Company's principal boat
manufacturing operations and orders precluding the Company from
implementing various marketing and pricing programs and from
acquiring other marine-related companies or assets.  The judge
granted the Company's motion for judgment as a matter of law on
its counterclaim which asserted a per se violation of the
antitrust laws by a group of six of the plaintiffs and awarded
nominal damages.  Plaintiffs dismissed, voluntarily, two related
claims which had alleged that the Company attempted to monopolize
the outboard engine and sterndrive boat markets.

On November 4, 1998, the Company filed an appeal contending the
Concord verdict was erroneous as a matter of law, both as to
liability and damages.  Plaintiffs filed a cross appeal on the
denial of equitable relief and on the judgment against certain of
them on the counterclaim.  The Company is not presently able to
reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome of this case, and
accordingly, no expense for this judgment has been recorded.  If
the adverse judgment is sustained after all appeals, satisfaction
of the judgment is likely to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's results of operations for a particular year, but is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition.

On October 23, 1998, a suit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota by two independent
boat builders alleging antitrust violations by the Company in the
sterndrive and inboard engine business, seeking to rely on both
the liability and damage findings of the Concord litigation. This
suit originally was entitled Alumacraft Boats Co., et al. v.
Brunswick Corporation, but Alumacraft Boats Co. was dismissed
without prejudice shortly after the suit was filed.  Now
captioned KK Motors et al. v. Brunswick Corporation (KK Motors),
the named plaintiffs also seek to represent a class of all
allegedly similarly situated boat builders whose claims have not
been resolved in Concord or in other judicial proceedings. Sales
of sterndrive and inboard marine engines to the Concord
plaintiffs are estimated to have represented less than one-fifth
of the total sold to independent boat builders during the six-
and-one-half year time period for which damages were awarded in
that suit.  The complaint in the KK Motors case seeks damages for
a time period covering slightly less than four years.

On December 23, 1998, Volvo Penta of the Americas, Inc.,
Brunswick's principal competitor in the sale of sterndrive marine
engines, filed suit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.  That suit, Volvo Penta of the
Americas v. Brunswick Corporation (Volvo), also invokes the
antitrust allegations of the Concord action and seeks injunctive
relief and damages in an unspecified amount for an unspecified
time period.

The Company has answered or will answer each of these new
complaints denying liability and asserting various defenses. In
addition, the Company has filed or will file motions to stay all
proceedings in each of these matters pending the resolution of
the appeal in the Concord action because it believes that an
appellate decision in that matter is likely to have an impact on
each of these recently filed actions.  In the KK Motors case, the
court has granted a stay of all proceedings on the merits of
plaintiffs' claims, but has allowed the case to proceed on class
certification and certain procedural matters. No other stay
motions have yet been ruled on.

BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Fairness Hearing to Commence in April, 1999
On November 20, 1997, BURLINGTON RESOURCES, INC., and numerous
other defendants entered into a settlement agreement in a lawsuit
styled as The McMahon Foundation, et al., v. Amerada Hess
Corporation, et al.  This lawsuit is a proposed class action
consisting of both working interest owners and royalty owners
against numerous defendants, all of which are oil companies
and/or purchasers of oil from oil companies, including Burlington
Resources Oil & Gas Company, formerly known as Meridian Oil Inc.
("BROG") and LL&E.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
conspired to fix, depress, stabilize and maintain at artificially
low levels the prices paid for oil by, among other things,
setting their posted prices at arbitrary levels below competitive
market prices. Cases involving similar allegations have been
filed in federal courts in other states.  On January 14, 1998,
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order consolidating these cases and transferring the
McMahon case to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas in Corpus Christi.  The Company and other
defendants have entered into a Settlement Agreement which
received preliminary approval by the Court on October 28, 1998.
The Court has set a hearing to finally determine the fairness,
accuracy and reasonableness of the Settlement Agreement beginning
in April 1999.

COREL CORPORATION: Motions to Dismiss & Strike Fully Briefed
On or about February 23, 1998, COREL CORPORATION became aware
that a class action lawsuit had been filed against it by named
Plaintiff Great Neck Capital Appreciation Investment Partnership
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. The complaint also names as co-defendants Dr. Michael
C. J. Cowpland, Corel's Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer, and Mr. Charles Norris, Corel's former Vice President,
Finance and Chief Financial Officer.  The complaint was filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Corel
common shares between March 26, 1997 and January 20, 1998.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated various provisions
of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b) and 10(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by misrepresenting
or failing to disclose material information about Corel's
financial condition.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
issued false and misleading press releases and financial
statements for the first three quarters of fiscal 1997. Plaintiff
alleges, in part, that defendants (a) failed to disclose that
they were overstating Corel's reported profits by, among other
things, inflating reported revenues and earnings through
improperly recognizing revenue on Java technology exchange
transactions, and (b) overstated revenues and earnings by
understating reserves in connection with sales to distributors
who had no obligation to keep or pay for the products. The
complaint also alleges that Corel insiders, including the
individual co-defendants, sold common shares during the Class
Period at "artificially inflated prices". The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of money damages.

The Great Neck complaint was consolidated by order dated June 1,
1998 with four other previously filed complaints: Giskan, Meyer,
Mangold and Hagler.  Also on June 1, 1998, the court approved the
plaintiff's motion for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  The firm of Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer is
counsel of record.  Great Neck (as lead plaintiff) filed a
consolidated amended complaint on behalf of lead plaintiff and
the class on September 9, 1998 (the "Consolidated Complaint").  
The Consolidated Complaint references a revised Class Period (it
has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Corel common shares between January 15, 1997
and January 20, 1998); however, plaintiffs' theories from the
individual complaints (as summarized above) remain the same.

On November 9, 1998, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety.  On December 30, 1998,
Plaintiffs filed a related Motion to strike certain documents
referred to in the Company's Motion to Dismiss.  Both motions
were fully briefed by February 12, 1999.  The plaintiffs have not
yet brought their motion to certify the class and the filing.

The Company intends to defend this class action litigation
vigorously.  However, due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate
outcome of the litigation.  Investigating and defending the
Consolidated Complaint may require expenditure of material
amounts of funds and may require a significant amount of
management's time and resources.  An unfavorable outcome in the
litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition and results of operations.
Announcement of material developments in the litigation prior to
its resolution could adversely affect the market price of Corel's
common shares.

DVL, INC.: Company Makes Cash Tender Offer for Settlement Notes
DVL, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: DVLN) announced that it is
commencing a cash tender offer (the "Offer") for any and all of
its 10% Redeemable Promissory Notes due December 31, 2005, at a
price of $0.12 per $1.00 principal amount of Notes.  The Offer is
scheduled to expire on April 16, 1999.  The Notes were originally
issued in December 1995 in conjunction with the settlement of a
shareholder class action.  Approximately $6,336,425 aggregate  
principal amount of Notes are currently outstanding.

The Offer is intended to retire the Notes, effecting a reduction
in the Company's long-term debt, and eliminating the dilutive
effect that would otherwise result from redemption of the Notes
for shares of Common Stock.  The Company has the option to redeem
the Notes at any time after January 1, 1999, by issuing
additional shares of Common Stock in lieu of cash.  The Company
has engaged Jesup & Lamont Capital Markets, Inc. as the
Information and Solicitation Agent for the Offer.  

ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in Iowa
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announced that it filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Iowa on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock,
purchased call options or sold put options of Engineering
Animation, Inc. (Nasdaq: EAII) from February 19, 1998 through  
February 17, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Engineering Animation and certain of its
officers and directors with issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial performance.

LASER TECHNOLOGY: Vows to Defend Shareholder Lawsuits
On February 10, 1999 a securities class action entitled Moshe
Rosenfeld, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, vs. Laser Technology, Inc., David Williams, Pamela
Sevy, Dan H. Grothe and H. DeWorth Williams, was filed
in the United States District Court, District of Colorado (Case
no. 99-Z-266).  The Complaint alleges that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities
laws, particularly Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "1934 Act").  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that the Company's financial statements
were false and misleading during the "class period" (February 12,
1996 to December 23, 1998) and that the Company made certain
false or misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
statements during this period.

The action appears to have followed and be premised on the
resignation of the Company's independent accountant, BDO Seidman,
LLP ("BDO"), on December 21, 1999, and the resignation of three
members of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors.  The
resigning members of the Audit Committee were members of the
Special Audit Committee (the "Special Committee"), who also
resigned from the Board of Directors on January 7, 1999 as a
result of disagreements between management and the Special
Committee.  BDO also withdrew its opinions on the previously
issued certified financial statements for the fiscal years 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997.  At the time of BDO's resignation, the
Special Committee was conducting an independent investigation
into the Company's accounting records and alleged irregularities
relating to the Company's accounting records.  Following the
announcement of the resignation of BDO and withdrawl of five
years of audited financial statements, the American Stock
Exchange suspended trading in the Company's shares on December
23, 1998.

On January 7, 1999, a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors
(the "Special Meeting") was held for the purpose of receiving the
report and recommendations from the Special Committee.  At the
Special Meeting, the Special Committee made several proposals
including, but not limited to, asking for the resignation of the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.
Following the presentation by the Special Committee of its
findings and proposed actions, those directors not serving on the
Special Committee made a counter proposal. Without responding to
the counter-proposal, the individuals on the Special Committee
then informed the Board of Directors of their intent to resign
from the Special Committee and from the Board of Directors.

In its complaint, the plaintiff contends that the resignation of
BDO and the three directors is due to the Company's alleged
unreliable and misleading financial statements.  Plaintiff's
complaint further alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the 1934
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company has not had ample time to fully review the complaint
nor to determine the extent of any possible liability or material
damage to the Company.  The Company further believes that the
allegations set forth in the complaint are groundless and without
merit and it intends to vigorously defend against the action.

The Company is aware of at least five additional class action
suits that have been filed recently against the Company.  As of
the date hereof, the Company has not received a complaint in the
five actions, but the Company believes that the actions parallel
the one described above.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend against all of the actions.

LYCOS, INC.: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Massachusetts
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of purchasers of Lycos, Inc. (NASDAQ:LCOS) common stock
between January 8, 1999 and February 9, 1999.

The complaint charges Lycos, Inc. and its President/CEO, Robert
J. "Bob" Davis, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Among other things, plaintiff claims that
the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose material information regarding the Lycos's
plans to merge with USA Networks, Inc. When Lycos announced the
merger with USA Networks, the price of Lycos common stock dropped
from $127-1/4 per share to $94-1/4 per share, inflicting enormous
damage on investors.

LYCOS, INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi File Complaint in Massachusetts
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in Boston against Lycos, Inc. (Nasdaq:  LCOS) and
its President/CEO, Bob Davis on behalf of purchasers of Lycos,
Inc. common stock between January 8, 1999 and February 9, 1999.

NABORS INDUSTRIES: Motions to Dismiss Shareholder Suits Pending
A purported class action lawsuit is pending against Nabors
Industries, Inc., certain directors and officers of the Company,
the managing underwriters of the Initial Public Offering, and
certain current and former stockholders of the Company,
alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with
the Initial Public Offering.  The lawsuit, Yuan v. Bayard
Drilling Technologies, Inc., et al. ("Yuan"), was filed on
February 3, 1998 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma. The principal plaintiff in Yuan is
Tom Yuan.  The defendants in this case include the Company,
Chesapeake, Energy Spectrum LLC, James E. Brown, David E. Grose,
Carl B. Anderson, III, Merrill A. Miller, Jr., Sidney L. Tassin,
Lew O. Ward, Mike Mullen, Roy T. Oliver, Donaldson, Lufkin &
Jenrette Securities Corporation, Lehman Brothers, Inc.,  
Prudential Securities, Inc., Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. (a
predecessor to Dain Rauscher Incorporated) and Raymond James &
Associates, Inc.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit purport to sue on their own behalf
and on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of Common Stock
on or traceable to the Initial Public Offering. In the lawsuit,
plaintiffs allege claims against all defendants under the
Securities Act.  The plaintiffs allege that the registration
statement and prospectus for the Initial Public Offering
contained materially false and misleading information and omitted
to disclose material facts. In particular, the plaintiffs allege
that such registration statement and prospectus failed to
disclose financial difficulties of Chesapeake, the Company's
largest customer, and the effects of such difficulties on
Chesapeake's ability to continue to provide the Company with
substantial drilling contracts.  The petitions further allege
that the Company failed to disclose pre-offering negotiations
with R.T. Oliver Drilling, Inc., whom the plaintiffs allege was a
related party, for the purchase of drilling rigs. In addition,
the petitions allege that the Company failed to disclose that its
growth strategy required costly refurbishment of older drilling
rigs that would dramatically increase the Company's costs, which
could not be sustained by internally generated cash flows.
Plaintiffs are seeking rescission and damages.

Two other suits, Khan v. Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc., et
al. ("Khan") and Burkett v. Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc.,
et al. ("Burkett"), which were filed in District Court in and for
Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma on January 14, 1998 and
February 2, 1998, respectively, and alleged essentially
the same claims as Yuan, were dismissed without prejudice in May
1998 on a joint application filed by all parties. The plaintiffs
in Khan and Burkett, along with others, have been appointed as
lead plaintiffs in the Yuan federal court suit, now styled to
include the other lead plaintiffs, as Yuan, et al.  A motion to
dismiss the claims in this lawsuit has been filed by the Company
and the other defendants and is currently pending before the

The Company believes the allegations in the lawsuits referenced
above are without merit and is defending vigorously the claims
brought against it. The Company is unable, however, to predict
the outcome of these lawsuits or the costs to be incurred in
connection with their defense and there can be no assurance that
this litigation will be resolved in the Company's favor. An
adverse result or prolonged litigation could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of

OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL: Ill Employee Suit Drags; No Trial in Sight
>From Lake City, Florida, United Press International notes that a
lawsuit filed in north Florida against Occidental Chemical
Corporation two years ago continues to drag on with a court date
still uncertain.  A group of six employees joined in the suit
against the corporation when they discovered they were suffering
from the same illnesses.  One of the parties died after the suit
was filed and that means the firm now faces a wrongful death
suit.  The plaintiffs claim they are not interested in getting
rich, they only want to get healthy and be able to provide for
their families.

ORANGE & ROCKLAND: Shareholders Appeal Order Dismissing Suit
On March 9, 1998, three shareholders of ORANGE & ROCKLAND
UTILITIES, INC., filed a purported derivative action on behalf of
the Company alleging various claims against its directors,
several current officers and one former officer, certain other
defendants and nominally against the Company. Plaintiffs filed
the action, entitled Virgilio Ciullo, et al. v. Orange and
Rockland Utilities, Inc., et al., in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York.  The complaint was
subsequently amended several times to assert additional purported
derivative and class action claims.  By order dated January 8,
1999 and entered on January 12, 1999, the State Supreme Court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety and denied plaintiffs' motion to further amend their
complaint to add additional causes of actions.  On February 10,
1999, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's
decision to the Appellate Division.

ORBITAL SCIENCES: Shapiro Haber Files Complaint in Virginia
A class action suit alleging securities fraud  has been filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of  
Virginia, against Orbital Sciences Corp. (NYSE: ORB), and the
officers David R. Thompson and Jeffrey V. Pirone, by the law firm
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.  The case was filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased Orbital Sciences common  stock during the
period April 21, 1998 through February 16, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants issued a series of false and misleading financial
statements.  As a result of defendants' alleged misconduct, the
market price of Orbital common stock was artificially inflated,
trading as high as $49.125 per share during the Class Period.  On
February 16, 1999, the Company announced that, due to the
improper accounting treatment of certain items, the Company would
materially restate earnings for the first three quarters of 1998.  
After the announcement, the stock fell below $28 per share.

PRECISION SYSTEMS: Shareholder Class-Action Suit Dismissed
Precision Systems Inc. says a shareholder class- action lawsuit
pending against the Home Shopping Network spinoff and its  
directors has been dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice.
The suit was filed in Delaware after HSN founder Roy Speer said
he wanted to buy and control most of the struggling
telecommunications company.  The suit accused Precision directors
of breaching their fiduciary duty and sought to halt the Speer
deal.  Last month, Speer dropped his bid for Precision and
directors approved a buyout offer from Anschutz Digital Media
Inc., part of a conglomerate headed by  Colorado billionaire Phil

QUARTERDECK CORP.: Continues Defense of Procomm Customer Y2K Suit
On July 30, 1998, a class action complaint was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Procomm Plus
version 4.0 for Windows product (the "Product").  The complaint
purports to assert claims for breach of warranty and violation of
New York's Consumer Protection From Deceptive Acts And Practices
Act arising from the Product's inability to process dates
containing the year 2000.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages.  Quarterdeck believes these claims to be without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously.

QUARTERDECK CORP.: Delaware Suit Filed to Block Symantec Merger
A complaint was filed on February 24, 1999 in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, County of New Castle, by
William Skeen, a purported Quarterdeck stockholder, against
Quarterdeck Corporation,  Symantec Corporation, Oak Acquisition
Corporation (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Symantec) and current
and former directors of Quarterdeck.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair dealing
in connection with the planned merger of Oak with and into
Quarterdeck and claims that when Quarterdeck's directors approved
the merger, they had a financial conflict of interest as a result
of a September 1998 grant of stock options to them.  The
complaint also alleges breach of fiduciary duty and unfair
dealing by Symantec, and certain of its officers who became
directors of Quarterdeck, in connection with certain conduct by
Symantec following the consummation of Symantec's tender offer
for Quarterdeck's outstanding common stock, including the
agreement by Symantec and Quarterdeck to extend the termination
date of the non-exclusive license granted by Quarterdeck to
Symantec to Quarterdeck's CleanSweep product from January 31,
1999 to March 31, 1999.  In addition, the complaint alleges that
Quarterdeck's failure to obtain the approval of its stockholders
in connection with its initial grant of the CleanSweep license
violated a provision of Delaware law that requires stockholder
approval of a sale, lease or exchange of all or substantially all
of a corporation's assets.  Finally, the complaint alleges that
Quarterdeck's Schedule 14D-9 relating to the tender offer
contained materially misleading and coercive public disclosures
regarding the likelihood and impact of the delisting of
Quarterdeck's common stock by Nasdaq.

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger and also seeks damages
in an unspecified amount and other relief. The suit was brought
by William Skeen on behalf of all persons who were stockholders
during the relevant period and seeks certification of a class
action.  While Quarterdeck and Symantec believe these claims are
without merit, there can be no assurances as to the actual
outcome of this matter or its effect on the timing or
consummation of the merger.

SCHOOL SPECIALTY: No Indemnification Request from U.S. Office Yet
Under the terms of the agreement entered into on June 9, 1998
between SCHOOL SPECIALTY, INC., and U.S. Office Products in
connection with the spin-off (the "Distribution Agreement"), the
Company agreed with the other three spin-off companies to
indemnify U.S. Office Products for certain liabilities incurred
by U.S. Office Products prior to the spin-off, including
liabilities under federal securities laws (the "Indemnification
Obligation").  The portion of the shared liabilities payable by
each spin-off company is determined by the relative aggregate
market values of the common stock of the spin-off companies
immediately after the spin-off. The maximum aggregate amount the
Company can be required to pay for all indemnification
obligations is limited by the Distribution Agreement to $1.75

U.S. Office Products has been named a defendant in various class
action lawsuits.  These lawsuits generally allege violations of
federal securities laws by U.S. Office Products and other named
defendants during the months preceding the spin-off.  The Company
has not received any notice or claim from U.S. Office Products
alleging that these lawsuits are within the scope of the
Indemnification Obligation.  Also, the Company has not yet
determined the extent to which certain insurance coverage of U.S.
Office Products may be available to the Company in connection
with any Indemnification Obligation triggered by these lawsuits.
As discussed above, to the extent there would be any liability
subject to the Company's Indemnification Obligation, including
any deductible under insurance coverage, such liability is
limited to the Company's pro rata share (based on the aggregate
market value of the spin-off companies following the spin-off)
under the Distribution Agreement, limited to a maximum of $1.75

THERAGENICS CORP.: Rabin & Peckel File Complaint in Georgia
Rabin & Peckel LLP announced today that it filed a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern  District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Theragenics Corp. (NYSE:TGX)
between January 29, 1998 and January 11, 1999, inclusive.

USG CORP.: Status Report Concerning Asbestos Litigation
>From the latest Form 10-K405 filed by USG Corp. with the
Securities and Exchange Commission:

     One of the Corporation's subsidiaries,  U.S. Gypsum (or "the
Company"), is among many  defendants  in  lawsuits  arising  out  
of the  manufacture  and  sale  of asbestos-containing  
materials.  U.S.  Gypsum sold  certain  asbestos-containing
products  beginning in the 1930s; in most cases, the products
were  discontinued or asbestos  was removed  from the formula by
1972,  and no  asbestos-containing products  were  produced  
after  1977.  Some of these  lawsuits  seek to recover
compensatory  and in many cases punitive  damages for costs  
associated with the maintenance  or removal  and  replacement  of  
asbestos-containing  products  in buildings (the "Property  
Damage Cases").  Others seek  compensatory and in many cases
punitive damages for personal injury allegedly  resulting from
exposure to asbestos-containing products (the "Personal Injury

     Property  Damage Cases:  

     U.S. Gypsum is a defendant in 12 Property Damage Cases, most
of which involve  multiple  buildings.  One of the cases is a
conditionally certified class action  comprised of all colleges
and universities in the United
States,  which  certification is presently  limited to the  
resolution of certain allegedly  "common"  liability issues
(Central  Wesleyan College v. W.R. Grace & Co., et al., U.S.D.C.  
S.C.).  Fourteen  additional  property damage claims have been
threatened against U.S. Gypsum. The Company anticipates that few
additional Property  Damage Cases will be filed as a result of
the operation of statutes of limitations  and the  impact of
certain  other  factors,  although  if the class action  referred
to above is  decertified,  it is likely that some  colleges and
universities will file individual  Property Damage Cases against
U.S. Gypsum. It is possible that any cases that are filed will
seek substantial damages.

     In total,  U.S.  Gypsum has settled  approximately  114  
Property  Damage  Cases involving 244 plaintiffs, in addition to
four class action settlements.  Twenty-four cases have been tried
to verdict,  16 of which were won by U.S.  Gypsum and five lost;  
three other  cases,  one won at the trial  level and two lost,  
were settled during appeals.  In the cases lost,  compensatory  
damage awards against U.S. Gypsum totaled $11.5 million.  
Punitive  damages totaling $5.5 million were entered against U.S.  
Gypsum in four trials.  Two of the punitive damage awards,
totaling  $1.45  million,  were paid,  and two were settled
during the appellate process.

     In 1998,  two Property  Damage Cases were filed against U.S.  
Gypsum,  two cases were dismissed before trial, four were
settled, and 12 were pending at year end.  U.S.  Gypsum  expended  
$29.5 million for the defense and resolution of Property Damage
Cases (most of which consisted of payments for  settlements  
agreed to in the prior year) and received  insurance  payments of
$22.0  million in 1998.  In 1997, one Property Damage Case was
filed against U.S.  Gypsum,  three cases were dismissed before
trial, six were settled,  one closed case was reopened,  and 16
were pending at year end. U.S.  Gypsum expended $7.8 million for
the defense and resolution  of Property  Damage Cases and
received  insurance  payments of $15.5 million in 1997.  During
1996, two Property Damage Cases were filed against U.S. Gypsum,
three cases were dismissed before trial, eight were settled, and
23 were pending at year end;  U.S.  Gypsum  expended  $33.4  
million for the defense and resolution of Property Damage Cases
in 1996 and received  insurance  payments of $84 million. A
substantial portion of the insurance payments received during the
years 1996-1997  constituted  reimbursement  for amounts   
expended in connection with Property Damage Cases in prior years.

     U.S.  Gypsum's  estimated  cost of resolving  pending  
Property  Damage Cases is discussed below (see "Estimated Cost").

     Personal Injury Cases:  

     U.S. Gypsum is also a defendant in approximately  98,000
Personal  Injury Cases  pending at December 31, 1998,  as well as
an  additional approximately  43,000 cases that have been settled
but will be closed over time.  Filings  of new  Personal  Injury  
Cases  increased  to  80,000  claims in 1998, compared to 23,500
claims in 1997 and 28,000 claims in 1996.  The higher rate of
personal  injury case filings in 1998 is believed to have
resulted,  at least in part,  from the Supreme  Court  ruling  
striking  down the  Georgine  settlement described  below. It is
anticipated  that Personal Injury Cases will continue to be filed  
in  substantial  numbers  for the  foreseeable  future,  although  
the percentage  of  such  cases  filed  by  claimants  with  
little  or no  physical impairment is expected to remain high.

     U.S.  Gypsum's  average  settlement cost for Personal Injury
Cases over the past several  years has been  approximately  
$1,600 per claim,  exclusive  of defense costs. In 1998, U.S.
Gypsum (through the Center for Claims Resolution, discussed
below) agreed to  settlements of  approximately  60,000  Personal  
Injury Cases, including 39,000 cases that will be closed in
future years at an average cost of approximately  $1,600 per
case,  and 21,000  claims  closed  during  1998 for an average  
settlement  of  approximately  $2,600  per  case.  The  higher  
cost of settlements  of those cases  actually  closed in 1998 was
due  primarily to more costly settlements in particular
jurisdictions, and an increase in the number of such claims that
came from individuals  alleging serious illness, due in part to
the courts' accelerated  treatment of such claims.  Management  
anticipates that the  average  settlement  cost for  most  
pending  claims  will  continue  to be moderated by opportunities  
for block settlements of large numbers of claims and the  
apparently  high  percentage  of claims that appear to have been
brought by individuals  with  little or no physical  impairment.  
However,  other  factors, including the litigation strategies of
certain co-defendants and an increasingly adverse litigation
environment in particular jurisdictions, are expected to have
an adverse  impact on  settlement  costs for some  pending and
future cases and, therefore, on U.S. Gypsum's overall settlement

     U.S.  Gypsum  is  a  member,   together  with  18  other  
former   producers  of asbestos-containing   products,   of  the  
Center  for  Claims  Resolution  (the "Center"),  which has
assumed the handling of all Personal  Injury Cases pending
against U.S.  Gypsum and the other  members of the Center.  Costs
of defense and settlement are shared among the members of the
Center pursuant to  predetermined sharing  formulae.  Most of
U.S.  Gypsum's personal injury liability and defense costs have
been paid by those of its  insurance  carriers that in 1985
signed an Agreement  Concerning  Asbestos-Related  Claims  (the  
"Wellington  Agreement"), obligating them to provide coverage for
the defense and indemnity costs incurred by U.S.  Gypsum in  
Personal  Injury  Cases.  Punitive  damages  have never been
awarded  against U.S.  Gypsum in a Personal  Injury Case; whether
such an award would be covered by insurance  under the Wellington  
Agreement  would depend on state law and the terms of the
individual policies.

     U.S.  Gypsum and the Center were parties to a class action  
settlement  known as Georgine  that would have  required  most  
future  Personal  Injury  Cases to be resolved  through an  
administrative  system and provided  prescribed  levels of
benefits based on the nature of the claimants' physical
impairment.  However, on June 25,  1997,  the  Supreme  Court  
affirmed  a May 1996  ruling  by a federal appellate  court  
finding  that class  certification  in Georgine  was  improper
(Amchem Products,  Inc. v. Windsor, Case No. 96-270).  Since the
invalidation of the Georgine  settlement,  U.S.  Gypsum and the
other  Center  members have been named in a substantial  number
of additional  Personal Injury Cases. A number of defendants in
asbestos  personal  injury  claims,  including U.S.  Gypsum,  
have stated their intention to continue pursuit of an alternative
to the current tort system,  including  possible  federal  
legislation  that would impose  objective disease criteria on
asbestos cases, although there can be no assurance that such
an alternative can be implemented.  In addition,  some
settlements negotiated by the Center during 1998 included  
agreements by plaintiffs' firms to recommend to their future  
clients that they defer filing  personal  injury claims unless
and until they meet  established  disease  criteria.  The Center  
will  continue  to attempt  to  negotiate  similar  agreements  
in the  future.  The impact of such agreements cannot be
determined at this time.

     During 1998,  approximately 80,000 Personal Injury Cases
were filed against U.S. Gypsum,  and 21,000 were settled or
dismissed.  U.S. Gypsum incurred expenses of $61.1  million in
1998 with  respect to the  resolution  and defense of Personal
Injury  Cases,  of which  $45.5  million  was paid by  insurance.  
During  1997, approximately  23,500  Personal  Injury Cases were
filed  against  U.S.  Gypsum, approximately  5,000  claims  were  
refiled or  amended to add U.S.  Gypsum as a defendant,  and  
approximately  14,000 were settled or  dismissed.  U.S.  Gypsum
incurred  expenses  of $31.6  million in 1997 with  respect to  
Personal  Injury Cases, of which $27.2 million was paid by
insurance.  During 1996, approximately 28,000 Personal Injury
Cases were filed against U.S. Gypsum,  and  approximately
20,000 were settled or dismissed. U.S. Gypsum incurred expenses
of $28.6 million in 1996 with respect to Personal  Injury Cases,  
of which $21.6 million was paid by insurance.

     U.S.  Gypsum's  estimated cost of resolving the pending
Personal Injury Cases is discussed below (see "Estimated Cost").

     Insurance  Coverage Action:  

     U.S. Gypsum sued its insurance  carriers in 1983 to obtain  
coverage for asbestos cases (the "Coverage  Action") and has
settled all disputes  with most of its solvent  carriers.  As of
December  31,  1998,  after deducting insolvent coverage and
insurance paid out to date,  approximately $262 million of
potential insurance remained, including approximately $217
million of insurance from six carriers that have agreed, subject
to certain limitations and conditions,  to cover asbestos-related
costs, and approximately $45 million from three  carriers  that
have not yet agreed to make their  coverage  available  on
acceptable  terms. A minimum of $10 million of the disputed
coverage is expected to be available regardless of the outcome of
further proceedings. U.S. Gypsum is attempting to resolve its
disputes with the nonsettling  carriers through either a
negotiated resolution or further litigation in the Coverage

     U.S. Gypsum's total  expenditures for all  asbestos-related  
matters,  including property damage,  personal  injury, insurance  
coverage  litigation and related expenses,  exceeded  aggregate  
insurance  payments by $24 million in 1998,  but insurance  
payments exceeded  asbestos-related  expenses by $0.7 million in
1997 and $41 million in 1996, due primarily to nonrecurring
reimbursement for amounts expended in prior years.

     Insolvent Carriers:  

     Four of U.S. Gypsum's domestic insurance carriers,  as well
as  underwriters  of  portions  of various  policies  issued by
Lloyds and other London  market  companies,  providing a total of  
approximately  $106 million of coverage, are insolvent. Because
these policies would already have been consumed by U.S. Gypsum's
asbestos expenses to date if the carriers had been solvent, the
insolvencies  will not  adversely  affect  U.S.  Gypsum's  
coverage  for  future asbestos-related   costs.   However,   U.S.   
Gypsum  is  pursuing   claims  for reimbursement  from the  
insolvent  estates  and other  sources  and  expects to recover a  
presently  indeterminable  portion of the policy  amounts  from
these sources.

     Estimated Cost:

     The asbestos  litigation  involves numerous  uncertainties  
that affect U.S. Gypsum's ability to estimate reliably its
probable  liability in the Personal Injury and Property  Damage
Cases.  In the Property Damage Cases,  such uncertainties  
include  the  identification  and  volume of  asbestos-containing
products in the buildings at issue in each case,  which is often  
disputed;  the claimed damages associated  therewith;  the
viability of statute of limitations, product identification and
other defenses, which varies depending upon the facts and  
jurisdiction of each case; the amount for which such cases can be
resolved, which normally (but not uniformly) has been
substantially lower than the claimed damages;  and the  viability  
of claims for punitive and other forms of multiple damages.  
Uncertainties  in  the  Personal  Injury  Cases  include  the  
number, characteristics  and venue of Personal  Injury Cases that
are filed against U.S. Gypsum;  the Center's ability to continue
to negotiate  pretrial  settlements at historical or acceptable
levels; the level of physical  impairment of claimants; the
viability of claims for punitive  damages;  any changes in
membership in the Center and the  ability to develop an  
alternate  claims-handling  vehicle  that retains the key
benefits of Georgine. As a result, any estimate of U.S. Gypsum's
liability, while based upon the best information currently
available, may not be an accurate  prediction of actual costs and
is subject to revision as additional information becomes
available and developments occur.

     Subject to the above uncertainties, and based in part on
information provided by the Center,  U.S. Gypsum  estimates that
it is probable that Property Damage and Personal  Injury  Cases  
pending at December  31,  1998,  can be resolved for an amount
totaling between $330 million and $410 million,  including
defense costs.  Most of these  amounts are  expected to be
expended  over the next three to five years,  although  
settlements of some Personal  Injury Cases will be consummated
over periods as long as seven years.  Significant insurance
funding is available for these costs, as detailed below,  
although resolution of the pending cases is expected to consume
U.S. Gypsum's remaining insurance. At this time, U.S. Gypsum
does not believe  that the number and  severity of  asbestos-
related  cases that ultimately will be filed in the future can be
predicted with sufficient accuracy to provide the basis for a  
reasonable  estimate of the  liability  that will be associated
with such cases.

     Accounting  for Asbestos  Liability:  

     As of December 31, 1998,  U.S.  Gypsum had reserved $330
million for liability  from pending  Property  Damage and
Personal Injury Cases  (equaling the lower end of the estimated  
range of costs  provided above).  U.S. Gypsum had a corresponding  
receivable from insurance  carriers of approximately $227
million, the estimated portion of the reserved amount that is
expected to be paid or  reimbursed  by  insurance  that is either  
committed  or probable  of  recovery.  Additional  amounts  may  
be  reimbursed  by  insurance depending  upon the outcome of
litigation and  negotiations  relating to the $35 million of
insurance that is presently disputed.

     U.S.  Gypsum compares its estimates of liability to  then-
existing  reserves and available  insurance  assets and adjusts  
its  reserves  as  appropriate.  As of December  31,  1998,  U.S.  
Gypsum had an  additional  $43 million  reserved for asbestos
liabilities and asbestos-related expenses. The Company  
historically has accrued $18 million  annually for asbestos  
costs.  In view of the high level of personal injury filings that
followed the  termination of Georgine,  U.S. Gypsum accrued an  
additional  $8 million in the fourth  quarter of 1998.  The  
Company expects that an increased level of accrual will continue
to be necessary  during 1999 and possibly  longer.  The amount of
future  periodic  accruals will depend upon  factors  that  
include,  but may not be limited  to, the rate at which new
asbestos-related  claims are filed,  the imposition of medical  
criteria through legislation or negotiated agreements, U.S.
Gypsum's average settlement cost, and the  necessity  of  higher-
cost  settlements  in  particular  jurisdictions.  In addition,  
the Company will continue to evaluate  whether its ultimate  
probable liability for future Personal Injury Cases can be
reasonably estimated.  If such an estimate can be made,  it is
probable that  additional  charges to results of operations  
would be  necessary,  although  whether such an estimate can be
made and,  if so,  the  timing  and  amount of the  resulting  
charge to  results  of operations cannot presently be determined.  
However,  the amount of the periodic and other charges  described
above could be material to results of operations in the period in
which they are taken.


     The above estimates and reserves are re-evaluated
periodically as additional information becomes available.
Additional periodic charges to results of operations are expected
to be necessary in light of future  events,  and such charges  
could be material to results of  operations in the period in
which they are taken. However, it is management's  opinion,  
taking into account all of the above information and
uncertainties,  including currently available  information
concerning U.S. Gypsum's liabilities,  reserves and probable
insurance coverage, that the  asbestos  litigation  will not have
a material  adverse  effect on the liquidity or financial
position of the Corporation.

Y2K LITIGATION: Senate Commerce Committee Sends Y2K Bill To Floor
The Senate Commerce Committee voted 11-9 along strict party lines
to send Chairman John McCain's, R-Ariz., bill limiting Year 2000
litigation to the Senate floor.  Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash.,
voted in favor, but told Newsbytes  that he still has serious
reservations about the bill.

Gorton added that, although he anticipates changes, he would vote
for the bill in its current form if it came to the Senate floor.
"The Senate is not the end of the line," and the bill likely
would receive more alterations in the House, Gorton said. He
declined to specify his concerns.

McCain told reporters after the committee hearing that
significant changes still would be made to the language to refine
it.  He said he is "disappointed that I have not heard specific
suggestions from my colleagues across the aisle, and want to
express my sincere interest in engaging in productive discussions  
with them to arrive at a bill on the floor that can receive
bipartisan support."

S. 96, the "Year 2000 Act," tries to stem an anticipated flood of
litigation that may result from serious Year 2000 problems around
the time of the date change.  The bill requires plaintiffs suing
for Year 2000-related equipment and software breakdowns to allow
defendants 30 days to respond to charges, and 60 days to make
upgrades and repairs before being able to file a lawsuit.

The bill further limits damages to $250,000 or three times the
amount of the economic damages -- whichever is greater --
although if the defendant is less worth than $500,000, it would
be whichever amount is smaller.  It also limits liability in
class action lawsuits to the percentage of damage caused by a  
particular company.

Although the bill's language has been fleshed out and amended,
Democrats on the committee, as well as Gorton, reiterated earlier
fears that, if passed, the bill would lead to companies delaying
compliance.  McCain said he would work to make sure the bill does
not encourage companies to forego compliance efforts, saying the
bill is not intended to provide a shield for lazy organizations.

Today's announced amendment would exclude physical injuries and
death from  Year 2000-related problems from the litigation
limitations.  It also would require that plaintiffs provide
sufficient information to the defendants about the nature of the
problems to help avoid litigation, and, among other enhancements,
would protect government bodies from punitive damages, "so that  
taxpayers are not funding windfalls to plaintiffs."

"With all due respect, the bill in its current form, (doesn't) do
what it is supposed to do," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "Rather
than hastily pass this thing, we ought to actually address some

Commerce Committee Ranking Democrat Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-
S.C., was more blunt: "It's a bad, bad bill and I hope we kill
it. I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if you would help me
kill this bill."

Hollings and other opponents of the bill fear that it goes a long
way toward protecting large companies from a stream of Year 2000-
related lawsuits, but that it doesn't go far enough to allow
small plaintiff companies to get their problems repaired before
having to go out of business.

Kerry and Hollings also attacked the legislation for usurping
state- based contractual laws. "I'm all for preventing frivolous
lawsuits, (but) what I fear happening is...as we increasingly are
feeling there is a sort of response emanating out of Washington
. . . that far exceeds what is happening in the marketplace,"
Kerry said.  "We ought to have more respect for the marketplace  
and state law."

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kans., told the committee that McCain
should consider adding language to the bill that would cap
attorney's fees, similar to another Year 2000 litigation bill in
the House of Representatives.  "There are, what, 40 lawsuits so
far?" Brownback said.  "This litigation is already queued up."

McCain, Gorton, and Brownback voted in favor of sending the bill
to the floor, as did Sens. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.; Trent Lott, R-
Miss.; Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; John Ashcroft, R-Mo.;
Olympia Snowe, R-Me.; Bill Frist, R-Tenn.; Ted Stevens, R-Alaska;
and Spencer Abraham, R-Mich.

Voting against the bill were Kerry and Hollings, and Sens. Byron
Dorgan, D-N.D.; Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Max Cleland, D-Ga.; Daniel
Inouye, D-Hawaii; Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.; John Breaux, D-La.;
and Richard Bryan, D-Nev.


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard
Group, Inc., Washington, DC.  Peter A. Chapman, Editor.

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

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers. Information contained
herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is
not guaranteed.  

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-
mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 301/951-6400.                         

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *