---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R=20

              Friday, March 19, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 31

                           Headlines

ADVANCED MICRO: Savett Frutkin Files Complaint in California
ADVANCED MICRO: Kirby McInerney Expands Class Period
ADVANCED MICRO: Gross Firm Files Complaint in California=20
AMERICA ONLINE: Cigar Cafe Ponders Class Action Suit Against AOL
ASSISTED LIVING: Bernstein Litowitz File Complaint in Oregon=20

AVIS RENT-A-CAR: Jewish Customer Discrimination Class Certified=20
CELLULAR TECHNICAL: Reaches Settlement of Securities Litigation
CHS ELECTRONICS: Australian Acquisition Delayed After Suit Filed
CITIZENS UTILITIES: State Undertakes Overcharging Investigation
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Gross Firm Files Complaint in Texas=20

COMPAQ COMPUTER: Savett Frutkin Files Complaint in Texas=20
EXSORBET INDUSTRIES: Edelman & Combs File Complaint in=20
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Philadelphia Judge Certifies Plaintiff Class
INDUSTRI MATEMATIC: Quarterly Report Discloses Shareholder Suit
INTUIT, INC: Continues to Defend Y2K Product Defect Claims

KAISER PERMANENTE: Kaiser Members Sue HMO over Advertising=20
KIMBERLY CLARK: Discovery Continues in Tissue Price Fixing Cases
LEAD PAINT: Status Report from ARCO's Annual Report
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Will Defend Universal Life Policyholder Suits
LOEWEN GROUP: Funeral Giant Loewen Wages Titanic Struggle

MERCURY FINANCE: Court Confirms Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS: Minority Cabbies Sue for Discrimination
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Class Action Suit Alleges Incredible Fraud
NORTH FACE: Zwerling Schachter Files Complaint in Colorado=20
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Seeking Mandamus from Texas Supreme Court=20

ORBITAL SCIENCES: Rabin & Peckel File Complaint in Virginia
ORBITAL SCIENCES: Liebenberg & White File Complaint in Virginia
RITE-AID: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
RITE-AID: Kaufman Malchman Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
RITE-AID: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in [California]

ROUGE INDUSTRIES: City Residents File Class Action Pollution Suit
SAFESKIN, INC.: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in California
SAFESKIN, INC.: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California
SAFESKIN, INC.: Wirtz & Associates Files Complaint in California
SAFESKIN, INC.: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Suit in California

SAFESKIN, INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in California
SMART CHOICE: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Florida=20
SPYGLASS, INC.: Savett Frutkin Files Complaint in Illinois
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Jury Deliberation Begins in Ohio Union Trial
USAA CASUALTY: Hit With Sub-Standard Auto Parts Repair Suit=20

UST, INC.: Continues Defense of Tobacco-Related Suits=20
VITAMIN DISTRIBUTORS: Lindquist & Vennum Files Price Fixing Suit
WALT DISNEY: Judge Lets Workers' Health Benefits Suit Proceed=20
WARNER LAMBERT: Summary of Pharmacy Class Action Proceedings
WARNER LAMBERT: Denies Puerto Rican Employee Class Action Claims

WEYERHAEUSER CO.: California Hardboard Siding Class Certified

                           *********

ADVANCED MICRO: Savett Frutkin Files Complaint in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan P.C. has filed a class action=20
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern=20
District of California on behalf of a Class of persons who=20
purchased the common stock of Advanced Micro Devices Inc.=20
(NYSE:AMD) at artificially inflated prices.  The Firm initially=20
identified the class period as being from Jan. 13, 1999 through=20
March 9, 1999, and amended it to be October 6, 1998 through March=20
8, 1999.

The complaint alleges that defendants AMD and certain of its=20
officers and directors violated federal securities laws (Section=20
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by=20
misrepresenting or failing to disclose a serious design flaw in=20
AMD's K6 processor line which forced AMD to retool its=20
manufacturing line late in 1998 and would result in a material=20
decrease in production of its K6 personal computer microprocessor=20
of 500,000 units during the first quarter and corresponding=20
negative effect on AMD's earnings for the first quarter. As a=20
result of defendants' false and misleading statements and =20
omissions, the price of AMD's common stock was artificially=20
inflated during the Class Period. On March 8, 1999 AMD announced=20
that it would incur a significant loss in its first quarter=20
because of the K6 manufacturing problems. As a result  of this=20
announcement, shares of AMD fell 14%.
=20

ADVANCED MICRO: Kirby McInerney Expands Class Period
----------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, announced that the Class Period in=20
its March 11, 1999, class action lawsuit filed in the United=20
States District Court for the Northern District of California=20
against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (NYSE:AMD) and Chief=20
Executive Officer, Jerry Sanders has been expanded to include all=20
purchasers of AMD securities between November 12, 1998 and March=20
8, 1999, inclusive.
=09

ADVANCED MICRO: Gross Firm Files Complaint in California=20
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. announces that pursuant to=20
Section 21(D)(A)(3)(a)(I) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,=20
Notice is hereby given that on March 11, 1999, a class action=20
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the =20
Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting =20
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Advanced Micro=20
Devices, Inc. from Jan. 13, 1999 through and including March 9,=20
1999 and were damaged  thereby, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges AMD (NYSE: AMD) and certain of its officers=20
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities=20
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of=20
materially false and misleading statements and failed to reveal=20
that the Company was continuing to have problems with its K6-2=20
manufacturing facility which would materially affect the=20
Company's production and first quarter earnings.


AMERICA ONLINE: Cigar Cafe Ponders Class Action Suit Against AOL
----------------------------------------------------------------
This week's edition of ISP Business News reports that Cigar Cafe,=20
a former site on AOL's [AOL] Life, Styles and Interest channel is=20
trying to upgrade its lawsuit against the Dulles, Va.-based=20
online service to a class-action status, but is having a hard=20
time finding other small businesses  wronged by AOL.

Cigar Caf=82, ISPBN recalls, is suing AOL for $15 million because=20
AOL kicked the site off its network. Back in 1997, Cigar Cafe's=20
founder and president, Dale D'Alessio invested $300,000 of his=20
personal money to launch a Web site on AOL selling cigars and=20
providing content.  Shortly after the launch, AOL adopted a=20
policy not to sell tobacco over its network, and kicked Cigar=20
Cafe out.  D'Alessio claims breach of contract and other=20
wrongdoing by AOL, such as criminal trespass.

The suit, filed in the Alexandria Circuit Court in September,=20
thus far has cost AOL about $600,000, D'Alessio estimates.

"I decided to take a stand against AOL - they have no right to=20
push us around because we are a small business," D'Alessio says. =20
"We want to find other businesses that were mistreated by them."

The original March 22 court date for Cigar Cafe has been moved to=20
summer.
=20

ASSISTED LIVING: Bernstein Litowitz File Complaint in Oregon=20
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announced that on March=20
11, 1999, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States=20
District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of purchasers=20
of the common stock of Assisted Living Concepts Inc., from July=20
28, 1997 through January 29, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Assisted Living, and certain of its=20
officers and directors, with violations of Sections 10(b) and=20
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule=20
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint=20
alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants issued a=20
series of false and misleading statements about Assisted Living's=20
earnings, profitability and business condition and issued=20
financial statements that were materially false and misleading=20
and violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As a=20
result, the price of Assisted Living common stock was=20
artificially inflated during the Class Period, reaching as high=20
as $21-5/8 per share. After seven straight quarters of reporting =20
increasing profits, on February 1, 1999, the Company announced=20
that it was restating its income for 1997 and the nine months=20
ended September 31, 1998.  As a result of the restatement, the=20
Company's net income is substantially less than previously=20
reported.
=20

AVIS RENT-A-CAR: Jewish Customer Discrimination Class Certified=20
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sunday Gazette-Mail reports that a federal judge has ruled=20
that a lawsuit filed in Miami can speak for Jewish consumers=20
across the country who allege that Avis Rent-a-Car denied them=20
the benefits of corporate accounts because of their religious=20
backgrounds.  The lawsuit, filed in 1997, alleges that Avis=20
deliberately barred prospective Jewish customers from corporate=20
accounts, and quietly labeled each one with the code name=20
"yeshiva," the word for a Jewish religious school.

The suit, filed on behalf of Levi Sufrin of Fort Lauderdale,=20
Fla., and Zeirei Agudeth Israel, a bookstore in Chicago=20
affiliated with a yeshiva, alleges that starting in the early=20
1990s, the telemarketing division at Avis segregated callers with=20
Jewish-sounding names into a category for exclusion.  Those who=20
requested corporate accounts were denied them. Some were given=20
so-called "bogus" accounts that withheld corporate points and=20
carried reduced discounts.

Avis denies it intended to discriminate against Jewish would-be=20
customers, or to prevent them from renting its cars. Instead, it=20
said, it was attempting to flag unqualified drivers who posed as=20
representatives of Jewish schools. =20

In a 27-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Alan Gold wrote that the=20
case may proceed as a class action because testimony produced=20
thus far by former Avis employees showed that "thousands of=20
potential customers" had been turned down after having been=20
identified by the code name "yeshiva."

"It is undisputed that Avis employed a 'yeshiva' policy and that=20
the 'yeshiva' policy emanated from its World Reservations=20
Center," the judge wrote.  "The allegations of discrimination=20
here are based on a documented company policy written by upper=20
management at Avis' World Reservations Center, distributed to its=20
employees by upper management and monitored by upper management"=20
at the center.

An Avis spokesman said the Garden City, N.Y.-based corporation=20
would file an appeal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in=20
Atlanta.

"We view it for our part as a procedural matter," said the=20
spokesman, Tony Fuller. "The judge didn't really address the=20
merits of the case, and in fact, invited an early appeal on the=20
ruling."

Fuller said the term "yeshiva" was not used in "a derogatory way. =20
It was used to talk about the problem we had become aware of," he=20
said.  Fuller also said that few complainants have stepped=20
forward since the suit was filed.

But Miami lawyer Tod Aronovitz, who represents the plaintiffs,=20
said the case affects more than 10,000 Jewish customers over five=20
years from 1993 and 1998.

At a hearing before Gold last November, Avis lawyers argued that=20
a class action should not be allowed because the law requires a=20
separate examination of the facts in each individual's case.

But Gold, in his order, said the Avis situation is different.

"Here the named plaintiffs have significant evidence which, if=20
true, shows that Avis operated under a general policy of=20
discrimination against Jewish individuals and businesses seeking=20
to obtain and retain corporate accounts," he wrote.


CELLULAR TECHNICAL: Reaches Settlement of Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellular Technical Services Company, Inc. (Nasdaq NM:CTSC)=20
("CTS"), a leading provider of real-time information management=20
systems for the wireless communications industry, announced that=20
a stipulation of settlement of the securities class action=20
originally commenced in July 1997 has been filed with the United=20
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The stipulation, in which no liability or fault is admitted by=20
CTS or any of its executives, provides for a settlement payment=20
of $4.1 million that will be paid by CTS' insurance carriers. The=20
settlement is subject to various terms and conditions, including=20
final court approval. If such terms and conditions are fulfilled,=20
all claims brought against CTS and certain of its executives will=20
be dismissed.

Commenting on the settlement, Kyle Sugamele, CTS' Vice President=20
and General Counsel, stated, "We actively defended against this=20
lawsuit since its inception as we continue to believe it is=20
without merit. However, this settlement allows our company to=20
again focus on reaching our goals without the expense and=20
distraction associated with protracted litigation."

CTS provides leading technological solutions for the wireless=20
communications industry to assist with call data collection and=20
distribution and to prevent fraud.  The Company's Blackbird=20
Platform fraud prevention product line prevents millions of=20
fraudulent calls each week in more than 40 of the largest markets =20
across the United States, including: New York, Boston,=20
Hartford/New Haven, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore,=20
Washington D.C., Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Los=20
Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.=20


CHS ELECTRONICS: Australian Acquisition Delayed After Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
>From Sydney, Australia, David Frith, writing for Computer Daily =20
News, reports that the impending acquisition of Australian=20
information technology distribution house Computer Hardware of=20
Australia by CHS Electronics of the US has hit a snag.  The=20
official announcement of the deal, scheduled for a press=20
conference in Sydney at 5pm Thursday, was called off after CHS=20
Electronics was hit with a shareholders' class action lawsuit in=20
the US, alleging irregularities in the company's accounts.

CHA marketing manager James Robbins on Wednesday said the press=20
event had been called off because the lawsuit has delayed a trip=20
to Australia by Antonio Boccalandro, the American company's=20
acquisitions and mergers manager.

Robbins said the press conference would now be held after the=20
Easter break, with a "senior CHS Electronics executive" on hand=20
to field press questions and formally announce the acquisition.

CHA managing director Roger Bushell stressed that the deal is=20
still on, despite the lack of a formal announcement. He told the=20
ITNews service, "It doesn't affect the working out of the deal".

The news service said Rich Kaminsky, director of investor=20
relations at CHS in the US, told it the company had made no=20
announcements stating it had acquired CHA.  Boccalandro was not=20
available for comment.

The class action lawsuit against CHS was filed by Steven Cauley=20
on behalf of purchasers of CHS common stock between February 27,=20
1997 and March 10, 1999.  It alleges CHS had submitted financial=20
statements based on forged documents and false customer orders,=20
and had inaccurately described the amount of its vendor rebates.


CITIZENS UTILITIES: State Undertakes Overcharging Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
In November  1998, a class action  lawsuit was filed in state=20
District Court for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, against CITIZENS=20
UTILITIES CO. and three of its subsidiaries: LGS Natural Gas=20
Company,  LGS  Intrastate,  Inc. and Louisiana  General  Service
Company.  The lawsuit  alleges  that the Company and the other=20
named  defendants passed  through  in rates  charged to =20
Louisiana  customers  certain  costs that plaintiffs contend were=20
unlawful.  The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in the amount=20
of the alleged  overcharges and punitive damages equal to three=20
times the amount of any compensatory damages, as allowed under=20
Louisiana law.  In addition, the Louisiana  Public Service =20
Commission has indicated its intention to open an investigation =20
into the allegations  raised in the lawsuit.  The Company and its
subsidiaries  believe that the allegations made in the lawsuit=20
are unfounded and the Company  will  vigorously  defend its =20
interests in both the lawsuit and the related Commission=20
investigation.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Gross Firm Files Complaint in Texas=20
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. announces that a class=20
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for=20
the  Southern District of Texas on behalf of a class consisting=20
of all  persons who purchased the common stock of Compaq Computer=20
Corp. (NYSE:CPQ) from  Jan. 27, 1999 through and including Feb.=20
25, 1999, and were damaged thereby, inclusive.

The Complaint charges CPQ and certain of its officers with=20
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange=20
Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that defendants issued a=20
series of materially false and misleading statements that failed=20
to disclose that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the=20
material facts that sales to small and medium size businesses in=20
North America and Europe had slowed in January and such slowdown =20
would negatively effect Compaq's earnings and revenues.  During=20
this time period, numerous officers of Compaq sold hundreds of=20
thousands of shares of Compaq common stock in advance of the=20
revelation of the truth.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Savett Frutkin Files Complaint in Texas=20
--------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. filed a class action complaint=20
in  the United States District Court for the Southern District of=20
Texas on behalf  of a Class of persons who purchased the common=20
stock of Compaq Computer  Corporation (NYSE: CPQ) at artificially=20
inflated  prices during the period January 27, 1999 through=20
February 25, 1999 and who were damaged thereby.

The complaint alleges that defendants CPQ and certain of its=20
officers violated federal securities laws (Section 10(b) and=20
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934) by misrepresenting=20
or failing to disclose the slowdown in demand for  and sales of=20
Compaq's products in the first quarter of 1999. As a result=20
of  defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions,=20
the price of Compaq's common stock was artificially inflated=20
during the Class Period.


EXSORBET INDUSTRIES: Edelman & Combs File Complaint in=20
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed by Edelman & Combs, on behalf of=20
investors, in the United States District Court for the Northern=20
District of Illinois, Eastern Division against the officers,=20
directors, and promoters of Exsorbet stock for violations  of the=20
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,=20
and rules  promulgated thereunder and state law for a "shell-
game" scheme and manipulation of the after-market for the Stock=20
of Exsorbet Industries, Inc.

Exsorbet stock traded on the over-the-counter market in the Pink=20
Sheets, the Bulletin Board, and the National Association of=20
Securities Dealers Automated Quotation ("Nasdaq") Systems Small=20
Cap Market.  The scheme involved pushing the price of the stock=20
from $1 to $13, even though Exsorbet was a starter company =20
with supposed assets of $2 million and supposed total sales of=20
only $5,049 for the year ending just one month prior to the start=20
of public trading in its stock.  This scheme was carried out=20
through, among other things, participation bribes, controlling=20
the floating stock supply, pegging the opening price of $5 =20
a share, dominating and controlling the secondary market in=20
Exsorbet stock, and issuing a forged EPA endorsement letter of=20
Exsorbet's product and a false press release stating that=20
Exsorbet had $5 million in contracts.=20


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Philadelphia Judge Certifies Plaintiff Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling handed down last Friday by a Philadelphia judge moves=20
users of two widely prescribed diet drugs one step closer to=20
obtaining medical monitoring to detect the serious and=20
potentially life-threatening conditions of valvular heart disease=20
and pulmonary  hypertension allegedly caused by the drugs=20
fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine, in a case brought by The=20
Pennsylvania Diet Drug Plaintiffs' Steering Committee.

In a decision, certifying a class of plaintiffs, Common Pleas=20
Court Judge Stephen E. Levin found that "the elements of=20
plaintiffs' medical monitoring claim are common to each class=20
member."  The case will now proceed on behalf of an entire class=20
of all residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who have     =20
used fenfluramine (sometimes referred to as "Pondimin" and/or=20
dexfenfluramine (sometimes referred to as "Redux") and who have =20
not been diagnosed with primary or pulmonary hypertension or=20
valvulopathy.

These drugs -- associated with the popular "Fen-Phen"=20
prescription drug cocktail -- were widely prescribed to millions=20
of people across the nation for weight loss until their=20
withdrawal from the marketplace was urged by the Food and Drug=20
Administration ("FDA"). It is believed that more than one hundred =20
thousand Pennsylvania residents were exposed to one or both of=20
these drugs.  In a forty page opinion, Judge Levin noted that=20
"the court is confident that further discovery will reveal what=20
defendants knew about the diet drugs' adverse side effects and=20
when they knew it."  Without yet ruling on the merits of=20
plaintiffs' case, the Court also observed that "if plaintiffs=20
prove that the FDA would have never approved of [the drugs] had=20
defendants revealed information that they know or should have=20
known, then defendants' omission to the FDA caused all class=20
members' exposure to the diet drugs."

Named in the suit as defendants are Wyeth Laboratories Inc.,=20
Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products=20
Corp., A.H. Robins Company Inc., and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals=20
Inc.

The origins of the lawsuit can be traced to Sept. 15, 1997, when=20
the FDA requested that fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine be=20
withdrawn from the market because independent medical center data=20
indicated that the drugs were associated with heart valve damage=20
in as many as one-third of the patients who took these drugs.=20
Since that time, additional research and reviews conducted by=20
the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and others indicate that=20
those who took the drugs may be at risk of developing serious and=20
life threatening medical conditions, and that medical monitoring=20
is necessary.  In addition to leaking heart valves, the drugs=20
have been linked to cases of pulmonary hypertension, an often=20
fatal disease.

To address the potentially grave health problems brought about by=20
the drugs, the suit asks for the Court to, among other things,=20
order the creation of a statewide medical monitoring program paid=20
for by manufacturers and promoters of the drugs. The program=20
would enable people who have ingested the diet drugs to be=20
monitored free of charge for the existence of potentially=20
dangerous side effects caused by the drugs. Pennsylvania now=20
joins New Jersey, Texas, Washington, Illinois and West Virginia,=20
other states where courts have ruled that some form of medical=20
monitoring for diet drug users can be pursued on a class-wide=20
basis.  Similar suits are pending in other jurisdictions as well.

The suit's allegations charge that fenfluramine and=20
dexfenfluramine are unsafe  and dangerous.  The suit also charges=20
that the drugs' manufacturers improperly or inadequately tested=20
the drugs, improperly marketed and promoted the drugs, and failed=20
to provide adequate warnings regarding the drugs' safety to =20
prescribing physicians, patients and the FDA.

The suit was brought by three people, who took the drugs to lose=20
weight, on behalf of all Pennsylvanians who took one or both of=20
the drugs.  Representing them are several attorneys, including=20
Steven E. Angstreich, Lee B. Balefsky, Lawrence Feldman, Scott=20
Fisher, Russell D. Henkin, Joseph C. Kohn, Donald B. Lewis,=20
Steven A. Schwartz, Stephen A. Sheller, Sol H. Weiss, Michael=20
Coren and Jonathan Auerbach.


INDUSTRI MATEMATIC: Quarterly Report Discloses Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and=20
Exchange Commission, INDUSTRI MATEMATIC INTERNATIONAL CORP.=20
discloses that, in February, 1999, a class action lawsuit was=20
commenced against the Company, certain of its officers, =20
directors, and controlling shareholders who sold shares of Common=20
Stock during the class period, and its underwriters claiming=20
violations of the Federal securities laws.  Management believes=20
the suit is without merit, and the Company and other defendants=20
intend to defend themselves vigorously.


INTUIT, INC: Continues to Defend Y2K Product Defect Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Intuit, Inc., is currently a defendant in two consolidated class=20
action lawsuits alleging that certain of its Quicken products=20
have on-line banking functions that are not Year 2000 compliant:=20

(1) In re Intuit Inc. Year 2000 California Litigation=20
     (consolidated in Santa Clara County, California Superior
     Court from Alan Issokson v. Intuit Inc. (filed April 29,=20
     1998 in the Santa Clara County, California Superior Court);=20
     Joseph Rubin v. Intuit Inc. (filed May 27, 1998 in the Santa=20
     Clara County, California Superior Court); Donald Colbourn v.
     Intuit Inc. (filed June 4, 1998 in the San Mateo County,=20
     California Superior Court)); and=20

(2) In re Intuit Inc. Year 2000 Litigation (consolidated in the=20
     New York Supreme Court, New York County from Rocco Chilelli=20
     v. Intuit Inc. (filed May 13, 1998 in the New York Supreme=20
     Court, Nassau County); Glenn Faegenburg v. Intuit Inc.=20
     (filed May 27, 1998 in the New York Supreme Court, New York=20
     County); and Jerald M. Stein v. Intuit Inc. (filed June 23,=20
     1998 in the New York Supreme Court, New York County)).=20

The lawsuits are substantively very similar. The lawsuits assert=20
breach of implied warranty claims, violations of federal and/or
state consumer protection laws, and violations of various state=20
business practices laws, and the plaintiffs seek compensatory=20
damages, disgorgement of profits, and (in certain cases)=20
attorneys' fees. =20

On June 23, 1998, Intuit filed a demurrer in the Issokson=20
complaint. In August 1998, our motion was granted but the=20
plaintiff was provided an opportunity to amend the complaint to=20
allege injury.  Issokson, Rubin and Colbourn filed a consolidated=20
amended complaint on October 9, 1998. Intuit filed a demurrer to
the amended complaint on November 9, 1998.  The court sustained=20
Intuit's demurrer on January 27, 1999, dismissing the contract=20
and fraud claims with prejudice and granting a leave to amend on=20
plaintiffs' injunction and unfair business practices claim.  On=20
February 26, 1999, Issokson, Rubin and Colbourn filed a Second=20
Amended Complaint alleging that Intuit has engaged in unfair=20
business practices and seeking injunctive and equitable relief.=20
Intuit believes it has good and valid defenses to the claims=20
asserted, and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

Intuit has also filed motions to dismiss in the New York actions=20
and on December 1, 1998, the court granted Inquit's motion to=20
dismiss all the New York actions with prejudice.  Plaintiffs have=20
filed a Notice of Appeal.


KAISER PERMANENTE: Kaiser Members Sue HMO over Advertising=20
-----------------------------------------------------------
Writing for the Associated Press, Jordan Lite reports from San=20
Francisco that members of Kaiser Permanente, one of the nation's =20
largest HMOs, sued the organization Tuesday, claiming they were=20
duped by ads that said its doctors weren't influenced by=20
financial concerns.   The lawsuit contends Kaiser and its parent,=20
The Permanente Federation, compromised care with their policies.

"Kaiser has gone beyond the pale with its statements here that=20
doctors make decisions based on medical need and there's no=20
fiscal interference," Jamie Court of the nonprofit Foundation for=20
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, which filed the proposed class-
action lawsuit, told the AP.

The lawsuit contends that Kaiser withheld up to 30 percent of=20
doctors' salaries and tied physician bonus pay and other=20
compensation to reaching certain profit goals.

Kaiser called the allegations "patently false."

"The whole premise upon which the lawsuit is based is a lie,"=20
said Dr. Sharon Levine, associate executive director of=20
Permanente Medical Group for Northern California.  "Medical=20
decisions at Kaiser Permanente do rest in the hands of doctors=20
and we're very proud of that fact," she said. "No health plan=20
administrator has anything to do with those decisions."

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages for up to 800,000=20
members of Oakland-based Kaiser, which has nearly 5.6 million=20
members in California and over 9 million members nationwide.


KIMBERLY CLARK: Discovery Continues in Tissue Price Fixing Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 13, 1997, the State of Florida, acting through its=20
attorney general, filed a complaint in the Gainesville Division=20
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of=20
Florida, alleging that manufacturers of tissue products for away-
from-home use, including KIMBERLY CLARK CORP. and Scott Paper=20
Company (merged into KCC in 1995), agreed to fix prices by=20
coordinating price increases for such products. Following=20
Florida's complaint, an action by the states of Maryland, New=20
York and West Virginia, as well as approximately 45 class action=20
complaints, have been filed in various federal and state courts=20
around the United States.  These actions contain allegations=20
similar to those made by the State of Florida in its complaint.  =20
The actions in federal courts have been consolidated for pretrial=20
proceedings in the Florida District Court.  Class certification=20
was granted in the federal proceedings in July 1998 and will be=20
contested in the state cases.  The foregoing actions seek an=20
unspecified amount of actual and treble damages.  The Corporation=20
has answered the complaints in these actions and has denied the=20
allegations contained therein as well as any liability. =20
Discovery is proceeding.

KIMBERLY CLARK CORP. says that it intends to contest these claims=20
vigorously.  Management does not expect these actions to have a=20
material adverse effect on the Corporation's business or results=20
of operations.


LEAD PAINT: Status Report from ARCO's Annual Report
---------------------------------------------------
In its latest annual report, Atlantic Richfield provides=20
investors with an update concerning lead paint-related litigation=20
brought against the Company:

     (A) On June 7, 1989, the City of New York, the New York City=20
Housing Authority, and the New York City Health and Hospitals=20
Corporation brought suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New=20
York for the County of New York (Case No. 14365/89) against six=20
alleged former lead pigment manufacturers or their successors=20
(including ARCO as successor to International Smelting and=20
Refining Company (IS&R), a former subsidiary of The Anaconda=20
Company), and the Lead Industries Association (LIA), a trade=20
association. Plaintiffs sought to recover damages in excess of=20
$50 million including (i) past and future costs of abating lead-
based paint from housing owned by New York City and the New York=20
City Housing Authority (Housing Authority); (ii) other costs=20
associated with dealing with the presence of lead-based paint in=20
that housing and privately-owned housing; and (iii) any amounts=20
paid by the City or the Housing Authority to tenants because of=20
injuries caused by the ingestion of lead-based paint.  Plaintiffs=20
also seek punitive damages and attorney's fees. As a result of
various court rulings, the plaintiffs' only remaining claims are=20
for fraud and restitution and indemnity. Recently, two stipulated=20
dismissals have further narrowed the case. The City of New York=20
and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation entered=20
into a stipulated order dismissing with prejudice all of their=20
pending claims against ARCO and the other defendants. The
remaining plaintiff, the Housing Authority, then entered into=20
another stipulated order dismissing its claims as to all the=20
Housing Authority properties except for two housing projects. The=20
Housing Authority initially sought relief for 322 housing=20
projects.
=20
     (B) On January 24, 1996, ARCO (as successor to IS&R) was=20
added as a defendant to a class action suit pending in the United=20
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,=20
German, et al. v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., et al. (Case=20
No. 93 Civ 6941), by plaintiff intervenors Naquan and Naiya
Thomas, minors, and their mother and guardian Kaii Henry. The=20
complaint in intervention names as defendants, in addition to=20
ARCO, eight alleged former processors of lead pigment and lead=20
paint, the LIA, the City of New York and its Housing Authority,=20
and the owner of the building where plaintiffs reside. =20
Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves, and a purported class of=20
children under seven and pregnant women residing in dwellings in=20
the City of New York containing or presumed to contain lead=20
paint, injunctive relief from all defendants including orders to=20
abate lead paint and to contribute to court-administered funds to=20
pay for abatement and medical monitoring and treatment.  The=20
complaint alleges causes of action against the lead pigment=20
defendants and the LIA for negligence, strict product liability,=20
fraud and misrepresentation, breach of express and implied=20
warranty, nuisance, conspiracy, concert of action, and enterprise=20
and market share liability. The City of New York, its Housing=20
Authority, and the owner of the building where plaintiffs reside=20
have filed cross-claims against ARCO, the other alleged former=20
processors of lead pigment and paint, and the LIA seeking=20
indemnification against or contribution toward any liability they=20
(cross-claimants) may have to plaintiffs.  On November 12, 1998,=20
the court dismissed without prejudice the claims in this lawsuit=20
brought against the lead pigment manufacturers, including ARCO.=20
The court ruled that the claims against the pigment manufacturers=20
should not have been joined to this lawsuit.
=20
     (C) On November 25, 1998, ARCO (as successor to IS&R) was=20
named as a defendant in a purported class action suit, Sabater,=20
et al. v. Lead Industries Association, et al. (Case No.=20
25533/98), filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
for the County of Bronx by the mothers of four minor plaintiffs.=20
The complaint also names the LIA and eight former lead=20
pigment/paint manufacturers. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of=20
themselves and a purported class of children age six and under=20
residing in dwellings in the City of New York containing or
presumed to contain lead paint, compensatory damages and=20
injunctive relief from all defendants, including orders requiring=20
defendants to contribute to a court-administered fund to pay for=20
(i) notification to class members of the dangers of lead-based=20
paint, (ii) abatement of properties where class members reside
and to pay for temporary relocation during abatement, (iii)=20
medical monitoring, including screening, testing, diagnosing, and=20
treating of class members, and (iv) attorney fees. The complaint=20
alleges causes of action against the defendants for negligence,
strict products liability, conspiracy, concert of action, and=20
enterprise and market share liability.
=20
     (D) On August 25, 1992, ARCO (as successor to IS&R) was=20
added as a defendant to a purported class action suit pending in=20
the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Ohio,=20
Jackson, et al. v. The Glidden Company, et al. (Case No. 236835),=20
which seeks on behalf of the three named plaintiffs, and all=20
other persons similarly situated in the state of Ohio, money=20
damages for injuries allegedly suffered from exposure to lead=20
paint, punitive damages, and an order requiring defendants to=20
remove and abate all lead paint applied to any building in Ohio.=20
The suit names as defendants, in addition to ARCO, the LIA and 16
companies alleged to have participated in the manufacture and=20
sale of lead pigments and paints and includes causes of action=20
for strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty,=20
fraud, nuisance, restitution, negligent infliction of emotional=20
distress, and enterprise, market share and alternative liability.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Will Defend Universal Life Policyholder Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest annual report, Lincoln  National Life Insurance=20
Company discloses that four lawsuits  involving  alleged  fraud =20
in the  sale  of  interest  sensitive universal life and whole=20
life insurance have been filed as class actions against the=20
Company, although  the  court has not  certified  a class in any=20
of these cases.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified  damages and=20
penalties for themselves and on behalf  of the  putative  class. =20
While the relief sought in these cases is substantial,  it is=20
premature to make  assessments  about the potential loss, if any, =20
because the status of the cases ranges from the early stages of=20
litigation to the dismissal  and appeals  stage.  Management =20
intends to defend these suits vigorously.  The  amount of =20
liability,  if any,  which may arise as a result of these suits=20
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.


LOEWEN GROUP: Funeral Giant Loewen Wages Titanic Struggle
---------------------------------------------------------
By Allan Dowd, writing for Reuters from Vancouver, B.C:

    In hindsight, investors in Loewen Group Inc. should have paid=20
more attention to pages 10 and 11 of the beleaguered funeral-
services giant's last annual report.

    They were devoted to the wreck of the Titanic.

    Then-chairman and chief executive Ray Loewen had intended the=20
section as an ode to the role of undertakers in the maritime=20
disaster, but the recent history  of the company he founded has=20
resembled the sinking of the ocean liner.

    Loewen, a one-time stock-market darling and North America's=20
second-largest funeral-services company, has been hit by a $2-
billion iceberg of debt created by excessive asset expansion.=20
It's been flooded with shareholder lawsuits and battered by waves=20
of skepticism over its ability to stay afloat.

    Loewen's stock on the Toronto exchange was priced at more=20
than C$40 a share last spring when the 1997 annual report was=20
printed. This year it has traded as low as C$1.15 a share. At=20
midday on the Toronto Stock Exchange it was up C$0.07  to C$1.62.

    The Burnaby, British Columbia-based firm has responded by=20
attempting to reorganize its internal financial management,=20
restructure its debt and sell some of the funeral home and=20
cemetery assets it acquired during its rapid growth in the mid-
1990s.

    "Notwithstanding Loewen's recent agreement to sell certain=20
cemetery properties for $193 million, it remains unclear how=20
successful proposed asset sales will be in ultimately alleviating=20
Loewen's liquidity concerns," Standard and Poor's said as it cut=20
Loewen's debt rating again this month.

    The credit rating service, which was reacting to Loewen's=20
announcement that dividends would be deferred on two series of=20
preferred shares, warned that it might cut the company's debt=20
rating again on April 1, when the payment actually gets put off.

    Financial birds are coming home to roost from the debt Loewen=20
incurred in the expansionist policy it followed after it rejected=20
a C$45 per share takeover offer in 1996 by larger Texas-based=20
rival Service Corp. International.

    A C$42-million interest payment is due April 1.

    Loewen officials are meeting this week with officials of Bank=20
of Montreal and other lenders, and the company said it wants a=20
deal with its bankers before announcing its fourth-quarter=20
results.

    "The company is in ongoing discussion with creditors," Loewen=20
spokesman Tom Franco said. He declined to elaborate on what sort=20
of assistance the company was seeking.

    "We're hoping basically that they get an agreement that=20
maintains their bank line (of credit)," said David Schroeder, a=20
bond analyst with Dominion Bond Rating Ltd.

    The company has already warned it expects to post a fourth-
quarter operating loss, but its new chairman, John Lacy, told the=20
Globe and Mail newspaper last week that Loewen was not in a=20
financial crisis."

    Analysts are eagerly awaiting the quarterly results,=20
complaining that the lack of recent public data makes it=20
impossible to say exactly what the company's financial position=20
is and whether Loewen is in violation of any loan covenants.

    "If (the results are released) and they haven't been able to=20
renegotiate the covenants, then the banks are in control. If they=20
have been, then it's sort of business as usual," an observer=20
said.

    Recent media reports have said filing for protection from=20
creditors is among the options Loewen is weighing in its debt=20
negotiations.  The company, which originally had planned to post=20
its results in early March, now intends to release them near the=20
end of the month.

    The company's other major problem is the declining death rate=20
in the United States, where the bulk of its cemeteries and=20
funeral homes are located.

    In addition to slowing sales, the weak "death-care" market=20
has made it even more difficult for Loewen to fetch a good price=20
for its assets. It has warned it will take a write-down on the=20
124 cemeteries it sold in early March.

    As the financial turmoil has dragged on, a number of=20
shareholder class action lawsuits are under way. They accuse the=20
company of intentionally misleading investors with overly=20
optimistic financial projections.

    Ray Loewen has remained out of the public eye since he was=20
forced out as chief executive in October. Some critics contend it=20
was the power of his personality that compelled the company to=20
fight Service Corp.'s lucrative offer and ignore the danger of=20
rapid expansion.

    Meantime, Ray Loewen's status as the company's largest=20
shareholder has fallen victim to a sea of red ink. Canadian=20
Imperial Bank of Commerce has called the stock he pledged against=20
a loan and is now the top shareholder.


MERCURY FINANCE: Court Confirms Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Finance Company (OTC Bulletin Board: MFNNQ) announced=20
that the Company's Second Amended Plan of Reorganization  has=20
been confirmed by order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for=20
the  Northern District of Illinois.  The plan is expected to take=20
effect in late March.

The reorganized company will be named MFN Financial Corporation=20
and will be led by Edward G. Harshfield, who will be appointed=20
chairman and chief executive officer, as previously announced.  A=20
new board of directors will be installed on the effective date of=20
the reorganization.

"We are pleased that the lengthy stabilization and reorganization=20
process has been brought to a conclusion," said William A.=20
Brandt, Jr., the turnaround specialist who has been serving as=20
president and chief executive officer. "The debt load of the=20
Company has been significantly reduced in the process and its =20
exposure to class action litigation has been eliminated. =20
Relieved of these onerous burdens, Mercury Finance and its=20
employees will now be in a better position to build for the=20
future."

The Company's confirmed plan was supported by the committees=20
representing shareholders, debt holders and class action security=20
claimants.  The plan was  accepted by about 97 percent of the=20
shareholders, 100 percent of the debt holders and about 99=20
percent of the holders of securities fraud claims who voted.

Upon the effective date of the plan, the Company's current shares=20
and options will be extinguished.  New shares will be issued with=20
95 percent of them distributed to the senior lenders in return=20
for a substantial reduction of their debt.  The current=20
shareholders will receive a pro rata distribution of five percent=20
of the new shares, as well as certain warrants entitling them to =20
purchase additional shares at a price that will be fixed for=20
three to five years.

The Company has continued its business operations throughout the=20
Chapter 11 case.  It now does business from about 165 offices=20
nationally.


METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS: Minority Cabbies Sue for Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
>From Bloomington, Minnesota, United Press International reports=20
that 17 minority taxicab drivers have filed a class action=20
lawsuit against the METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION.  They=20
contend that the MAC has enacted regulations targeted at cabbies,=20
many of whom are people of color.  The MAC's Wendy Burt says taxi=20
drivers have filed more than a dozen discrimination complaints=20
and all of them have been dismissed. =20


NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Class Action Suit Alleges Incredible Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer broke an incredible story this=20
week about Nationwide Insurance secretly collected money from an=20
uninsured woman while refusing to pay the insured man she hit. =20
The man and the woman allege fraud and seek class certification=20
in a lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court.

The company allegedly told the woman, who was living "paycheck to=20
paycheck," that if she didn't make monthly payments, her license=20
would be taken away.  Both the woman, Lisa Hall, 29, of Tacoma=20
and the man, Jeff Barreca, 47, a Seattle accountant, are suing=20
Nationwide Insurance. =20

Nationwide's handling of Barreca's accident claim was both=20
shocking and illegal, said Denis Stearns, Barreca's attorney. =20
Stearns hopes to have the lawsuit certified as a class action,=20
which would allow him to sue on behalf of others around the=20
country who have been treated the same way.

A spokesman at Nationwide headquarters in Columbus, Ohio,=20
declined comment, as did the Washington Insurance Commissioner's=20
Office.

According to court documents, in October 1996, Hall ran a red=20
light and plowed into Barreca's truck at the intersection of=20
Fifth Avenue and Union Street in Seattle. His truck was=20
destroyed, and he suffered neck and back injuries. In subsequent=20
months, Barreca was treated by his own doctor, a chiropractor and=20
a physical therapist.  Barreca was insured by Nationwide, and the=20
lawsuit says Nationwide paid him $1,723 for his truck after=20
subtracting his $100 deductible.  The company also paid $5,139=20
directly to his doctors.  But when Barreca asked the company for=20
other compensation to which he was entitled, such as lost wages,=20
pain and suffering and out-of- pocket costs, the company dragged=20
its feet, the suit said.

In the meantime, Nationwide told Hall that her insurance company=20
had paid Barreca $1,823 and that unless she agreed to reimburse=20
Nationwide, her license would be taken away, the suit said. The=20
company later told her it had paid Barreca's doctors and that she=20
owed them for that as well.  Hall was told her license would not=20
be suspended as long as she continued to make $50 monthly=20
payments to Nationwide, the suit said.

Seven months after the accident, Barreca sued Hall as a way to=20
force Nationwide's hand, Stearns said. Hall did not respond to=20
that suit, and the court awarded a default judgment to Barreca.=20
Stearns said Hall did not respond because she thought she had=20
settled the suit by making payments to Nationwide.  Judge Donald=20
Haley ruled Barreca's damages came to $100,000, noting that after =20
the accident, he "continues to be unable to do all his normal=20
activities and job duties" and that his personal relationships=20
also have suffered.  Once the judgment was entered, it was noted=20
on Hall's credit record and, as required by law, notice was sent=20
to the state Department of Licensing, which then told Hall her=20
license would be suspended if she did not pay off the $100,000=20
judgment.

Stearns said Hall called him in tears not long after, "asking me,=20
over and over, again, why she was about to lose her driver's=20
license when she'd been sending Nationwide $50 every month just=20
as she'd promised."  That was the first Barecca and Stearns knew=20
of Hall's payments to Nationwide.  =20

The suit contends Nationwide was guilty of fraud and violated the=20
Consumer Protection Act when it falsely told Hall the company had=20
paid Barreca $1,823 and when it told her her license wouldn't be=20
taken away as long as she made payments.   The suit says the=20
company, under the language of its own policy as well as under=20
state insurance regulations, was obligated to settle Barreca's=20
claim fully before taking any money from Hall.


NORTH FACE: Zwerling Schachter Files Complaint in Colorado=20
----------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, announced that a class=20
action has been commenced  in the United States District Court=20
for the District of Colorado on behalf of  sellers of put options=20
and purchasers of call options on The North Face Inc. (Nasdaq:=20
TNFI) common stock between April 25, 1997 and March 4, 1999.

The complaint charges North Face and certain of its officers and=20
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. =20
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the=20
defendants falsely reported North Face's financial  results and=20
overstated its sales growth causing the Company's stock price to =20
trade at artificially high prices, which resulted in the sales=20
price of put  options on such stock to trade at artificially=20
deflated prices and the purchase  price of call options on such=20
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.   Ultimately on=20
March 5, 1999, North Face was forced to announce that its full =20
year 1998 results were "delayed" and that, contrary to its=20
repeated assertions  during the Class Period that its financials=20
were properly stated, adjustments  to its 1997 results might be=20
necessary.  On this news, North Face's stock price  dropped to as=20
low as $10-7/8, causing damage to sellers of the put options and =20
purchasers of the call options.


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Seeking Mandamus from Texas Supreme Court=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
O'Reilly Automotive, Inc., is currently involved in litigation as=20
a result of a complaint filed against Hi-Lo Automotive, Inc.=20
(acquired by O'Reilly on January 31, 1998) in May 1997. The=20
plaintiff in this lawsuit sought to certify a class action on=20
behalf of persons or entities in the states of Texas, Louisiana=20
and California that have purchased a battery from Hi-Lo since May
1990. The complaint alleges that Hi-Lo offered and sold "old,"=20
"used" and "out of warranty" batteries as if the batteries were=20
new, resulting in claims for violations of deceptive trade=20
practices, breach of contract, negligence, fraud, negligent=20
misrepresentation and breach of warranty.  The plaintiff is=20
seeking, on behalf of the class, an unspecified amount of=20
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and
pre- and post-judgment interest. On July 27, 1998, the Trial=20
Court certified this class. The Company appealed the decision to=20
certify the class in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District=20
of Texas. On February 25, 1999, the Court of Appeals issued an=20
opinion affirming the Trial Court's decision to certify the=20
class. The Company intends to contest this ruling by seeking a=20
mandamus from the Supreme Court of Texas. The Company believes=20
that the accusations made in this case are unfounded, and intends=20
to defend this lawsuit vigorously.  Although it is difficult at=20
this stage to determine the likely outcome of the case, the=20
Company believes that this lawsuit will not have a material=20
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or=20
financial position.=20


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Rabin & Peckel File Complaint in Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action has been filed in the United States=20
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by Rabin &=20
Peckel LLP on behalf of all those who purchased Orbital Sciences=20
Corporation (NYSE:ORB) common stock between April 21, 1998 and=20
February 16, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Orbital and certain of its officers=20
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series=20
of materially false and misleading statements concerning=20
Orbital's reported financial results during the Class Period. In=20
particular, it is alleged that the Company's reported net income=20
and earnings were materially overstated in violation of generally =20
accepted accounting principles and require restatement.  The=20
Complaint alleges that as a result of these false misleading=20
statements, the price of Orbital common stock was artificially=20
inflated throughout the Class Period causing plaintiff and the=20
other members of the Class to suffer damages.


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Liebenberg & White File Complaint in Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 9, 1999, a Class Action lawsuit was commenced by=20
Liebenberg & White in the United States District Court for the=20
Eastern District of Virginia, on  behalf of all purchasers of=20
Orbital Sciences Corp. (NYSE: ORB) common  stock between April=20
21, 1998 and February 16, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint in the action charges Orbital, and certain of its=20
officers and directors, with violations of Sections 10(b) and=20
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule=20
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class=20
Period, Orbital issued materially false and misleading financial=20
statements for its first three quarters of fiscal 1998, that=20
artificially inflated the Company's financial results through the=20
improper recognition of revenue in violation of generally =20
accepted accounting principles.  The complaint further alleges=20
that certain officers and directors utilized their inside=20
information regarding the artificial inflation of the Company's =20
stock price to sell significant amounts of their own personal=20
Orbital holdings for proceeds of over $3 million.


RITE-AID: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on March 16, 1999, in the United=20
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,=20
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Rite =20
Aid Corporation (NYSE: RAD) between December 14, 1998 and March=20
11, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Rite Aid and the Company's CEO with=20
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange=20
Act of 1934 as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The=20
complaint alleges that defendants issued a series false=20
statements and failed to disclose material facts throughout the =20
Class Period concerning the Company's operating results and=20
business prospects.  Because of the issuance of a series of false=20
and misleading statements, the price of Rite Aid common stock was=20
artificially inflated during the Class Period. Following Rite=20
Aid's disclosure of the adverse facts described above Rite Aid=20
common shares fell $14.4375 per share -- a drop of 39% -- on=20
extremely heavy volume.=20


RITE-AID: Kaufman Malchman Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaufman  Malchman Kirby & Squire, LLP, on March 16, 1999, filed a=20
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the=20
Middle District of Pennsylvania against Rite Aid Corp. (NYSE:=20
RAD) and certain officers and/or directors of the company. The=20
lawsuit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Rite Aid Corp.=20
securities between December 14, 1998 and March 11, 1999,=20
inclusive.

The Complaint asserts that defendants violated sections 10(a) and=20
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC rule=20
10b-5, by reason of material misrepresentations or omissions=20
during the Class Period that had the effect of artificially=20
inflating the Company's stock price.


RITE-AID: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in [California]
--------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of=20
purchasers of Rite Aid Corporation (NYSE: RAD) securities =20
between November 17, 1988 and March 12, 1999 for violations of=20
federal  securities laws.  Defendants include Rite Aid and=20
certain of its officers and  directors.  The Complaint charges=20
that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and  20(a) of the=20
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5) by, among other =20
things: issuing false and misleading statements regarding Rite=20
Aid's financial  condition as well as its present and future=20
business prospects.


ROUGE INDUSTRIES: City Residents File Class Action Pollution Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the City of Melvindale have filed a class action=20
lawsuit against ROUGE INDUSTRIES INC.  The lawsuit claims=20
trespass, nuisance and negligence as a result of alleged air=20
pollution over an unspecific period of time including the period=20
from March to June of 1997.  Since damage calculations have not=20
yet been performed, it is currently not possible to determine=20
either the level of the Company's monetary exposure or the likely
outcome of the lawsuit.


SAFESKIN, INC.: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit=20
against SAFESKIN CORPORATION (Nasdaq: SFSK) and certain of its=20
officers and directors in the United States District Court for=20
the Southern District of California.  The suit is brought on=20
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired=20
common stock of Safeskin between October 29, 1998 and March 11,=20
1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Safeskin and certain of its officers and=20
directors with violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of=20
1934. The complaint alleges that, among other things, Safeskin=20
and certain of its officers and directors knowingly or recklessly=20
overstated Safeskin's results of operations, net income and gross=20
profit margin for the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal=20
year 1998 and misled the investing public as to the Company's=20
opportunities for fiscal 1999.

During the Class Period, defendants assured investors that the=20
Company's growth was due to the fact that the Company's prior=20
problems manufacturing sufficient products to meet their=20
customers' needs were alleviated, and that its customers  could=20
purchase as much product as they needed.  In fact, defendants=20
knew or  were reckless in failing to know that Safeskin was=20
selling its customers more  products than they needed or wanted=20
by offering extended and favorable payment  terms, actions which=20
defendants repeatedly publicly denied.  As a result of  such=20
conduct, defendants knew that they could not continue to=20
report record  earnings and income in future quarters.  On March=20
11, 1999, after the market  closed, defendants announced that=20
revenues for its first quarter ending March  31, 1999 were=20
expected to be $28 million below what defendants led the market =20
to believe they were expecting, and that the Company=20
was reducing its sales and  earnings expectations in light of=20
higher than estimated distributor inventory  level. Moreover, the=20
Company announced that Safeskin estimated that sales for  the=20
year would be lower by approximately an additional $25 million.

During the Class Period, Safeskin shares traded as high as $25-
5/16 per share.  On the last trading day before the March 11,=20
1999 announcement, the price of Safeskin shares closed at $15-1/4=20
per share.  After the announcement, the price of Safeskin shares=20
closed at $15-1/4 per share. After the announcement, the price of=20
Safeskin common stock fell by approximately 37% to trade as low=20
as $9-5/8 per share.=20


SAFESKIN, INC.: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, announced that it commenced a class=20
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the =20
Southern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of=20
the common stock  of Safeskin Corporation (Nasdaq: SFSK) during=20
the period February 18, 1998 to March 11, 1999 inclusive.

The complaint charges Safeskin and certain of its officers and=20
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. =20
The complaint alleges that, among other things, Safeskin and=20
certain of its officers and directors knowingly or recklessly=20
overstated Safeskin's results of operations, net income and gross=20
profit margin for the third and fourth quarters of fiscal year=20
1998 and misled the investing public as to the Company's=20
opportunities for fiscal 1999.

During the Class Period, defendants assured investors that the=20
Company's growth was due to the fact that the Company's prior=20
problems manufacturing sufficient products to meet their=20
customers' needs were alleviated, and that its customers  could=20
purchase as much product as they needed.  In fact, defendants=20
knew or  were reckless in failing to know that Safeskin was=20
selling its customers more  products than they needed or wanted=20
by offering extended and favorable payment  terms, actions which=20
defendants repeatedly publicly denied.  As a result of  such=20
conduct, defendants knew that they could not continue to report=20
record  earnings and income in future quarters.  On March 11,=20
1999, after the market  closed, defendants announced that=20
revenues for its first quarter ending March  31, 1999 were=20
expected to be $28 million below what defendants led the market =20
to believe they were expecting, and that the Company was reducing=20
its sales and  earnings expectations in light of higher than=20
estimated distributor inventory  levels. Moreover, the Company=20
announced that Safeskin estimated that sales for  the year would=20
be lower by approximately an additional $25 million.

During the Class Period, Safeskin shares traded as high as $25-
15/16 per share.  On the last trading day before the March 11,=20
1999 announcement, the price of Safeskin shares closed at $15-1/4=20
per share. After the announcement, the price of Safeskin common=20
stock fell by approximately 37% to a trade as low as $9-5/8 per=20
share.


SAFESKIN, INC.: Wirtz & Associates Files Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 15, 1999, Wirtz & Associates filed a class action suit=20
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of=20
California against Safeskin Corporation (Nasdaq: SFSK) "Safeskin"=20
and  certain of its officers and directors.  The suit is brought=20
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common=20
stock of Safeskin between July 22, 1998, and March 11, 1999,=20
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Safeskin and certain of its officers=20
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities=20
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements=20
about Safeskin's financial condition and growth prospects.  The=20
Complaint further alleges that Safeskin knowingly overstated its=20
net income during the 3rd and 4th quarters of 1998 and misled =20
the investing public as to the Company's opportunities for fiscal=20
year 1999 by "stuffing the channels," or selling more product=20
than its distributors could reasonably sell.  The Complaint=20
further alleges that in so doing, Safeskin gave the false=20
appearance that the Company's business was continuing to grow at =20
record levels.  Additionally, the Complaint alleges that the=20
Company and the named officers and directors sold 250, 000 shares=20
of Safeskin stock while in possession of materially adverse, non-
public information, thereby reaping over $8 million in insider=20
profits.

On March 11, 1999, Safeskin contradicted its earlier and=20
consistent statements of continued revenue and earnings growth by=20
announcing that actual 1st quarter 1999 revenues would=20
significantly fail to reach expectations.  Safeskin blamed =20
high inventory levels for the shortfall.=20


SAFESKIN, INC.: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Friday March 12, Finkelstein & Krinsk filed a class action=20
lawsuit against Safeskin Inc. (Nasdaq:SFSK) charging that the=20
company issued materially false and misleading statements that=20
lured unsuspecting shareholders into investing in the shares of=20
the Company.  The lawsuit alleges that this misconduct caused =20
Safeskin stock to plummet from more than $45 a share to Friday's=20
close of under $9 a share.

The complaint charges that Safeskin and its management violated=20
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false statements=20
and omitting material facts regarding product demand that was=20
insufficient to satisfy the company's burgeoning production=20
capacity.  Among other things this resulted in the overstating of=20
4th quarter 1998 financial results.

Finkelstein & Krinsk also take exception and are reviewing=20
"frontrunning" by Morgan Stanely which dumped hundreds of=20
thousands of shares, seemingly based upon insider information,=20
just prior to Safeskin trading being halted last week.

The complaint was filed on March 12, 1999, in the United States=20
District Court for the Southern District of California at San=20
Diego on behalf of all persons and other investors who purchased=20
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Safeskin Inc between=20
October 23, 1997, and March 11, 1999.

"Since Friday's announcement hundreds of Safeskin shareholders=20
who together suffered millions of dollars of losses in Safeskin=20
have contacted us seeking our assistance to uncover the true=20
facts of this case and help restore value to their investments,"=20
stated plaintiffs attorney Jeffrey R. Krinsk.  "We are pleased=20
that both small and institutional investors have sought our=20
help."

According to the complaint on March 11, 1999, Safeskin, based in=20
San Diego, announced that sales for the first quarter of 1999=20
were $25 million lower than anticipated and that earnings would=20
accordingly suffer.  This fact shocked the investment community=20
as Safeskin's report directly contradicted earlier statements=20
made by defendant Richard Jaffe, Chairman, President and CEO of =20
Safeskin who had continuously assured the public of strong growth=20
of between 30 percent to 40 percent and higher profits.

Astoundingly, during 1998 corporate insiders including the named=20
defendants sold over 2.5 million shares of Safeskin, while the=20
company was simultaneously repurchasing its shares in a buyback=20
program that cost the corporation more than $70 million!  In=20
essence the complaint alleges Safeskin was repurchasing the=20
shares owned by management at inflated prices while demand for=20
the product was declining.


SAFESKIN, INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announced that it filed=20
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for=20
the Southern District of California on behalf of investors who=20
bought Safeskin, Corp. (NASDAQ:SFSK) stock between October 29,=20
1998 andMarch 11, 1999.

The lawsuit charges Safeskin and several of its top officers with=20
violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United=20
States.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of=20
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's=20
earnings, revenue and future prospects.  Specifically, the=20
complaint alleges that the Company knowingly or recklessly=20
overstated the Company's results for the third and fourth=20
quarters of 1998 and misled investors as to the Company's future=20
prospects by "stuffing the channel," or shipping inventory ahead=20
of schedule to make it appear that business would continue to=20
grow at record levels. Upon the announcement that results for the =20
first quarter and for the year 1999 would be significantly below=20
estimates, the Company's stock price plunged nearly 50% on=20
extraordinarily heavy trading volume.


SMART CHOICE: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Florida=20
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on March 11, 1999, by Stull,=20
Stull & Brody in the United States District Court for the Middle=20
District of Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased the=20
common stock of Smart Choice Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ:SMCH)=20
between April 15, 1998, and February 26, 1999.

The complaint alleges that certain officers and directors of the=20
Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities=20
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting=20
and/or omitting material information concerning Smart Choice's=20
revenues and results of operations. These statements caused Smart=20
Choice's common stock price to be artificially inflated during=20
the Class Period.
=20

SPYGLASS, INC.: Savett Frutkin Files Complaint in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. filed a securities fraud class=20
action against Spyglass Inc. (Nasdaq:SPYG), and certain of its=20
officers and directors in the United States District Court for=20
the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of persons who =20
purchased Spyglass common stock during the period between Oct.=20
20, 1998 and Jan. 4, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Spyglass and certain of its officers=20
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities=20
Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting or failing to disclose=20
material information about Spyglass' operations and financial=20
condition. Plaintiff specifically alleges that defendants'=20
statements during the Class period were false and misleading =20
because contracts with several key clients were not finalized as=20
represented in public statements.  The revenue expected from=20
these contracts had formed the basis for forecasts of first=20
quarter profitability.

The market price of Spyglass common stock was artificially=20
inflated during the Class Period, enabling certain defendants to=20
take advantage of their inside knowledge by selling more than=20
500,000 shares of their own Spyglass stock, netting proceeds in=20
excess of $9.1 million.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Jury Deliberation Begins in Ohio Union Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
>From Akron, Ohio, Jeffrey T. Ottenbacher, providing gavel-to-
gavel coverage for United Press International, reports that=20
federal jury deliberation has started in the first phase of the=20
$2 billion, class-action lawsuit filed by Ohio union health and=20
welfare funds against the nation's major tobacco companies.

Union lawyers, Mr. Ottenbacher relates, presented closing=20
arguments, telling the Akron federal jury the companies concealed=20
evidence, suppressed development of safer cigarettes and=20
obstructed justice.

Defense attorneys denied the accusations and accused plaintiffs'=20
lawyers with presenting shifting theories, taking facts out of=20
context and presenting incomplete portions of documents.

Union attorney Patrick Coughlin, in his closing argument, told=20
the jury the tobacco companies violated the Ohio Corrupt=20
Activities Act by committing mail and wife fraud, tampering with=20
evidence and obstructing justice.  He said the companies=20
suppressed development of a safer cigarette, manipulated nicotine =20
levels and targeted underage smokers.

One plaintiffs' lawyer, Jerry Krystal, said, "The youth were=20
targeted by cigarette advertising during the '60s and '70s and=20
became (union health fund) beneficiaries during the '80s and=20
'90s."

But one of the three defense attorneys presenting closing=20
arguments, David Bernic, drew into question the credibility of=20
plaintiffs' witnesses and accused the labor organizations of=20
providing partial truths in their documents.

Defense lawyer Robert Weber told United Press International: "I'm=20
very pleased with the way the case went.  As a matter of law,=20
this case doesn't belong in the legal system.  As a mater of=20
fact, the plaintiffs' case was built on a series of half truths,=20
non-truths and mischaracterizations of history."


USAA CASUALTY: Hit With Sub-Standard Auto Parts Repair Suit=20
-----------------------------------------------------------
USAA Casualty Insurance Company (USAA) is the target of a lawsuit=20
claiming the insurer compels auto repair shops to use "imitation"=20
parts in repairs, then hides this practice from policyholders.

The suit, filed Mar. 12 in Washington's King County Superior=20
Court, seeks class action status for USAA policyholders=20
nationwide whose vehicles have been repaired using these sub-
standard parts.

USAA policyholder agreements state that repairs will be made=20
using parts that restore vehicles to pre-crash physical condition=20
and cash value. According to the lawsuit, repair parts that don't=20
come from an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) can threaten a=20
vehicle's structural integrity, resale value, and manufacturer's=20
warranty, and cannot return the car to its pre-accident value.

Plaintiffs' attorney Steve Berman says it is a breach of contract=20
and a violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act when an=20
insurer mandates the use of imitation parts without informing the=20
policyholder.

"We trust our insurance companies to provide safe repairs and=20
return our cars to pre-crash value, but USAA is misleading its=20
policyholders and threatening their safety," said Berman. "Repair=20
shops call these parts 'Taiwan trash' for good reason -- they=20
have substandard fit, impact resistance, and mechanical=20
operation. This is a huge issue when it comes to things like=20
crash protection."

The lawsuit against USAA claims the insurer also committed breach=20
of contract and violation of good faith and fair dealing by=20
forcing repair facilities to use imitation parts without=20
disclosing that estimates were based on use of the cheaper=20
imitation parts.

The USAA suit follows on the heels of similar class actions=20
against major insurance companies.  Berman represents consumers=20
that recently filed suit against three of the nation's largest=20
auto insurers: GEICO Insurance, a subsidiary of Berkshire=20
Hathaway (NYSE:BRK); Allstate Insurance Company (NYSE:ALL); and=20
Nationwide Insurance Company (NYSE:NFS).  All of the lawsuits =20
claim breach of contract with policyholders, and if certified by=20
the courts will represent these companies' policyholders across=20
the country.

More consumer protection information on imitation parts and legal=20
action is available at http://www.safeautorepair.orgvia the=20
Internet.


UST, INC.: Continues Defense of Tobacco-Related Suits=20
-----------------------------------------------------
UST, Inc., tells investors in its latest annual report that it=20
has been named in certain health care cost reimbursement/third
party recoupment/class action litigation against the major=20
domestic cigarette companies and others seeking damages and other=20
relief.  The complaints in these cases on their face=20
predominantly relate to the usage of cigarettes; within that
context, certain complaints contain a few allegations relating=20
specifically to smokeless tobacco products. These actions are in=20
varying stages of pretrial activities.
=20
UST believes that these pending litigation matters will not=20
result in any material liability for a number of reasons,=20
including the fact that UST has had only limited involvement with=20
cigarettes and UST's current percentage of total tobacco industry=20
sales is relatively small.  Prior to 1986, UST manufactured some=20
cigarette products which had a de minimis market share.  From May=20
1, 1982 to August 1, 1994, UST distributed a small volume of=20
imported cigarettes and is indemnified against claims relating to
those products.
=20
On November 23, 1998, UST entered into the Smokeless Tobacco=20
Master Settlement Agreement with attorneys general of various=20
states and U.S. territories to resolve the remaining health care=20
cost reimbursement cases initiated by various attorneys general=20
against UST.  The Settlement Agreement requires UST to adopt=20
various marketing and advertising restrictions and make payments=20
expected to total between $100 and approximately $200 million=20
over ten years -- depending on various factors -- for programs to=20
reduce youth usage of tobacco and combat youth substance abuse=20
and for enforcement purposes.
=20
UST has been named in three actions brought by individual
plaintiffs, all of whom are represented by the same Louisiana=20
attorney, against a number of smokeless tobacco manufacturers,=20
cigarette manufacturers and certain other organizations seeking=20
damages and other relief in connection with injuries allegedly=20
sustained as a result of tobacco usage, including smokeless=20
tobacco products.
=20
UST is named in an action in Illinois seeking damages and other
relief brought by an individual plaintiff and purporting to state=20
a class action "on behalf of himself and all other persons=20
similarly situated" alleging that his use of UST's smokeless=20
tobacco products "resulted in his addiction to nicotine,=20
increased use of Defendant's products and gum deterioration."
=20
UST has also been served with a Summons and Complaint in an=20
action entitled Roger L. Campbell v. American Tobacco Company, et=20
al., (File No. 98CVS10642), General Court of Justice, Superior=20
Court Division, Guilford County, North Carolina, on November 13,=20
1998.  This action is brought by an individual plaintiff who=20
alleges that he developed bladder cancer as a result of his use=20
of smokeless tobacco manufactured by UST.  Plaintiff seeks=20
unspecified damages in excess of $10,000.
=20
In Morgan v. United States Tobacco Company, et al., (No. 68655B),=20
Tenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Natchitoches,=20
State of Louisiana, the action was dismissed by court Order dated=20
November 6, 1997. On November 5, 1998, the same plaintiff, now in=20
his individual capacity only, commenced another action against=20
UST, entitled David Chris Morgan v. United States Tobacco
Company, et al., (No. 70723A), Tenth Judicial District Court,=20
Parish of Natchitoches, State of Louisiana. The petition alleged=20
that plaintiff has "developed a lesion on his lower lip" and "is=20
addicted to the nicotine contained in smokeless tobacco" as a=20
result of his use of UST's smokeless tobacco products. Plaintiff=20
sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and other=20
general, special and equitable relief in an amount not to exceed=20
$50,000.  On December 18, 1998, the court entered an Order=20
dismissing this action.
=20
In The City and County of San Francisco, on Behalf of the People=20
of the State of California, and Environmental Law Foundation, on=20
Behalf of the General Public v. United States Tobacco Company, et=20
al., (No. 993992), Superior Court of the State of California,=20
County of San Francisco, plaintiffs allege defendants' violation=20
of The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986,=20
Health and Safety Code sec.sec.25249.6, et seq. ("Proposition=20
65"), claiming "the unlawful marketing and sale by defendants of=20
tobacco snuff and chewing tobacco . . . to children and =20
adolescents without providing a 'clear and reasonable' warning=20
that their use results in multiple exposures to substances known=20
to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and=20
reproductive harm."  Plaintiffs further allege defendants'=20
statutory violation of the Unfair Competition Act, Business and=20
Professions Code sec.sec.17200, et seq.  The action seeks=20
unspecified compensatory damages, injunctive relief, restitution,
attorneys fees and costs.
=20
In Conwood Company, L.P. and Conwood Sales Company, L.P. v.=20
United States Tobacco Company, United States Tobacco Sales and=20
Marketing Company Inc., United States Tobacco Manufacturing=20
Company Inc. and UST Inc. (Case No. 5:98CV-108-R), United States=20
District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Paducah Division,
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, UST's violation of federal=20
antitrust and advertising laws in connection with the marketing=20
and sale of its moist snuff brands, and alleges various=20
violations of tort and state law.  The complaint seeks an=20
injunction against alleged "anticompetitive conduct," more
than $400 million in "actual damages" before trebling, and=20
punitive damages.  UST believes that the complaint contains=20
numerous misstatements of fact and that the allegations are=20
without merit. UST intends to defend this action vigorously.
=20
UST believes, and has been so advised by counsel handling these
cases, that it has a number of meritorious defenses to all such=20
pending litigation.  Except as to UST's willingness to consider=20
alternative solutions for resolving certain regulatory and=20
litigation issues, all such cases are, and will continue to be,=20
vigorously defended.  UST believes that the ultimate outcome of=20
all such pending litigation will not have a material adverse
effect on the consolidated financial position of UST, but may=20
have a material impact on UST's consolidated financial results=20
for a particular reporting period in which resolved.


VITAMIN DISTRIBUTORS: Lindquist & Vennum Files Price Fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Minneapolis-based law firm of Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P.=20
announced it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United=20
States District Court alleging nine major vitamin manufacturers=20
and distributors fixed prices.  The suit, filed on March 9, is on=20
behalf of Domain, Inc., a Wisconsin-based animal feed=20
manufacturer, and other purchasers of vitamins.

Defendants named in the suit include multi-national chemical and=20
pharmaceutical manufacturers: Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.; BASF=20
Corporation; Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.; along with four other firms=20
that control the more than $3 billion annual vitamin business.

The complaint alleges the defendants conspired to allocate=20
customers and sales volumes and to fix the price of vitamins sold=20
in the United States. The lawsuit calls for treble damages and=20
injunctive relief under the antitrust laws of the United States.

"Some of the world's largest chemical companies have been=20
overcharging their customers for many years," said Richard Ihrig=20
of Lindquist & Vennum who is representing the plaintiffs. "Our=20
lawsuit is on behalf of these customers to recover the=20
overcharges."

The plaintiff, Domain, uses vitamins as an ingredient in animal=20
feed.  Potential class members include other manufacturers of=20
animal feed, vitamin pills, and food products containing=20
vitamins.

Other manufacturers named in the lawsuit include Chinook Group,=20
Inc.; Degussa Corporation; Ducoa, L.P.; Lonza, Inc.; Rhone-
Poulenc Animal Nutrition, Inc. and Roche Vitamins, Inc.
=09

WALT DISNEY: Judge Lets Workers' Health Benefits Suit Proceed=20
-------------------------------------------------------------
>From Los Angeles, Reuters reports that a federal judge revived a=20
class action lawsuit against Walt Disney Co. that seeks to=20
restore health benefits to about 4,000 current and retired=20
workers at its theme parks and studios, plaintiff lawyers =20
said Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. ruled that the case=20
brought by employees at Disneyland, Disney World and Walt Disney=20
Studios can go forward after a tentative settlement in 1997 on=20
the benefits dispute began to fall apart, the lawyers involved=20
told Reuters.


WARNER LAMBERT: Summary of Pharmacy Class Action Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------------
In late 1993, Warner-Lambert Co., along with numerous other=20
pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers, was sued in a=20
number of state and federal antitrust lawsuits seeking damages=20
(including trebled and statutory damages, where applicable) and=20
injunctive relief. These actions arose from allegations that the=20
defendant drug companies, acting alone or in concert, engaged in
differential pricing whereby they favored institutions, managed=20
care entities, mail order pharmacies and other buyers with lower=20
prices for brand name prescription drugs than those afforded to=20
retail pharmacies. The federal cases, which were brought by=20
retailers, have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation and transferred to the U.S. District=20
Court for the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial=20
proceedings. In June 1996, the Court approved Warner-Lambert's=20
agreement to settle part of the consolidated federal cases,=20
specifically, the class action conspiracy lawsuit, for a total of=20
$15.1 million. This settlement also contains certain commitments=20
regarding Warner-Lambert's pricing of brand name prescription=20
drugs. Appeals of the District Court's approval of this=20
settlement were unsuccessful, and the commitments have become=20
effective. Certain other rulings of the judge presiding in this=20
case were also appealed, and the judge was reversed on all=20
rulings. The cases have been remanded to the District Court,
and trial of the class action conspiracy action against the non-
settling defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers=20
was concluded in November, 1998 with a directed verdict for the=20
defendants and dismissal of the class plaintiffs' case. That=20
decision has been appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.=20
In April 1997, after execution of the federal class settlement
referred to above but prior to the formal effectiveness of its=20
pricing commitments, the same plaintiff-class members brought a=20
new purported class action relating to the time period subsequent=20
to the execution of the settlement. This new class suit sought=20
only injunctive relief. At present, Warner-Lambert cannot predict=20
the outcome of this and the other remaining federal lawsuits in=20
which it is a defendant.
=20
In addition, the Company has settled the vast majority of the
Robinson-Patman Act lawsuits brought by those retail pharmacies=20
which opted out of the class action conspiracy lawsuit. The=20
amount of these settlements is not material.
=20
The state cases pending in California, brought by classes of=20
pharmacies and consumers, have been coordinated in the Superior=20
Court of California, County of San Francisco. The Company, with=20
the majority of the other drug company defendants, has agreed to=20
settle the California consumer class action and this settlement=20
is pending court approval. The amount of this settlement is not
material. Warner-Lambert has also been named as a defendant in=20
actions in state courts filed in Alabama, Minnesota, Mississippi=20
and Wisconsin brought by classes of pharmacies, each arising from=20
the same allegations of differential pricing. With its co-
defendants, the Company has settled the Minnesota and Wisconsin
actions. The Company's share of these settlements, which have=20
been approved, are not material. In addition, the Company was=20
named in class action complaints filed in Alabama, Arizona,=20
Florida, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North=20
Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia,=20
brought by classes of consumers who purchased brand name=20
prescription drugs at retail pharmacies. With its co-defendants,=20
the Company has agreed to settle these state consumer class=20
actions. The Company's share of these settlements, which have
been approved by all of the above courts except Tennessee, where=20
approval is pending, is not material.
=20
The Company has also been made a party to another class action in
Tennessee, purportedly on behalf of consumers in Alabama,=20
Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico,=20
North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, West=20
Virginia and Wisconsin, who purchased brand name prescription=20
drugs from retail pharmacies, and in a similar class action in
North Dakota on behalf of North Dakota consumers. Although it is=20
not possible at this early stage to predict the outcome of these=20
lawsuits, it is unlikely that their ultimate disposition will=20
have a material adverse effect on Warner-Lambert's financial=20
position, liquidity, cash flows or results of operations.
=20
The Federal Trade Commission (the 'FTC') is conducting an=20
investigation to determine whether Warner-Lambert and twenty-one=20
other pharmaceutical manufacturers have engaged in concerted=20
activities to raise the prices of pharmaceutical products in the=20
United States. Warner-Lambert was served with and responded to=20
two subpoenas from the FTC in 1996 and 1997, respectively, and=20
has cooperated with this investigation. Warner-Lambert cannot at=20
present predict the outcome of this investigation.
=20
WARNER LAMBERT: Denies Puerto Rican Employee Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner-Lambert Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Warner-Lambert=20
Co., has been named as a defendant in class actions filed in=20
Puerto Rico Superior Court by current and former employees from=20
the Vega Baja, Carolina and Fajardo plants, as well as Kelly=20
Services temporary employees assigned to those plants. The
lawsuits seek monetary relief for alleged violations of local=20
statutes and decrees relating to meal period payments, minimum=20
wage, overtime and vacation pay.  Warner-Lambert believes that=20
these actions are without merit and will defend these actions=20
vigorously.  Although it is too early to predict the outcome
of these actions, Warner-Lambert does not at present expect these=20
lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on the Company's=20
financial position, liquidity, cash flows or results of=20
operations.


WEYERHAEUSER CO.: California Hardboard Siding Class Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
In June 1998, a lawsuit was filed against WEYERHAEUSER CO.
in Superior Court, San Francisco County, California, on behalf of=20
a purported class of individuals and entities that own property=20
in the United States on which exterior hardboard siding=20
manufactured by the company has been installed since 1981.  The=20
action alleges the company manufactured and distributed defective=20
hardboard siding, breached express warranties and consumer
protection statutes and failed to disclose to consumers the=20
alleged defective nature of its hardboard siding.  The action=20
seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs and reasonable=20
attorney fees.  In December 1998, the complaint was amended=20
narrowing the purported class to individuals and entities in the=20
state of California.  On February 4, 1999, the court entered an=20
order certifying the class.  The company intends to seek a review=20
of that order. =20

In September 1998, a lawsuit purporting to be a class action=20
involving hardboard siding was filed against the company in=20
Superior Court, King County, Washington.  The complaint was=20
amended, in January 1999, to allege a class consisting of=20
individuals and entities that own homes or other structures in=20
the United States on which exterior hardboard siding manufactured=20
by the company at its former Klamath Falls, Oregon facility has=20
been installed since January 1981.  The amended complaint alleges=20
the company manufactured defective hardboard siding, engaged in=20
unfair trade practices and failed to disclose to customers the
alleged defective nature of its hardboard siding.  The amended=20
complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive or treble damages,=20
restitution, attorney fees, costs of the suit and such other=20
relief as may be appropriate. =20

The company is a defendant in approximately twenty-four other
hardboard siding cases, one of which purports to be a state-wide=20
class action on behalf of purchasers of single or multi-family=20
residences in Iowa that contain the company's hardboard siding.


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N  =20

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by=20
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard=20
Group, Inc., Washington, DC.  Peter A. Chapman, Editor.=20

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

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or=20
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic=20
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior=20
written permission of the publishers. Information contained=20
herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is=20
not guaranteed. =20

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-
mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same=20
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof=20
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher=20
Beard at 301/951-6400.                        =20

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *