CAR_Public/990211.MBX             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
     
           Thursday, February 11, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 5

                           Headlines

AGRIBIOTECH: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in New Mexico
E*TRADE GROUP: Two Lawsuits Arrive In Wake Of System Problems
JDA SOFTWARE: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in Arizona
JDA SOFTWARE: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Complaint in Arizona
LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Bernstein Litowitz Files Suit in Massachusetts

MILESTONE PROPERTIES: Delaware Court Approves Bondholder Pact
P-COM, INC.: Plaintiffs Dismiss Federal Shareholder Class Action
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE: Employment Consent Decree Dissolved
PEOPLESOFT, INC.: Kirby McInerney File Complaint in California
SEARS: Pleads Guilty to Bankruptcy Fraud & Accepts $60MM Fine

THERAGENICS CORP.: Spector & Roseman Files Complaint in Georgia
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Henley Wins $1.5MM in Compensatory Damages
ZILA, INC.: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in Arizona

                           *********

AGRIBIOTECH: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in New Mexico
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. announced that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in United
States District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico on behalf of  
all purchasers of all securities of AgriBioTech Inc.
(NASDAQ:ABTX) between September 24, 1997 and August 26, 1998.

The complaint alleges that during Fiscal Years 1997-1998,
AgriBioTech reported favorable financial results with strong
revenue growth and profitability causing the Company's stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels, and as high as $29-1/2.
According to the complaint, AgriBioTech's reported revenues  
were, as a result of the manipulations, overstated by 20% in
Fiscal Years 1997-1998 and the loss it had actually incurred for
Fiscal Years 1997-1998 was converted into a profit. Ultimately,
AgriBioTech was forced by the SEC to change its accounting
practices with regard to acquisitions and to disclose the
extent of its accounting manipulations in prior quarters. Upon
these startling revelations, AgriBioTech's stock price declined
to $8-1/8 per share, a more than 71% reduction from its Class
Period high of $29-1/2.  Investors who purchased shares of
AgriBioTech during the Class Period paid too much and may  
be able to recover for their losses, according to the complaint.


E*TRADE GROUP: Two Lawsuits Arrive In Wake Of System Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the aftermath of last week's technical difficulties which left  
online stock traders unable to make transactions, online broker
E*Trade is now facing several legal claims in California.  Two
different class-action suits have been filed against E*Trade in
the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County.

The first, Cooper v. E*Trade Group Inc., seeks damages on behalf
of all individuals who have or had accounts with E*Trade from
September 1996 to the present.  The complaint alleges that
E*Trade's representations to customers regarding the manner in
which their accounts would be handled were false and misleading;  
that the firm's electronic trading systems were inadequate to
meet customer demands; and that as a result of these
misrepresentations customers suffered "significant" losses in
addition to being deprived of the benefits which E*Trade had
promised.

The other lawsuit, filed by E*Trade customer Coleen Divito seeks
class-action status for any customers of the online broker who
were affected by last week's system breakdowns.

Company spokesmen declined to comment on the claims.


JDA SOFTWARE: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley announce that a securities
fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of  
purchasers of JDA Software Group Inc. (NASDAQ:JDAS) common stock
during the period between January 29, 1998 and January 5, 1999.  
The complaint charges that certain of JDA's officers and
directors caused JDA to report that JDA was experiencing strong
demand for its software products and services and that JDA would
post strong revenue and earnings growth throughout 1998 and 1999.
The complaint alleges that these statements caused the Company's  
stock to trade at artificially inflated levels, and permitted
JDA's insiders to sell $43 million of their own JDA stock and JDA
to issue and sell $90+ million  of stock via a public offering.
However, when JDA finally admitted that its  sales force was in
disarray, that its previously reported financial results were
false and would have to be restated and that JDA would be
reporting huge 4Q98 losses, JDA stock plummeted to just $6-1/16
per share, 80% lower than the levels where defendants had sold
more than $140 million of JDA stock.


JDA SOFTWARE: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Complaint in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to the law firm of Finkelstein & Krinsk, corporate
insiders at the JDA Software Group reaped a $140 million windfall
while investors were being assured the company was experiencing
strong and growing software licensing revenue throughout 1998 and  
1999.

These charges are made in a class action suit on behalf of all
JDA shareholders who purchased the common stock of JDA Software
during the period Jan. 20, 1998 through and including Jan. 5,
1999 and who suffered losses on their investments.  The case
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 was filed by the San Diego law firm of Finkelstein &
Krinsk in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The class action lawsuit states that in 1998 JDA Software and
certain of its management artificially inflated its stock price
by exaggerating the strong demand for its software products and
services.  The misleading statements enabled JDA insiders to sell
$43 million of their own JDA stock and JDA itself to raise $90
million via a public stock offering enabling the company to  
purchase Comshare Inc's Arthur Retail Business systems division.

However, JDA failed to disclose to investors significant problems
with its new products, declining revenues from its licensing
operations and disarray among its sales force.  Subsequently on
Jan. 5, 1999 JDA Software was forced to disclose that it would
restate its third-quarter 1998 results and would post a huge loss
for the fourth quarter.  JDA acknowledged that it had inflated
the charge in connection with the Arthur Acquisition by 120
percent, and that JDA CEO Brent Lippman had "resigned." Upon
these disclosures JDA's stock price declined to $6-1/16 per
share, an 80 percent reduction from its class period high of $39.

JA Software Group, with headquarters in Phoenix, is a global
provider of integrated retail software products and professional
services for more than 600 clients worldwide with 22 offices in
the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany,
Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Singapore, Chile and Australia.


LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Bernstein Litowitz Files Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, on February 5, 1999,
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the  
common stock of Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V.
(Nasdaq:LHSPF), from February 3, 1998 through December 1, 1998,  
inclusive.

The complaint charges Lernout, and certain of its officers and
directors, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, Lernout had improperly
accounted for "in-process" research and development of other
voice recognition and translation software companies it had
acquired since at least 1996.  As a result, the Company was
forced to incur material, added expenses during the Class Period.
This, in turn, materially reduced the income the Company reported
and will report in the future. Further, during the Class Period,
the individual defendants and other Lernout insiders sold 528,176  
shares of their personal Lernout holdings for proceeds in excess
of $23 million.

Class members may, not later than March 20, 1999, move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff for the class.


MILESTONE PROPERTIES: Delaware Court Approves Bondholder Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Properties, Inc. (OTC BB:MPRP/MPRPP) announced today
that the order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
approving the settlement of a purported class action and
derivative lawsuit brought against the Company, certain past and  
present members of its Board of Directors and executive officers,
and Concord Assets Group, Inc. by a holder of the Company's $.78
Convertible Series A Preferred Stock on his own behalf,
purportedly on behalf of all holders of the Company's Preferred
Stock and derivatively on behalf of the Company will become
final effective as of the close of business on March 5, 1999
unless an appeal is taken, in which case the order will become
final upon its affirmance on such appeal.

The order approving the settlement was signed by the Court at a
hearing held on Jan. 28, 1999 and was entered upon the Court's
docket on Feb. 3, 1999, at which time a 30 day appeal period
began. The Company had previously announced that the order would
become final, in the absence of an appeal, on Feb. 28, 1999 (30  
days from the date that the Court's order was signed).

If the Court's order becomes final and the settlement is
consummated: (1) each Preferred Stockholder who is eligible to
participate in the settlement and who did not properly opt out of
the settlement and who owns shares of the Company's Preferred
Stock on the date that the settlement is consummated will
surrender his or her shares of Preferred Stock to the Company and
receive $3.00 in cash from the Company in exchange for each such
share and the releases provided for in the settlement agreement
entered into on Aug. 5, 1998 by counsel for the Company and the
other defendants to the lawsuit on one hand and the plaintiff's
counsel on the other hand; (2) the Company's stockholders other
than preferred stockholders who properly opted out of the
settlement will release all derivative claims in connection with
the transactions that are the subject of the litigation; (3) the
holders of shares of the Company's Preferred Stock between Oct.
23, 1995 and the date on which the settlement is consummated
other than preferred stockholders who properly opted out of the
settlement will release any claims they may have against the
Company and the other named defendants in connection with the
transactions that are the subject of the litigation; and (4) the
action will be dismissed.


P-COM, INC.: Plaintiffs Dismiss Federal Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
P-Com, Inc. (Nasdaq/NMS:PCMS), announced yesterday that
plaintiffs dismissed a federal shareholder class action filed by
the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
P-Com and several of its officers and directors.

On Jan. 29, 1999, Judge Conti signed and entered the order
dismissing the action in its entirety without prejudice.  The
company notes that although the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody
has issued numerous press releases concerning the federal action,
they have nonetheless dismissed the federal action without any
payment from P-Com.


PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE: Employment Consent Decree Dissolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has dissolved a consent decree stemming from a
1973 suit that challenged State Police employment practices as
racially discriminatory, State Police Commissioner Paul J. Evanko
today announced.  

In a memorandum and order dated Feb. 1, Senior Judge Clifford
Scott Green of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted a joint motion for dissolution of the
consent decree.  

"The department will accept nothing less than a workforce that is
diverse and representative of the communities we serve,"  Evanko
said.  "We will continue to make every effort to ensure that the
people we hire are dedicated, motivated, ethical and have a
sincere desire to provide exceptional service to the citizens of
the Commonwealth."

A class-action suit filed Nov. 16, 1973, on behalf of minority
enlisted members of State Police and all minority applicants for
employment as troopers, challenged as racially discriminatory the
department's hiring and promotion policies and practices.  After
a trial on the merits in early 1974, the parties negotiated a
settlement of the hiring and promotion claims.  That settlement
was embodied in a consent decree, which was approved by the court
in June 1974.  The decree required the department to set minority
hiring and promotion goals and to develop standards for the
selection of cadets and for promotions to the ranks of corporal,
sergeant and lieutenant.  Cadet is the rank of persons in
training to become troopers.

In 1993, the decree was amended to require the defendants to
retain an independent panel of experts to develop the standards.  
Promotional examination criteria developed by the panel were
submitted to all minority troopers for comment in 1995.  No
objections were raised, and the criteria were approved by the
court.  The department developed and proposed new criteria for
the selection of cadets.  The criteria were approved by
plaintiffs' counsel and by the expert panel and have been
implemented for the processing of cadet candidates who took the
most recent cadet exam in September 1997.

The joint motion to dissolve the consent decree was filed with
the court Oct. 22, 1998, by attorneys representing the
plaintiffs, the department and the Pennsylvania State Troopers
Association, which is the troopers' bargaining unit.  Following
public notice of the motion and opportunity for comment and  
objections, a hearing was held before Judge Green on Jan. 21.  
After considering the motion and evidence produced at the
hearing, Judge Green issued his order.  In that order, Judge
Green noted that "the parties have attained the goals and
objectives noted in the consent decree.  * * *  The court finds
that the promotion standards and procedures have been developed
and validated by the expert panel as approved by the parties and
accepted by the court.  "The court further finds that the cadet-
hiring criteria, examination, scoring and processing, as approved
by the panel, agreed upon by the appropriate parties, and
accepted by the court, have been properly implemented and
utilized to produce the 103rd class and 104th class that entered
the (State Police) Academy on Sept. 28, 1998, and Jan. 25, 1999,
respectively."  Evanko thanked Judge Green and all of the parties
involved "for their tireless efforts to bring this matter to a
successful conclusion."


PEOPLESOFT, INC.: Kirby McInerney File Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
On February 4, 1999, Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Peoplesoft, Inc.
(Nasdaq:PSFT) and certain of its officers and directors.  The
lawsuit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Peoplesoft
securities between February 5, 1997, and January 28, 1999,
inclusive.

The Complaint asserts that defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The
lawsuit alleges that defendants' material misrepresentations and
omissions caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially
inflated levels during the Class Period, and allowed Peoplesoft's
officers and directors to sell more than $200 million of their
own Peoplesoft holdings at these artificially inflated prices.
When Peoplesoft ultimately admitted that its revenue growth
slowed and it might have to restate two years of financial
statements, the Company's stock price declined from a Class
Period high of more than $55 per share to below $18.50 per share.

Class members may, not later than March 30, 1999, move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class.


SEARS: Pleads Guilty to Bankruptcy Fraud & Accepts $60MM Fine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Bankruptcy Recovery Management Services, Inc., a subsidiary
of Sears, Roebuck and Co. (NYSE:S), has agreed to plead guilty to
one count of bankruptcy fraud and accept a fine of $60 million.  
The agreement between Sears Bankruptcy Recovery Management
Services, Inc. and the U.S. Attorney is subject to court
approval.  A hearing date has not yet been set.

The anticipated fine will have no effect on Sears earnings.  In
the second quarter of 1997, Sears took a pre-tax charge of $475
million against earnings for refunds, penalties and
administrative expenses stemming from improper handling of
certain debt reaffirmation agreements.  Likewise, the agreement  
does not require any change in the day-to-day operations of Sears
or the subsidiary.

Separately, Sears reached agreement with the U.S. Attorney to
settle a civil action dating from April 17, 1997.  Under terms of
that agreement, which also is subject to court approval, Sears
and its subsidiary will continue to file all reaffirmation
agreements obtained in Chapter 7 bankruptcies as required by  
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The resolution of the United States Attorney's investigation will
conclude the last in a series of legal actions surrounding Sears
failure to file some reaffirmation agreements which the company
reached with Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtors.  Under the
reaffirmation provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, a debtor
seeking Chapter 7 protection may agree to repay his or her debts
to creditors.  This reaffirmation agreement must be filed with
the court to be valid.

In late March 1997, upon learning that the company had not
consistently filed debtors' reaffirmation agreements with the
appropriate courts, Sears senior management immediately directed
that all reaffirmation agreements must be filed in a timely
fashion.  On April 10, Sears announced a plan to voluntarily  
identify and repay with interest Chapter 7 debtors whose
reaffirmations were not filed as required from January 1, 1992
through April 1, 1997.  Through Sears efforts, more than 187,000
affected debtors were identified and repaid, with interest, all
principal, finance charges and fees they had paid to Sears  
under terms of invalid reaffirmation agreements.

On June 5, 1997,  Sears announced comprehensive settlements that
led to court-approved agreements with all 50 state Attorneys
General and class action plaintiffs, as well as an approved
consent order with the Federal Trade Commission.


THERAGENICS CORP.: Spector & Roseman Files Complaint in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spector & Roseman, P.C., announced that it filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of all purchasers of Theragenics
Corp. (NYSE:TGX) common stock during the period of January 29,
1998 through January 11, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Theragenics and certain officers and
directors of the Company during the Class Period violated
Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Complaint charges that the defendants issued a series
of materially false and misleading statements concerning the  
Company's business, operations, and its prospects for future
profitability.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Theragenics issues materially false and misleading statements
relating to its relationship with Indigo Medical and the sale of
Theraseed(r).  Because of the issuance of these false and
misleading statements, the price of Theragenics common stock was
artificially inflated during the Class Period. Prior to the
disclosure of the true facts, certain defendants sold thousands
of share of Theragenics stock realizing more than $2.7 million in
proceeds.

Class members, no later than March 16, 1999, may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Henley Wins $1.5MM in Compensatory Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
>From San Francisco, the Associated Press reports that a smoker
who sued Philip Morris after being diagnosed with inoperable
cancer won $1.5 million Tuesday in the first case to reach trial
since California lifted a ban on lawsuits by individuals against
tobacco companies.  The compensatory damages cover medical costs,
pain and suffering.  The Superior Court jury was expected to
return Wednesday to consider punitive damages, attorneys for the
plaintiff said.

Patricia Henley's case was the first since the repeal of a 1987
tort reform law that banned lawsuits by cigarette smokers on the
basis that the risks of smoking were well known.  Dozens of cases
were pending at the time were dismissed.  Ms. Henley, 52, of Los
Angeles, had been smoking since age 15.  She quit in 1997 after
suffering coughing fits and other health problems.  She was
diagnosed a year ago with inoperable cancer in her chest.  She
sued Philip Morris Cos., claiming there were no warnings on
cigarettes when she began smoking more than three decades ago and
that major tobacco companies failed to warn that smokers may be
unable to give up the habit.  Her lawsuit included charges of
negligence, strict liability and fraud.

Philip Morris claimed it was not liable for Ms. Henley's illness
since she understood and assumed the risks of smoking.

The Henley case was at least the fourth time a jury in a tobacco
liability case awarded compensatory damages.  The first three
cases were overturned on appeal.


ZILA, INC.: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley announced that a securities
fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of all  
persons who purchased common stock issued by Zila, Inc.
(NYSE:ZILA) at artificially inflated prices during the period
June 15, 1998 through January 13, 1999.  The  complaint alleges
that the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose  
material information about Zila's product OraTest(R) and the
status of the clinical trials during its efforts to obtain FDA
approval to sell OraTest(R) in the United States. The Company
stated during the Class Period, absent  supporting data and in
the face of information obtained during the clinical  trials to
the contrary (which the Company withheld from the market place),
that  it expected to receive FDA approval to sell and market
OraTest(R).  As was later revealed following the FDA's rejection
of the Company's application, the Company knew, but failed to
disclose, that the FDA would not approve OraTest(R) premised on
the Company's insufficient and poorly analyzed data. As a result
of  defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning OraTest(R), the price of Zila's stock was artificially
inflated during the  Class Period.  At the end of the Class
Period, the FDA announced that it would  not approve OraTest(R)
due to the serious flaws in the efficacy studies and the
Company's failure to supply the FDA with data justifying approval
and the Company's common stock plummeted.  Upon this
announcement, the price of Zila  collapsed, falling from $9-5/8
to $5-3/8, a one-day decline of 44%.


                           *********


                           *********

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

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

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

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.   

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.   
  
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 301/951-6400.  
       
                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *