/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/990215.MBX             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
            Monday, February 15, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 7


AMERICAN BANK: Schoengold & Sporn File Complaint in New York
GENCOR INDUSTRIES: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Florida
GUN MANUFACTURERS: New York Jury Holds Gun Makers Liable
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in California

MYLAN LABORATORIES: South Carolina Challenges Drug Price Hikes
PEOPLESOFT, INC.: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit in California
SERVICE CORPORATION: Berger & Montague File Complaint in Texas
UNITED STEELWORKERS: Workers Sue Union for Breach of Contract


AMERICAN BANK: Schoengold & Sporn File Complaint in New York
Schoengold & Sporn, P.C. filed a securities class action lawsuit
on February 8, 1999 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against American Bank Note
Holographics, Inc. (NYSE: ABH) and certain of its key officers
and  directors on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock  between July 14, 1998 through January 18,

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11  
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20 of
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and other laws by issuing false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
operations, financial condition and performance.

GENCOR INDUSTRIES: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Florida
the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
announced yesterday that a class action lawsuit, Civil Action No.
99-165-CV-18-B, was filed on February 10, 1999 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, on
behalf of all persons who  purchased the common stock of Gencor
Industries, Inc. (AMEX: GX), between February 5, 1998 and January
28, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Gencor and certain officers and directors
of the Company during the relevant time period with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding Gencor,
its products and the strength of its business. Because of the
issuance of a series of false and misleading statements, the
price of Gencor common stock was artificially inflated during the
Class Period.

Class members may, not later than sixty days from January 29,
1999 move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff.

GUN MANUFACTURERS: New York Jury Holds Gun Makers Liable
Tom Hays reports for the Associated Press that a federal jury
Thursday found several gun makers responsible in three area
shootings for letting guns fall into the hands of criminals.  
Other manufacturers were cleared.  The only damages awarded were
$560,000 to the sole survivor of the shootings, who was seriously
wounded.  Steven Fox, 19, and the relatives of six homicide
victims sued the gun industry in federal court in 1995.  

The class-action lawsuit sought unspecified damages from an
industry that generates sales of $2 billion to $3 billion a year.  
The plaintiffs accused the gun industry of negligently marketing
a legal product.  The case also was closely watched by several
cities trying to recover the costs of gun violence.

During the month-long trial, the plaintiffs argued handgun makers
oversupply gun-friendly markets, mainly in the South, aware that
the excess guns flow into criminal hands via illegal markets in
New York and other states with stricter anti-gun laws.  The
plaintiffs' lawyers accused the 25 defendants of dumping handguns
onto the black market like "toxic waste," making no effort to
identify and discipline dishonest distributors.

Lawyers for the gun manufacturers insisted their responsibility
ends once they sell to licensed distributors.  They said the job
of policing traffickers should be left to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, which has never required gun makers to
track their products to the street.  Industry attorney James Dorr
told the jury it was unfair to "hold the manufactures of a
lawful, legitimately sold product responsible for acts of  
outlaws who are totally outside their control. * * *  The case is
simply wrong."  The gun makers also asserted that in most of the
shootings the plaintiffs never presented evidence conclusively
linking the weapons used to harm their relatives to specific

The plaintiffs countered that the "chain of title" is irrelevant,
instead accusing the entire industry of creating a widespread
risk with negligent marketing a concept known as collective  
liability.  "This huge pool (of handguns) is like toxic waste,"
the plaintiffs' attorney, Elisa Barnes, said in closing
arguments.  Relatives for the victims testified, and attorneys
presented statistics on weapons sales, the average age of guns
used in crimes, and other aspects of the gun trade.

A key plaintiff witness, former Smith & Wesson Corp. executive
Robert Hass, was too ill to appear but testified by deposition
that gun makers took a see-no-evil approach to criminal use of
their deadly products.  And an economist testified that 90% of
the handguns used in crimes in New York City in recent years came
from southern states.

Testifying for the firearms industry, Chicago-based economics
consultant Gustavo "Chip" Bamberger said plaintiffs' arguments
about oversupply of guns relied on insufficient data and flawed

The verdict came despite apparent disagreement in the jury room.
In recent days, jurors had sent U.S. District Court Judge Jack
Weinstein several notes saying it was deadlocked.  One note said
that 10 jurors had "decided to work together to reach a verdict,"
but the 11th "refused because he or she feels the verdict `will
open the floodgate of lawsuits across the country."'

LOCKHEED MARTIN: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in California
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announced that it filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased common stock of Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE: LMT) at
artificially inflated prices during the period April 3, 1998 and
December 23, 1998.

The Complaint alleges that Lockheed violated the securities laws
by misrepresenting how the Company had reached its 3rd Q 1998 EPS
targets.  The complaint alleges that the Company failed to reveal
that it only reached its, and analysts, EPS targets by utilizing
a secret accounting adjustment and that in the absence of this
adjustment the EPS targets could not be met.  Based on Lockheed's
strong 3rd Q results and its forecasts of continued strong 4th Q  
1998 EPS and further growth in 1999, the Company's stock rose to
as high as $113-1/8 by November 2, 1998.

Insiders at the Company took advantage of the stocks' artificial
inflation to sell significant amounts of their own holdings at
prices as high as $109.97 to reap personal proceeds of over $28

On December 23, 1998 the Company stunned the market by announcing
that shortfalls in aircraft deliveries and satellite launches and
higher than earlier disclosed write offs, Lockheeds 4th Q 1998
and 1998 results would be far below the levels previously
forecast. Upon the release of these revelations the stock dropped
from $95-3/4 to $82 on enormous volume of over 3.5 million

Class members may, not later than March 16, 1998, move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

MYLAN LABORATORIES: South Carolina Challenges Drug Price Hikes
The state of South Carolina has filed a lawsuit against the  
nation's second-largest generic drug manufacturer, challenging
price hikes on two popular drugs -- lorazepam and clorazepate,
according to a United Press International report.  The attorney
general's office filed a class-action lawsuit in Charleston
County against Mylan Laboratories Inc. of Pittsburgh, Pa.  South
Carolina is the 32nd state to sue Mylan and four other active
ingredient suppliers and distributors, claiming the companies are
trying to monopolize the market.

PEOPLESOFT, INC.: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit in California
The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP announced
that a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of PeopleSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq:  PSFT) common stock
during the period between Feb. 5, 1997 and Jan. 28, 1999.  

The complaint charges PeopleSoft and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
represented to the investment community that PeopleSoft was still
enjoying strong growth in orders and was on track to continue
45%-65% revenue growth through 1999.  As a result, PeopleSoft's
stock price was artificially inflated to as high as $55-15/16
during the Class Period from the $24 range at the beginning of
the Class Period.  When PeopleSoft ultimately admitted that its
revenue growth had slowed and that it might restate its 1996-1998
financial statements, its stock declined to as low as $18-1/8 on
volume of 20.5 million shares.  While investors, who paid as high
as $55-15/16 for PeopleSoft stock, have lost millions, the top
officers and directors of PeopleSoft sold 8.2 million shares for
proceeds of $232 million before the bad news was disclosed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
PeopleSoft common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").  
Zwerling Schachter has offices in New York City, Westbury, New
York and Seattle, Washington.  Zwerling Schachter is active in
major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States.

SERVICE CORPORATION: Berger & Montague File Complaint in Texas
Service Corporation International (NYSE:SRV) and certain of its
officers and directors engaged in securities fraud, according to
a class action complaint filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, by
Berger & Montague, P.C.

The lawsuit, filed on February 8, 1999, is brought on behalf of
former shareholders of Equity Corporation International
(NYSE:EQU), who acquired the shares of Service Corp. as a result
of the January 19, 1999, stock-for-stock merger, and on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Service Corp.
(NYSE:SRV) common stock during the period July 23, 1998, to
January 26, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements during the Class Period. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that defendants misled the public with regard to the
effects of adverse trends, market conditions and demographics on
Service Corp.'s business and operations.  The Complaint further
alleges that defendants' misleading positive statements
artificially inflated the price of Service Corp.'s common stock
during the Class Period.

On January 26, 1999, only six days after completing the merger
with Equity Corp., Service Corp. announced disappointing fourth
quarter and year-end 1998 financial results.  The market reacted
sharply to the announcement, with Service Corp. stock falling
$15.19, or 44%, to $19.25 per share, after touching $18.38, the
lowest price in 3 1/2 years. Service Corp. common stock had
traded above $35 per share for much of the Class Period.

UNITED STEELWORKERS: Workers Sue Union for Breach of Contract
>From Massillon, Ohio, United Press International reports that
three former Republic and L-T-V steel workers have filed a $19
million class action lawsuit against the United Steelworkers of  
America, accusing the union of breach of contract involving
pensions and other benefits.  The suit was filed in Canton, Ohio,
by Frank Logo of Massillon and Robert Spinell and Larry Liotti of
Dover.  They say the union entered into an agreement with
Republic and L-T-V in 1984 that altered an agreement negotiated  
nine months earlier . . . and never allowed union members to read
the pact.



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  * * *