CAR_Public/990223.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 23, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 13

                           Headlines

AGRIBIOTECH, INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway File Suit in New Mexico
CHARLES SCHWAB: Greenfield & Goodman File Suit in Virgin Islands
COMPUTER CONCEPTS: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in New York
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: German Firms Seen Not Limiting Recovery Fund
JONES INTERCABLE: Litigation Status Report

LASER TECHNOLOGY: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Colorado
NATIONAL STEEL: Litigation Status Report
ORBITAL SCIENCES: No Basis or Justification for Shareholder Suit
OREGON SCHOOLS: Mastery Testing Alleged to be Discriminatory
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Florida

SERVICE CORPORATION: Rabin & Peckel Files Complaint in Texas
TOTAL RENAL: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in California
TOTAL RENAL: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
USA TALKS: Shepherd & Geller File Complaint in California
WORLD ACCESS: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in Georgia

WORLD ACCESS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in Georgia


                           *********

AGRIBIOTECH, INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway File Suit in New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of AgriBioTech, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ABTX) from September 24, 1997, through August 26, 1998,
inclusive.

The complaint charges AgriBioTech and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading financial statements
that artificially inflated the Company's earnings and revenues.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Greenfield & Goodman File Suit in Virgin Islands
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greenfield and Goodman, L.L.C., announces that, on behalf of a
customer of Charles Schwab and Co., Inc., it has commenced a
class action lawsuit in federal court (Civil Action No. 99-20) in
the U.S. Virgin Islands on behalf of all those persons who placed
market orders to purchase or sell shares of stock or other
securities through accounts with Schwab between February 1, 1996
to the present and were damaged by the conduct alleged in the
Complaint.

The Complaint alleges violations by the defendants of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 1Ob-5
promulgated thereunder and applicable common law to benefit
themselves at the expense and to the detriment of plaintiff and
members of the Class, in connection with the purchase and
sale  of securities.  In essence, plaintiff alleges that the
defendants knew that Schwab could easily and inexpensively access
a number of systems that frequently provide better prices for the
execution of sell or buy orders, defendants knowingly and/or
recklessly executed market orders on behalf of their customers,
including plaintiff and members of the Class, at consistently  
disadvantageous prices.  Plaintiff seeks damages from the
defendants and other relief as set forth in the Complaint.


COMPUTER CONCEPTS: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP has commenced a class action
lawsuit was filed today in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Computer Concepts Corp. (Nasdaq: CCEE) common stock between
January 9, 1998 and August 19, 1998.

The complaint charges Computer Concepts Corp. and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Among other things, plaintiff
claims that the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's true financial condition and  
operating performance.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: German Firms Seen Not Limiting Recovery Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
>From Frankfurt, David Crossland, reports for Reuters that the
German companies setting up a compensation fund for Holocaust
victims have decided to keep replenishing it if the initial
volume estimated at 2.5 billion marks ($1.42 billion) ever runs
out.

Munich's Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily said industry chiefs meeting
at the Chancellery in Bonn on Friday had agreed that the fund
should be open-ended and called the "Memorial Fund".   An earlier
proposal to call it the "Reconciliation Fund" was dropped  
because only the victims, not the perpetrators, could offer
reconciliation, the newspaper reported.  The meeting also decided
that the Fund would pay compensation to former slave labourers
now living in eastern Europe as well as those in the United  
States and Israel.

The German government confirmed to Reuters that the meeting took
place but declined to give details.  Deutsche Bank AG, which is
involved in setting up the fund, declined comment to Reuters.

As previously reported, the fund was agreed last week by big
German firms including Deutsche, Volkswagen AG and Degussa-Huels
AG which have come under pressure from a series of U.S. lawsuits
over the past year by Holocaust victims seeking compensation.    
Public pressure to take action rose earlier this month following
the disclosure that Deutsche Bank helped finance construction of
the Auschwitz concentration camp.


JONES INTERCABLE: Litigation Status Report
------------------------------------------
In its latest annual report filed with the SEC, Jones Intercable,
Inc., provides investors with a status report with respect to on-
going litigation:

                        Tampa Litigation

The Company is a defendant in a now-consolidated civil action
filed by limited partners of Cable TV Fund 12-D, Ltd., one of the
Company's managed partnerships. The case, styled David Hirsch,
Marty, Inc. Pension Plan (by its trustee and beneficiary, Martin
Ury) and Jonathan and Eileen Fussner, derivatively on behalf of
Cable TV Fund 12-B, Ltd., Cable TV Fund 12-C, Ltd. And Cable TV
Fund 12-D, Ltd., plaintiffs v. Jones Intercable, Inc., defendant,
and Cable TV Fund 12-BCD Venture, Cable TV Fund 12-B, Ltd., Cable
TV Fund 12-C, Ltd. and Cable TV Fund 12-D, Ltd., nominal
defendants (District Court, Arapahoe County, State of Colorado,
Case No. 95-CV-1800, Division 3), is a derivative action filed on
behalf of Cable TV Fund 12-B, Ltd. ("Fund 12-B"), Cable TV Fund
12-C, Ltd. ("Fund 12-C") and Cable TV Fund 12-D, Ltd. ("Fund 12-
D"). The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the
Company breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs and to the
other limited partners of Fund 12-B, Fund 12-C and Fund 12-D and
the Cable TV Fund 12-BCD Venture (the "Venture") in connection
with the Venture's sale of the Tampa, Florida cable television
system (the "Tampa System") to a subsidiary of the Company and
the subsequent trade of the Tampa System to Time Warner
Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership ("Time Warner"), an
unaffiliated cable television system operator, in exchange for
cable television systems owned by Time Warner. The consolidated
complaint also sets forth a claim for breach of contract and a
claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. Among other things, the plaintiffs assert that the
subsidiary of the Company that acquired the Tampa System paid an
inadequate price for the Tampa System. The price paid for the
Tampa System was determined by the average of three separate,
independent appraisals of the Tampa System's fair market value as
required by the limited partnership agreements of Fund 12-B, Fund
12-C and Fund 12-D. The plaintiffs have challenged the adequacy
and independence of the appraisals. The consolidated complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount and an award of attorneys'
fees, and the complaint also seeks punitive damages and certain
equitable relief.

The Company has filed its answer to the consolidated complaint
and has generally denied the substantive allegations in the
complaint and has asserted a number of affirmative defenses.  The
Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

In August 1997, the Company moved for summary judgment in its
favor on the ground that plaintiffs did not make demand on the
Company for the relief they seek before commencing their lawsuits
or show that such a demand would have been futile.  In January
1998, the Court (1) held that plaintiffs did not make demand
before commencing their lawsuits or show that such demand would
have been futile, (2) stayed the consolidated case and vacated
the February 1998 trial date, (3) ordered that plaintiffs make a
demand on the Company and that the Company appoint an independent
counsel to review, consider and report on that demand, (4)
ordered that the independent counsel be appointed at the March
1998 meeting of the Company's Board of Directors and (5) ordered
that the independent counsel be subject to the approval of the
court.  The court set a new trial date for October 1998 in the
event that the case was not resolved through the independent
counsel process or otherwise.  In March 1998, the Company's Board
of Directors appointed an independent counsel.  The plaintiffs
did not object to the Company's choice, and the Court approved
the Company's choice of independent counsel.  During the period
March through May 1998, the independent counsel met several times
with the attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the Company,
and he also reviewed a great quantity of written materials.  The
independent counsel issued his report on August 3, 1998, which
concluded that the plaintiffs' claims are not meritorious and are
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The
independent counsel further determined that the Company
"did not breach a fiduciary duty" owed to the plaintiffs or to
the partnerships and the Venture and that the Company "did not
commit any impropriety in connection with" the Venture's sale of
the Tampa System.  The independent counsel specifically found
that the three appraisals of the Tampa System were independent
and objective and met the requirements of the partnership
agreements.  He further noted that the Company had met its
fiduciary duties of fairness and full disclosure to the
partnerships and the Venture.  On August 5, 1998, the Company
moved to dismiss or for summary judgment in its favor based on
the report of independent counsel, a motion the plaintiffs
opposed.  On September 11, 1998, the Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment based on the report of
independent counsel.  The Court then set a new trial date for May
3, 1999.  The Company subsequently submitted a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's denial of the Company's motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment based on the report of the
independent counsel.  The Court has denied such motion.  The
Company then filed an interlocutory appeal of the Court's rulings
to the Colorado Supreme Court.  On February 1, 1999, the Colorado
Supreme Court issued an Order requiring the plaintiffs to show
cause why the Company's request for dismissal or summary judgment
should not be granted, and staying all proceedings in the trial
court until the Company's appeal is resolved.

                        Palmdale Litigation

In December 1998, City Partnership Co. ("Plaintiff"), a limited
partner of Fund 12-C and Fund 12-D, filed a class action
complaint in the District Court, Arapahoe County, State of
Colorado (Case No. 98-CV-4493) naming the Company as defendant.  
Plaintiff, on its behalf and on behalf of all other persons who
are limited partners of Fund 12-B, Fund 12-C and Fund 12-D, is
challenging the terms of sale of the cable television system
serving the communities in and around Palmdale and Lancaster,
California (the "Palmdale System") to an affiliate of the
Company.  This case is in a very preliminary stage, but the
Company believes that the terms of the sale were in accordance
with the requirements of relevant limited partnership agreement
provisions.  The Company intends to defend this lawsuit
vigorously.

                      Littlerock Litigation

In January 1999, City Partnership Co. ("Plaintiff"), a limited
partner of Cable TV Fund 14-B, Ltd., filed a class action
complaint in the District Court, Arapahoe County, State of
Colorado (Case No. 99-CV-0150) naming the Company as defendant.  
Plaintiff, on its behalf and on behalf of all other persons who
are limited partners of Cable TV Fund 14-B, Ltd., is challenging
the terms of sale of the cable television system serving
Littlerock, California (the "Littlerock System") to an affiliate
of the Company.  This case is in a very preliminary stage, but
the Company believes that the terms of the sale were in
accordance with the requirements of relevant limited partnership
agreement provisions.  The Company intends to defend this lawsuit
vigorously.

                     Shareholder Litigation

In February 1998, BTH, the Company's largest shareholder, filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against the Company, Jones International, Ltd.
("International"), Jones Internet Channel, Inc. ("JICI") and
Glenn R. Jones. BCI Telecom Holding, Inc., plaintiff v. Jones
Intercable, Inc., Jones International, Ltd., Jones Internet
Channel, Inc. and Glenn R. Jones, defendants (U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 98-M-224).  Mr.
Jones is the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.  
International is owned by Mr. Jones, and it also is one of the
Company's largest shareholders.  JICI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of International.  BTH, the Company, International and
Mr. Jones are parties to a Shareholders Agreement dated as of
December 20, 1994 (the "Shareholders Agreement").

In its complaint, BTH alleged that the defendants violated the
Shareholders Agreement and certain duties allegedly owed to BTH,
and conspired with each other to do so.  More specifically, BTH
claimed that under the Shareholders Agreement, the offering of
the service known as the "Internet Channel" to the Company's
subscribers, and any affiliation agreement between the Company
and JICI for the provision of the Internet Channel service, could
not proceed without approval of a specific group of directors of
the Company, including the three directors designated by BTH.  
BTH also maintained, in connection with the relationship and
proposed affiliate agreement between the Company and JICI, that
the defendants breached a provision of the Shareholders Agreement
defining the "core business" of the Company.  In addition to
damages, BTH sought an injunction prohibiting the Company from
making the Internet Channel available to additional subscribers
and from entering into an affiliate agreement with JICI for the
Internet Channel, as well as other equitable relief. On May 5,
1998, the Court permanently enjoined the Company and the other
defendants in this civil action from proceeding further with any
expansion of the Internet Channel, or any similar internet
service provider business, without the approval of the unrelated
directors of the Company. All defendants except the Company
appealed the decision to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In connection with the agreements entered into among the Company,
International, BTH and Comcast relating to the acquisition and
exercise by Comcast of BTH's option to acquire 2.9 million shares
of the Company's Common Stock, the parties have agreed to dismiss
the pending litigation between BTH, International, Mr. Jones and
the Company, and International and certain of its affiliates have
agreed to dismiss the appeal which is pending of the Order
entered against them in such litigation.

In March 1998, Leslie Susser, a minority shareholder of the
Company, filed a shareholder derivative action in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against Glenn
R. Jones and seven other directors of the Company. Leslie Susser,
plaintiff v. Glenn R. Jones, James J. Krejci, James B. O'Brien,
Howard O. Thrall, Raphael M. Solot, Robert E. Cole, Sanford
Zisman and Donald L. Jacobs, defendants and Jones Intercable,
Inc., nominal defendant (U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, Civil Action No. 98-M-616).  In its complaint, the
plaintiff alleges that the defendants have violated certain
fiduciary and other duties allegedly owed to the Company and its
shareholders in connection with the Company's offering of the
Internet Channel service.  The allegations raised in this
complaint are similar to those raised by BTH in its
complaint.  The plaintiff seeks certain equitable relief and
damages.

In connection with this litigation, the Company has determined,
based on the opinion of outside legal counsel, that all of the
statutory requirements for the advancement of reasonable legal
fees and expenses to the defendants have been met. Notice of such
determination was previously given to all shareholders.


LASER TECHNOLOGY: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP announced that it filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District **Court** for the
District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Laser Technology,
Inc. (Amex:LSR) common stock between February 12, 1996 and
December 22, 1998.

The complaint charges Laser Technology, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Among other things, plaintiff
claims that the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's true financial condition and  
operating performance.


NATIONAL STEEL: Litigation Status Report
----------------------------------------
In its latest annual report filed with the SEC, National Steel
Corp., provides investors with a status report with respect to
on-going litigation:

       Steinmetz v. National Steel Corporation, et. al.

A complaint was filed on May 13, 1998 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana by Hyman
Steinmetz seeking shareholder class action status and alleging
violations of the federal securities laws against the Company,
its majority shareholder, NKK U.S.A. Corporation, Osamu Sawaragi,
the Company's former chairman and chief executive officer, and
another former officer of the Company. The complaint generally
relates to the Company's restatement of its financial statements
for certain prior periods which was announced in October 1997.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, interest, costs
and fees. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit
and intends to defend against it vigorously.

        Securities and Exchange Commission Investigation

In the third quarter of 1997, the Audit Committee of the
Company's Board of Directors was informed of allegations about
managed earnings, including excess reserves and the accretion of
such reserves to income over multiple periods, as well as
allegations about deficiencies in the Company's system of
internal controls. The Audit Committee engaged legal counsel who,
with the assistance of an accounting firm, inquired into these
matters. Based upon this inquiry, the Company determined the need
to restate its financial statements for certain prior periods. On
January 29, 1998, the Company filed an amended Form 10-K for 1996
and amended Forms 10-Q for the first, second and third quarters
of 1997 reflecting the restatements. On December 15, 1997, the
Board of Directors approved the termination of the Company's Vice
President--Finance in connection with the Audit Committee
inquiry. During January 1998, legal counsel to the Audit
Committee issued its report to the Audit Committee, and the Audit
Committee approved the report and concluded its inquiry. On  
January 21, 1998, the Board of Directors accepted the report and
approved the recommendations, except for the recommendation to
revise the Audit Committee Charter, which was approved on
February 9, 1998. The report found certain misapplications of
generally accepted accounting principles and accounting errors,
including excess reserves, which have been corrected by the
restatements referred to above. The report found that the
accretion of excess reserves to income during the first, second
and third quarters of 1997, as described in the amended Forms
10-Q for those quarters, may have had the appearance of
management of earnings as the result of errors in judgment and
misapplication of generally accepted accounting principles.
However, the report concluded that these errors do not appear to
have involved the intentional misstatement of the Company's
accounts. The report also found weaknesses in internal controls
and recommended various improvements in the Company's system of
internal control, a comprehensive review of such controls, a
restructuring of the Company's finance and accounting department,
and expansion of the role of the internal audit function, as well
as corrective measures to be taken related to the specific causes
of the accounting errors.  The Company is in the process of
implementing these recommendations with the involvement of the
Audit Committee. In accordance with the recommendations, a major
independent accounting and consulting firm was engaged in early
1998 to examine and report on the Company's written assertion
about the effectiveness of the internal control over financial
reporting. Its report is expected to be completed in March 1999.
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") has
authorized an investigation pursuant to a formal order of
investigation relating to the matters described above. The
Company has been cooperating with the Staff of the Commission and
intends to continue to do so.

                       Trade Litigation

On September 30, 1998, the Company joined a number of other U.S.
steel producers in filing certain unfair trade petitions before
the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission
(the "ITC"). These unfair trade petitions were filed against
foreign steel companies in Brazil, Japan and Russia, alleging
widespread dumping of imported hot-rolled carbon steel flat
products ("hot rolled steel") and in the case of Brazil,  
substantial subsidization of those products. The Company joined
as a petitioner in these cases, except the one involving Japan.
On November 13, 1998, the ITC made affirmative preliminary
determinations in the cases, finding that there is a reasonable
indication that the domestic hot-rolled steel industry is
threatened with material injury by the imports in question. On
February 12, 1999, the Department of Commerce preliminarily
determined that the imported products at issue have been dumped
and, in the case of Brazil, subsidized. The affected imports are
now subject to bonding requirements, with the amount of security
calculated based on preliminary duty rates. Antidumping duties
and, in the case of Brazil, countervailing duties, will be
imposed against those imports for which the Department of
Commerce makes an affirmative final dumping or countervailing
duty determination and for which the ITC makes an affirmative
injury determination. Such duties are designed to offset dumping
and the advantages of subsidies and create a level playing field
for domestic producers. The final Department of Commerce
decisions are expected to be made on May 5, 1999, and the final
ITC determination is expected to be made on or shortly before
June 19, 1999.


ORBITAL SCIENCES: No Basis or Justification for Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
"As far as we are concerned, there is no basis or justification
for a [shareholder] lawsuit against the company," a spokesman for
Orbital Sciences Corp. told a reporter for Satellite Today.  The
spokesman added that the company had not yet received a copy of
the filing.  Satellite Today obtained no comment from any of the
other defendants named in the suit.

As reported last week, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern  District of Virginia, on behalf of
purchasers of Orbital Sciences common stock  during the period
between April 21, 1998 and February 16, 1999, inclusive.   Early
last week, Orbital revealed it was restating its results for the
first nine months of 1998.


OREGON SCHOOLS: Mastery Testing Alleged to be Discriminatory
------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, parents of children with learning disabilities filed a
class action lawsuit charging that the State of Oregon's
Certificate of Initial Mastery ("CIM") testing system is
discriminatory and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.  
The class includes tens of thousands of Oregon school children
with learning disabilities.

According to Sid Wolinsky, Esq., representing the children: "The
State Board has taken the most regressive step in 20 years in the  
education of children with learning disabilities.  In its hasty
rush to administer the tests, the  Board has paid no attention to
how it discriminates against children with disabilities.  The
high stakes tests can determine whether a child graduates from
high school; they test the disabilities of the children rather
than their abilities."

The suit alleges that the State Board of Education and school
bureaucracies created mass confusion among parents, children and
educators by providing conflicting information regarding how the
test is to be administered and graded.


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
on behalf of purchasers of Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. (NYSE:
PDX) common stock between April 28, 1998 and February 12,
1999.

The complaint charges Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. and certain
of its officers  and directors with violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Among other things, plaintiff
claims that the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's true financial conditions and  
operating performance.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Rabin & Peckel Files Complaint in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP announced that it filed a class action lawsuit
last week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Service Corporation International
securities during the period between October 22, 1998 and
January  26, 1999, inclusive, and all persons or entities who
acquired Service Corporation stock as a result of the stock-for-
stock merger of Equity Corporation International with the
company.

The complaint alleges that Service Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements during the class
period, and by omitting to disclose material facts required to
be disclosed in order to make the statements issued during the
class period not materially false and misleading. In particular,
it is alleged, among other things, that certain reported revenues
were prematurely recognized in violation of generally accepted
accounting principles and that defendants misrepresented the
company's prospects for future profitability. The complaint
alleges that,  as a result of these material misstatements and
omissions, the price of Service Corporation's stock was
artificially inflated throughout the class period.


TOTAL RENAL: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in California
------------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP has commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Total Renal Care Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: TRL) from
April 1, 1998 through February 17, 1999.

The Complaint charges Total Renal Care and certain of its
officers with violating the federal securities laws.  Among other
things, plaintiff claims that defendants artificially inflated
the price of Total Renal Care common stock by issuing a series of
false and misleading statements, press releases and financial
statements which overstated earnings, understated expenses and  
liabilities and concealed the failure of Total Renal Care to
establish adequate internal controls on the accounting and
management systems in the Renal Treatment Center business which
it acquired in February 1998. This failure of internal controls
resulted in Total Renal Care being unable to accurately track
operating costs and losses associated with, among other things,
uncollectible receivables.


TOTAL RENAL: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP announced that it filed
a class action suit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Total
Renal Care  Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq:TRL) common stock during the
period Feb. 17, 1998  to Feb. 17, 1999.

The complaint charges TRC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws by
making misrepresentations about TRC's business, the successful
integration of Renal Treatment Centers, earnings growth and
financial condition and its ability to continue to achieve
profitable growth.  By issuing these allegedly false and
misleading statements, defendants artificially inflated TRC's
stock price to a Class Period high of $36-1/8 in June 1998,
allowing TRC to make acquisitions using inflated TRC stock as
currency and to complete a $345 million convertible debt
offering, before the true facts about TRC's troubled integration,
diminished profitability, and inadequate financial statement
disclosures were revealed and TRC's stock collapsed to as low as
$8-3/4 per share.


USA TALKS: Shepherd & Geller File Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd & Geller, LLC announced that it filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the  
Southern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased or  otherwise acquired common stock issued by USA
Talks.Com, Inc. during  the period November 24, 1998 through
January 29, 1999.

According to the Complaint, USAT and certain of its officers and
directors violated Federal Securities laws by artificially
inflating the price of USAT's common stock to a high of over $52
per share by misrepresenting USAT's publicly reported network
installation and technology. On January 29, 1999, the SEC  
halted traded in the Company's common stock as a result of
"questions about the accuracy of information released to the
public by the company."


WORLD ACCESS: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against World Access, Inc. (NASDAQ:WAXS)
and  certain individuals associated with the Company was
commenced in the United  States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of investors who purchased World
Access shares during the period October 7, 1998  through and
including February 11, 1999 by Weiss & Yourman.

The complaint charges World Access and certain of its executive
officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
during the Class Period regarding the Company's financial
condition and results of  operations. These false and misleading
statements caused the price of World Access's common stock to be
artificially inflated during the Class Period.


WORLD ACCESS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it is
filing a class action lawsuit in Federal Court in Atlanta,
Georgia on behalf of investors who  bought World Access, Inc.
(NASDAQ:WAXS) stock between October 7, 1998 and February 11,
1999.

The lawsuit charges World Access and several of its top officers
with violations of the securities laws and regulations of the
United States.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued a
series of false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business prospects and financial performance. Because
of the issuance of a series of false and misleading statements,
the price of World Access common stock was artificially inflated  
during the Class Period.  The complaint alleges that defendants
took advantage of the non-disclosure of the adverse facts
described above to sell thousands of their own shares of World
Access common stock to the unsuspecting investing public at
inflated prices and in the process realized over $1.9 million in  
proceeds.

                           *********

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  * * *