CAR_Public/990224.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, February 24, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 14

                           Headlines

AGRIBIOTECH, INC.: Vows to Defend Shareholder Suits Vigorously
AMERICA ONLINE: Negotiating Settlement Documents in Virginia Suit
ASPEC TECHNOLOGY: Response to Amended Complaint Seen in A Month
BEAR STEARNS: Quarterly Report on Status of Material Litigation
CENDANT CORPORATION: Closes New Loan with Litigation Carve-Out

CNL HOSPITALITY: Enters into Director Indemnification Agreement
COHR, INC.: Quarterly Litigation Status Report
CTG RESOURCES: Court Rejects Class of Plumbers & Contractors
EINSTEIN/NOAH: Reaches Settlement; Rejecting Underwriters' Claims
ELCOTEL INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal on Summary Judgment

ENVOY CORP.: Company Says Shareholder Claims without Merit
GOOD GUYS: Pursuing Indemnification Claims Against Manufacturers
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Status Report Concerning Student Litigation
NORTHWEST BANCORP: Management Vows to Vigorously Defend Lawsuit
OAK TECHNOLOGY: Shareholder Suit Pretrial Proceedings Continue

PPG INDUSTRIES: Price Fixing Litigation Poses No Threat
PREMIER LASER: Cash and Stock Settlement Pact in the Works
PRIMEDEX HEALTH: 1996 $240,000 Settlement Still Not Finalized
QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Denies Merits of Shareholder Suits
RANDALL'S FOOD: Awaiting Court's Limited Class Action Ruling

SIRROM CAPITAL: FINOVA Merger Agreement Accounts for Settlement


                           *********

AGRIBIOTECH, INC.: Vows to Defend Shareholder Suits Vigorously
--------------------------------------------------------------
Agribiotech, Inc., tells investors that the recently-filed
shareholder lawsuits against it "are without merit" and says it
"will defend the lawsuits vigorously."  This statement appeared
in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filed with the SEC.

As previously reported, on or about January 14, 1999, a class
action lawsuit was commenced in the U.S. District Court, District
of New Mexico, against KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, ABT and ABT's
officers, Johnny R. Thomas, Henry A. Ingalls, Kathleen L.
Gillespie and John C. Francis. The lawsuit was filed by the law
firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP on behalf of Ted
Edwards and all others similarly situated who purchased ABT
common stock between September 24, 1997 and August 26, 1998.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants distributed or approved
false financial statements and documents concerning ABT's then
existing business conditions and that the plaintiffs paid
artificially inflated prices for ABT common stock, all in
violation of the anti-fraud provisions of the Federal securities
laws.

On or about January 25, 1999, a class action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against ABT and ABT's Chief Executive Officer, Johnny R.
Thomas. The lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Savett Frutkin
Podell & Ryan, P.C. on behalf of Marc Packer and all others
similarly situated who purchased the common stock of ABT during
the period October 8, 1998 through January 22, 1999.  On or about
January 27, 1999, a class action lawsuit was commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
ABT and four of its officers. The lawsuit was filed by the law
firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on behalf of
Issac Augenstein and all others similarly situated who purchased
the common stock of ABT during the period October 8, 1998 through
January 22, 1999. On or about February 4, 1999, a class action
lawsuit was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against ABT and Johnny R. Thomas.  The
lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Bernstein, Liebhard &
Lifshitz, LLP on behalf of Jay Glatzer and all others similarly
situated who purchased the common stock of ABT during the period
October 8, 1998 through January 22, 1999. On or about February 5,
1999, a class action lawsuit was commenced in the U.S. District
Court District of Nevada against ABT and Johnny R. Thomas. The
lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri,
LLP on behalf of Michael Laderer and all others similarly
situated who purchased the common stock of ABT during the period
October 8, 1998 through January 22, 1999.

In general, these lawsuits allege that the defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material information about
the status of ABT's efforts to find a buyer for ABT and
strategies concerning its pursuit of pending and additional
acquisitions in violation of the anti-fraud provisions of the
Federal securities laws, and that, as a result of those
misrepresentations or omissions, the price of ABT's stock
was artificially inflated.

Additionally, on or about January 7, 1999, Helena Chemical
Company commenced a civil lawsuit against Agribiotech in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee alleging
breach of contract, libel and violation of the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act.  The suit resulted from the failure by the
parties to finalize a proposed acquisition from Helena of the
alfalfa business unit and the international sorghum business unit
of Helena's subsidiary, AgriPro Seeds, Inc. The Company believes
the suit is without merit and it will be defended vigorously.  
The Company has answered the complaint and denied the material
allegations and counterclaimed against Helena.


AMERICA ONLINE: Negotiating Settlement Documents in Virginia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 8-K filed with the SEC to advise investors that America
Online, Inc., completed its merger with PersonaLogic, Inc., the
Company's restated financial statements (accounting for merger
adjustments) make the following litigation-related disclosures:

     1.  The Company is a party to various litigation matters,  
investigations and proceedings, including a lawsuit filed on
behalf of shareholders against the Company and its chief
executive officer and then chief financial officer alleging  
violations of the federal securities laws.  That class action
lawsuit was filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia  
against the Company, its officers, outside directors and its
auditors in February 1997.  In July 1997, the court dismissed the  
complaint, finding that the  allegations of the complaint
were not sufficiently specific.  The plaintiffs filed an amended  
complaint in September  1997, this time naming the Company,  its
chief executive  officer and its chief  financial  officer as  
defendants.  The Company  has  entered  into a preliminary  
agreement  to settle the action,  subject to  negotiation  of
final documentation and approval by the court. As part of the
settlement,  the Company will make $35 million in payments,  a
substantial portion of which it expects to
be covered by  insurance.  

     2.  A shareholder  derivative  suit related to such class
action lawsuit has also been filed in Delaware  chancery  court
against  certain current and former directors of the Company and
remains pending.  The Company has entered into a preliminary
agreement to settle the shareholder  derivative suit, subject to  
negotiation  of final  documentation  and  approval by the  
Delaware chancery  court,  on terms that will not have a material  
adverse  effect on the financial condition or results of
operations of the Company.

     3.  The  Company, one of its subsidiaries and two officers  
are named in a lawsuit alleging, among other matters, that the
Company breached an agreement and has monopolized and attempted
to monopolize an alleged market for online games.  The Company  
filed a counterclaim alleging defamation and breach of contract.  
While the complaint originally sought more than $100 million in
damages and requested injunctive relief, the parties have settled
the case on terms that will not have a material adverse effect on
the financial condition or results of operations of the Company.

    4. In late May 1998, the Company entered into an Assurance  
of  Voluntary Compliance with representatives of the offices of
44 State Attorneys General regarding the Company's advertising,  
consumer and marketing practices.  The Assurance provides that
the Company will provide additional disclosures in its
advertising and marketing materials and individualized notice to
members of material changes in the member agreement or increases  
in member fees.  The Assurance also requires the Company to make
a payment to the states to cover investigative costs and fund
future Internet consumer protection and education efforts and
contains other terms which will not have a material adverse
effect on the financial condition or results of operations of the
Company.


ASPEC TECHNOLOGY: Response to Amended Complaint Seen in A Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest Form 10-K filing with the SEC, Aspec Technology,
Inc., supplies investors with a summary of on-going litigation in
which the Company is involved:

            SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  

On July 1, 1998, a class action lawsuit, Howard Jonas, et al. v.
Aspec Technology, Inc., et al., No. CV-775037 ("the Jonas
Complaint"), was filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Santa Clara. The Jonas Complaint alleged
that Aspec and certain of its officers, directors, and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering, violated
California Corporations Code Sections 25400 and 25500, and
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500
by making false and misleading statements about Aspec's financial
condition. The action was purportedly brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased Aspec stock during the period from April
28, 1998 and June 25, 1998.

On July 2, 1998, July 27, 1998, and August 17, 1998, three
additional complaints were filed in state court against Aspec and
certain of its officers, directors, entitled respectively,
William Neuman, et al. v. Aspec Technology, Inc., et al., No. CV-
775089 ("the Neuman Complaint"), Martin L. Klotz, on behalf
of the Martin Klotz Defined Benefit Profit Sharing Plan, et al.
v. Aspec Technology, Inc., et al., No. CV-775591 ("the Klotz
Complaint"), Glen O. Ressler and Thelma M. Ressler, et al. v.
Aspec Technology, Inc., et al., No. CV-776065 ("the Ressler
Complaint"). In addition to alleging the same violations of the
Corporations Code as the other three complaints, the Klotz
complaint also alleged violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, and a class period of April
28, 1998 through June 30, 1998. The complaints sought unspecified
damages.

On January 29, 1999, the plaintiffs consolidated the pending
class action cases and filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint,
styled Howard Jonas, et al. v. Aspec Technology, Inc., et al.,
No. CV-775037.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint, purportedly
brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Aspec's stock
between April 27, 1998 and June 30, 1998, alleges that Aspec and
certain of its officers and directors, as well as its
underwriters, violated Sections 25400 and 25500 of the California
Corporations Code, as well as Sections 11 and 15 (except as to
the underwriters) of the Securities Act of 1933.  The parties
have agreed that the defendants will have forty-five days to
respond to the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

Certain of the Company's current and former officers, directors
and shareholder entities were also named as defendants in a
derivative lawsuit, Linda Willinger, IRA, et al. v. Conrad
Dell'Oca et al., No. CV-778007, which was filed on November 12,
1998, in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. The derivative
complaint is based on factual allegations substantially similar
to those alleged in the class action lawsuits.

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

On October 16, 1998, plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss
Kassover, et al. v. Aspec Technology, Inc., et al, No. C 98-
2604VRW, which was filed on June 30, 1998 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Aspec and certain of its officers and directors. The Complaint
alleged that defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose certain
facts about Aspec's financial condition between April 28, 1998
and June 30, 1998. On October 20, 1998, the Court dismissed the
purported class action without prejudice.

                          NASDAQ INQUIRY

On September 4, 1998, the Company received an informal request
for information from the NASDAQ Listing Investigations Staff.
NASDAQ requested information concerning the Company's financial
accounting and internal controls.  The Company has provided
information in response to the informal inquiry. NASD held a de-
listing inquiry on December 17, 1998 at which the Company
appeared through counsel and provided information. The Company is
awaiting the NASD's response.

                           SEC INQUIRY

In January 1999, the Company received an informal inquiry from
the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"). The Company has provided information in
response to the SEC's inquiry.

                   INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS;
                   PARTIAL IMPACT OF LITIGATION

Certain provisions of the Company's Certificate of Incorporation
and indemnification agreements between the Company and its
officers require the Company to advance to such officers ongoing
legal expenses of defending the above lawsuits and may require
the Company to indemnify them against judgments rendered on
certain claims. The Company expects to incur significant legal
expenses on its behalf and on behalf of such officers in
connection with this litigation. In addition, defending this
litigation has resulted, and will likely continue to result, in
the diversion of management's attention from the day to day
operations of the Company's business. There can be no assurance
that this stockholder litigation will be resolved in the
Company's favor. An adverse result, settlement or prolonged
litigation would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition or results of operation. The
Company is currently unable to estimate the range of potential
loss associated with these legal proceedings.


BEAR STEARNS: Quarterly Report on Status of Material Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., relates the status of on-going
material litigation to investors in its latest Forms 10-K and
10-Q filed with the SEC:

     (1) A.I.A. Holding, S.A., et al. v. Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
et al.  As previously reported in the Company's 1998 Form 10-K,  
Bear Stearns is a defendant in  litigation  pending in the United  
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
January 28, 1999, the court dismissed with prejudice all  
counterclaims asserted by Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns
against certain of the plaintiffs, other than the counterclaim   
seeking contribution from plaintiff Monhem Nassereddine, which
was dismissed with leave to replead.

     (2) Alpha Group Consultants, et al. v. Weintraub, et al./In  
re Weintraub Entertainment Group Litigation.  As previously  
reported  in the  Company's  1998 Form 10-K,  Bear  Stearns is a
defendant in a class action  litigation  pending in the United  
States  District Court for the Southern District of California.  
On November 12 and 18, 1998, the court denied Bear Stearns'  
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the
alternative, for a new trial.  On  October 5, 1998,  counsel  for
the class  filed a motion on behalf of absent class  members for
summary  judgment on all claims  asserted in the complaint in
this action. The court has not yet issued a ruling on this
motion.

     (3) A.R. Baron & Company, Inc.  As previously reported in
the Company's 1998 Form 10-K and Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 25, 1998 (the "First Quarter 1999 Form 10-Q"), Bear
Stearns is a defendant in litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
December 1, 1998,  defendants  filed an answer to the complaint
in which they denied liability and asserted affirmative defenses.

     (4) In re Blech Securities Litigation.  As  previously  
reported in the Company's 1998 Form 10-K, Bear Stearns is a
defendant in litigation pending in the United States District  
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On October 1, 1998,
plaintiffs moved for class certification.  The court has not
yet issued a ruling on plaintiffs' motion.

     (5) Crescent Porter Hale Foundation, et al. v. Bob K. Pryt,
et al.  On October 19, 1998, an action was commenced in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Francisco County,
by limited partners of BKP Partners, L.P., an investment fund
that allegedly engaged in a fraudulent scheme involving
unsuitable and excessively risky investments.  Named as
defendants are BKP, an individual who allegedly acted as the
general partner of BKP, BKP Capital Management LLC, Bear, Stearns
& Co. Inc., Bear, Stearns Securities Corp. ("BSSC"), Deloitte &
Touche and a certified public accountant who reviewed certain of
BKP's financial statements.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Bear Stearns defendants committed common law
fraud, negligent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy, breached  
a fiduciary duty and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,  
and  aided and  abetted a breach of fiduciary  duty and a breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,  in connection  
with BSSC acting as BKP's prime  broker, engaging in  securities
transactions with or on behalf of BKP, and making  margin  loans  
to BKP.  Compensatory damages in excess of $100 million are
sought.  On January 8, 1999, the court granted defendants' motion  
to compel the plaintiffs to arbitrate the claims asserted in this
action.  Bear Stearns denies all allegations of wrongdoing  
asserted against it in this litigation, intends to defend against
these claims vigorously, and believes that it has substantial
defenses to these claims.

     (6) In re Daisy Systems Corporation, Debtor.  As  previously  
reported  in the  Company's  1998 Form 10-K,  Bear  Stearns is a
defendant in  litigation  pending in the United  States  District  
Court for the Northern District of California.  On or around
December 2, 1998,  plaintiffs accepted remittitur,  and on
December 3, 1998,  judgment was entered against Bear Stearns in
the amount of $36,073,196 plus costs of $138,826.63.  On December
29, 1998, Bear Stearns filed a notice of appeal.

     (7) In re Donna Karan International Inc. Securities
Litigation.  As previously reported in the Company's 1998 Form
10-K and the First Quarter 1999 Form 10-Q, Bear Stearns is a
defendant in litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On December 10,
1998,  the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
dismissed the appeal in this action pursuant to agreement of the
parties.

     (8) Bernard H. Glatzer v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.  As  
previously  reported  in the  Company's  1998 Form 10-K,  Bear  
Stearns is a defendant in  litigation  pending in the United  
States  District  Court for the Southern District of New York.  
On October 28, 1998, the parties reached an agreement to settle
this action.

     (9) Goldberger v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., et al.  On
December 8, 1998, a purported class action was commenced in the
United States District  Court for the  Southern  District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased  securities  through
certain retail brokerage firms for which BSSC provided  clearing  
services and  financing  during the period from July 1, 1991
through the present.  Named as defendants are Bear, Stearns & Co.
Inc., BSSC and an  officer  of BSSC.  The  complaint  alleges,  
among  other  things,  that the defendants  violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange  Act") and Rule 10b-5  promulgated  thereunder and
committed breach  of  contract,  common  law  fraud  and  
negligent  misrepresentation  in connection  with  providing  
clearing  services and  financing for the brokerage firms named
in the complaint.  Compensatory  and punitive damages in  
unspecified amounts are sought.  Bear Stearns denies all  
allegations of wrongdoing  asserted  against it in this
litigation, intends to defend against these claims vigorously,
and believes that it has substantial defenses to these claims.

     (10) In re Granite Partners, L.P., Granite Corporation and
Quartz Hedge Fund.  As previously  reported in the  Company's  
1998 Form 10-K and First Quarter 1999 Form 10-Q,  Bear  Stearns
is a  defendant  in  litigation  pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
December 22, 1998,  defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended  complaint filed by the Litigation Advisory Board in the
Granite Partners Action except for claims  alleging breach of
contract in connection with improper margin calls and
liquidations.

     (11) Henryk de Kwiatkowski v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., et
al.  As previously  reported in the  Company's  1998 Form 10-K
and First Quarter 1999 Form 10-Q,  Bear  Stearns is a  defendant  
in  litigation  pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  On November 5, 1998,  
defendants filed an answer to the second amended complaint in
which they denied liability and asserted affirmative defenses.
Bear Stearns denies all  allegations of wrongdoing  asserted  
against it in this litigation, intends to defend against these
claims vigorously, and believes that it has substantial defenses
to these claims.

     (12) In re Lady Luck Gaming Corporation Securities
Litigation.  As previously reported in the Company's 1998 Form
10-K, Bear Stearns is a defendant in litigation pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada.  On
November 4, 1998, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' third amended complaint with respect to three of the
alleged misrepresentations and omissions on which plaintiffs'  
claims are based, and denied the motion with respect to the
remaining allegations in the complaint.  On November 15, 1998,
plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint alleging claims under
Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf
of the same purported class and against the same defendants as in
the third amended complaint.  Compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount are sought.  On January 15, 1999,  defendants  
moved to strike certain of the  allegations in the fourth amended
complaint on the ground that these allegations were dismissed by
the Court's November 4, 1998 order. The court has not yet issued
a ruling on this motion.  On February 5, 1999,  defendants  filed
an answer to the complaint in which they denied liability and
asserted affirmative defenses.

     (14) NASDAQ Antitrust Litigation.  As previously  reported
in the  Company's  1998 Form 10-K and First Quarter 1999 Form
10-Q,  over 30 market  makers,  including  Bear Stearns,  are
defendants in litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On November 9,
1998,  the court in the NASDAQ  class action  litigation  granted
final approval of the proposed settlement between plaintiffs and
all defendants.

     (15) Greenberg v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., et al.  On
January 19, 1999, a purported class action was commenced in the
United States District  Court for the  Southern  District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased ML Direct, Inc.
common stock or warrants through Sterling Foster & Co., Inc.  
between  September 4, 1996 and December 31, 1996. Named as
defendants are Bear,  Stearns & Co.  Inc.  and BSSC.  The  
complaint  alleges,  among other things,  that the defendants  
violated  Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5  promulgated  thereunder  and  committed  common law fraud
in connection with providing  clearing  services to Sterling
Foster with respect to certain  transactions  by customers of
Sterling Foster in ML Direct common stock and  warrants.  
Compensatory  damages of $50  million  and  punitive  damages of
approximately $100 million are sought.  Bear Stearns denies all  
allegations of wrongdoing  asserted  against it in this
litigation, intends to defend against these claims vigorously,
and believes that it has substantial defenses to these claims.


CENDANT CORPORATION: Closes New Loan with Litigation Carve-Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 8-K filed with the SEC last week, Cedant Corp. advises
that, on February 9, 1999, Cendant Corporation entered into a
$1,250,000,000 Term Loan Agreement with The Chase Manhattan Bank
and a syndicate of lenders.  The Term Loan matures in February
2001 with principal becoming due in five installments beginning
in February 2000.  The proceeds from the Term Loan were used to
refinance amounts owed under a Term Loan Agreement, dated as of
May 21, 1998 with The Chase Manhattan Bank as the lender thereto.

The New Term Loan agreement specifically carves-out the class
action litigation disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed
August 28, 1998, from causing any Material Adverse Change that
would trigger a default under the New Term Loan agreement.  

Entry of any final judgment against Cedent or a subsidiary for
the payment of money in excess of $50,000,000 (which within 30
days from the entry of such judgment shall not have been
discharged or stayed pending appeal) will trigger a default under
the New Term Loan agreement.


CNL HOSPITALITY: Enters into Director Indemnification Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNL Hospitality Properties, Inc., discloses that it entered into
Indemnification Agreements with its officers and directors to
cover defense costs or judgments from any shareholder or similar
litigation by class action plaintiffs.  A form of the Agreement
is annexed to the REIT's latest form 10-K filed with the SEC.


COHR, INC.: Quarterly Litigation Status Report
----------------------------------------------
In its latest Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, Cohr, Inc., provides
investors with the following status report about on-going
litigation against the Company:

     (1) The Company, certain of its present and former officers
and directors and others are named as defendants in four
purported class action lawsuits which allege, among other things,
false and misleading statements in various public disclosures in
violation of federal and/or state securities laws. Sherleigh
Associates Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. Cohr Inc. et al. (Case No.
98-3028 JSL) was filed in the United States District Court for
Central District of California on or about April 21, 1998.
Zabronsky et al. v. Cohr Inc. et al. (Case No. 98-3493 JSL) was
filed in the same court on May 6, 1998.  Bird v. Cohr Inc. et al.
(Case No. 98-4177 WMB) was filed in the same court on May 27,
1998. Leeds v. Malhotra et al. (Case No. BC198490) was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles
County, on April 16, 1998.  The plaintiffs in each action seek to
represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during various time periods between 1996 and 1998.  The
plaintiffs in each of the three federal actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California assert claims of violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and of certain
regulations promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs in each of
the three federal actions seek unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive and/or other
relief as permitted by law.  The plaintiff in the action filed in
California Superior Court asserts claims of violations of
California Corporations Code Section 25400 and 25500.  The
plaintiff in that action seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive and/or other
relief as permitted by law.  No class has been certified in any
of these actions.

     (2) A shareholder of the Company has brought a derivative
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleging breaches
of fiduciary duty and related claims, and naming certain of its
present and former officers and directors as defendants, with the
Company as a nominal defendant. This action, which is entitled
Schug v. Chopra et al. (Case No. BC190933) was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County,
on May 12, 1998.  The shareholder-plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits and
gains, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, and other
relief as permitted by law.

     (3) The SEC is conducting an investigation relating to the
Company. The Company understands that the investigation relates
to, among other things: (1) the accuracy of the Company's
financial statements and periodic filings with the SEC; (2) the
accuracy of the Company's books and records; (3) the adequacy of
the Company's system of internal accounting controls; and (4)
trading of the Company's securities by certain present or former
officers, directors, or employees, or other persons. In addition,
the NASDAQ Listing Investigations, a division of the NASDAQ Stock
Market, has requested from the Company certain documents in
connection with its review of the Restatement and the Company's
compliance with its rules and regulations. The Company is
cooperating fully with the inquiries from all regulatory
agencies.

Management says it is unable to predict at this time the final
outcome of the matters described above or whether the resolution
of such matters will materially affect the Company's results of
operations, cash flows or financial position.


CTG RESOURCES: Court Rejects Class of Plumbers & Contractors
------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, CTG Resources, Inc.,
the Company reminds investors that, in 1995, certain Connecticut
plumbers and HVAC contractors filed a class action suit against
CTG's wholly-owned regulated gas distribution subsidiary,
Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation ("CNG"), and the State's two
other local natural gas distribution companies ("LDCs"), claiming
that the LDCs engaged in unfair trade practices relating to
customer service work.  The plumbers and contractors assert
claims for profits which they allege were lost during prior
years.  

In January 1998, the court granted CNG's motion to strike all but
one count of the complaint: the antitrust conspiracy claim.  The
plumbers and contractors subsequently filed two additional
lawsuits against CNG alleging violations arising from the same
business activities as in the first lawsuit.  All of the cases
were assigned to the State's complex litigation docket.  

In February 1999, the court denied the motion of the plumbers and
contractors to certify a class action in one of the three cases.  
There has not been any settlement demand or formal statement of
alleged damages.  As a result, management cannot estimate the
Company's potential exposure related to these claims.  The
Company is vigorously defending this matter.


EINSTEIN/NOAH: Reaches Settlement; Rejecting Underwriters' Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors have entered into an agreement to settle a
class action lawsuit brought against them in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado and in state court in
Jefferson County, Colorado.  The complaints in those actions
allege, among other things, that the Company and the other
defendants violated Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as
well as certain similar provisions of Colorado state law.  The
settlement does not include the claims pending in the lawsuit
against the underwriters in the Company's public offerings of
common stock in August 1996 and November 1996 (the
"Underwriters") and against the Company's independent public
accountants.

The settlement of the litigation is being funded with proceeds of
director and officer liability insurance policies and is subject
to certain customary conditions, including approval of the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado where the
lawsuit is pending. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Arizona which has jurisdiction over the Chapter 11
bankruptcy case of Boston Chicken, Inc. ("BCI") has previously
granted relief from the automatic stay in effect in the BCI
bankruptcy case to permit the settlement to be funded with
insurance proceeds.

The Underwriters have requested that the Company indemnify them
against any damages, costs and expenses they may incur in the
litigation (including amounts paid in settlement thereof).
Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuits
against the Underwriters and the independent public accountants,
the Company believes that the complaint is without merit.


ELCOTEL INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal on Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, Elcotel, Inc.,
reminds investors that a putative class action proceeding, styled
Nogah Bethlahmy, et al. plaintiffs v. Randy S. Kuhlmann, et al.
Defendants (San Diego Superior Court Case No. 691635) alleged
that Amtel Communications, Inc. ("Amtel"), a former customer of
the Company that filed for bankruptcy, conspired with its own
officers and professionals, and with various telephone suppliers
(including the Company) to defraud investors in Amtel by
operating a Ponzi scheme.  See Item 3, Legal Proceedings of Part
I of the Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March
31, 1996 and Item I, Legal Proceedings of Part II of the
Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996.

On September 28, 1998, the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment
was granted by the Court and the Court dismissed the Company from
the class action.  

On December 11, 1998, the plaintiffs appealed the Court's
decision to grant the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment.


ENVOY CORP.: Company Says Shareholder Claims without Merit
----------------------------------------------------------
ENVOY Corp., provides investors with this update concerning on-
going litigation in its latest Form 8-K filed with the SEC to
deliver updated financial statements in contemplation of its
acquisition by Quintiles Transnational Corp.:

Class action complaints were filed on each of August 20, 1998,
August 21, 1998, and September 15, 1998, in the United States
District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division,
against the Company and certain of its executive officers. On
December 28, 1998, the plaintiffs filed, pursuant to the Court's
instructions, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Complaint"), consolidating the three cases into a single action.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 12,
1997 to August 18, 1998 (the "Class Period") the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements about the
Company, its business, operations and financial position and
failed to disclose material facts necessary to make defendants'
statements not false and misleading in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and also asserts
additional claims under Tennessee common law for fraud and
negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs allege that the Company
failed to disclose that the Company's financial statements were
not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles due to the improper write-off of certain acquired in-
process technology, resulting in the Company's stock trading at
allegedly artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees
and other relief.  The Company believes that these claims are
without merit and intends to defend the allegations vigorously.
Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount
of the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these claims
can be determined at this time.


GOOD GUYS: Pursuing Indemnification Claims Against Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, Good Guys, Inc.,
reminds investors that it was named as defendant in an action
entitled Cavnar, et al. v. National Semiconductor Corp., et al.,
No. 996297, San Francisco Superior Court, along with many other
defendants.  Plaintiffs' Complaint is styled as a class action
and the primary allegation involving the Company is that the
Company's advertisements have misrepresented the amount of
random access memory in certain computers that is available for
programming and processing applications.  The Company, along with
several of the other retailer defendants, filed demurrers to
several of the Plaintiffs' causes of action, which were granted
without leave to amend. Two claims remain.  The Company believes
it has claims for meritorious indemnification from the computer
manufacturers from which it has purchased personal computers. The
Company intends to defend the action and pursue its
indemnification claims vigorously and does not believe that the
outcome will be material to the financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity of the Company.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Status Report Concerning Student Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
In its annual report filed on Form 10-K405 with the SEC, ITT
Educational Services, Inc., provides this status report
concerning on-going litigation to which it is a party:

We are subject to litigation in the ordinary course of our
business. Among the legal actions currently pending and recently
concluded are the following cases. We have agreed to settle all
of the plaintiffs' claims in these cases. The settlements that
are class settlements are subject to court approval and to
the right of the class members to opt out of the settlement.

     (A) ELDREDGE, ET AL. V. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., ET
AL. (Civil Action No. 689376) was filed on June 8, 1995, in the
Superior Court of San Diego County in San Diego, California by
seven graduates of the hospitality program offered at our San
Diego institute. The suit alleged, among other things,
misrepresentation, civil conspiracy and statutory violations of
the California Education Code (including the Maxine Waters School
Reform and Student Protection Act of 1989) ("CEC"), California
Business and Professions Code ("CBPC") and California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CCLRA") by us, ITT and three of our
employees. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants:

           (1) made misrepresentations and engaged in deceptive
               acts in the recruitment of the plaintiffs for,
               and/or in the promotion of, the program,

           (2) provided inadequate instruction to the plaintiffs,

           (3) used inadequate facilities and equipment in the
               program and inappropriate forms of contracts with
               the plaintiffs,

           (4) failed to provide the plaintiffs with all required
               information and disclosures and

           (5) misrepresented the plaintiffs' prospects for
               employment upon graduation, the employment of the
               program's graduates and the plaintiffs' ability to
               transfer program credits.

The jury rendered a verdict against us and ITT in this action in
October 1996. General damages of approximately $0.2 million were
assessed against us and ITT, jointly, on the plaintiffs'
misrepresentation and CEC claims. Exemplary damages in the amount
of $2.6 million were assessed against us and exemplary damages in
the amount of $4.0 million were assessed against ITT. The judge
also awarded the plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs in the
amount of approximately $0.9 million. Prejudgment interest was
assessed on the general damages award and post-judgment interest
was assessed on the entire award. The plaintiffs' CBPC and CCLRA
claims and their claims against our employees were dismissed, and
the judge granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, setting
aside the verdict against ITT.  We appealed the awards rendered
against us, and the plaintiffs appealed the judgment against
plaintiffs on their claims against ITT.
  
     In September 1998, we settled all of the plaintiffs' claims
in the Eldredge Case in conjunction with the settlement of other
related legal proceedings and claims discussed below. We recorded
a $12.9 million provision in September 1998 associated with all
of these settlements, including the legal and administrative
expenses we expect to incur in order to consummate these
settlements.  All of the parties in the Eldredge Case have
dismissed their respective appeals. In November 1998, based on
the joint application and stipulation filed by us and the
plaintiffs in the Eldredge Case, the appellate court reversed the
judgment against us and remanded the case back to the trial
court, which vacated and set aside the judgment and dismissed the
case with prejudice in December 1998.  A California statute
prohibits the California SEA from approving an application for a
change in control of any institution submitted by an applicant
that has been found in any judicial or administrative proceeding
to have violated Chapter 7 (formerly Chapter 3) of the CEC.  We
believe that since the judgment in the Eldredge Case was
reversed, vacated and set aside, the California SEA is no longer
prohibited from approving any subsequent application for a change
in control submitted by us or any of our 11 institutes in
California.

     (B) ROBB, ET AL. V. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., ET
AL.(Civil Action No. 00707460) was filed on January 24, 1997, in
the Superior Court of San Diego County in San Diego, California
by four graduates of our San Diego institute. The suit, as
originally filed, alleged, among other things, statutory
violations of the CEC and CBPC by us and ten of our employees.
The plaintiffs in the original complaint sought compensatory
damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-
gotten gains, restitution (including return of educational costs)
on behalf of plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated
who attended any of our institutes in California, attorney's fees
and costs, and also sought to have the action certified as a
class action. The plaintiffs amended their complaint on August
14, 1997.  The amended complaint deleted three and added two
named plaintiffs. Each of the three plaintiffs was a student who
attended one of three different programs (i.e., hospitality, EET
and CAD) at a California institute.  The plaintiffs in the
amended complaint alleged only violations of the CEC, based on
the plaintiffs' claims that the defendants

          (1) made misrepresentations and engaged in deceptive
              acts in the recruitment of students for, and/or in
              the promotion of, the programs offered in
              California,

          (2) failed to provide students with all required
              information and disclosures and

          (3) misrepresented students' prospects for employment
              upon graduation and the employment of the programs'
              graduates.

The plaintiffs sought:

         (1) a refund of an unspecified amount representing all
             consideration paid to us by the plaintiffs and all
             other persons similarly situated who attended any of
             the programs in California at any time from January
             1, 1991 through December 31, 1996,

         (2) a state statutory penalty equal to two times the
             refund amount,

         (3) injunctive relief and

         (4) an unspecified amount of attorney's fees and costs.

In May 1998, we settled all of the claims of one of the three
plaintiffs in this legal proceeding. In September 1998, we agreed
to settle all of the claims of the two remaining plaintiffs in
this legal proceeding and to seek a class settlement of the
claims of the approximately 19,000 other persons who attended any
program (other than the hospitality program) at any of our
institutes in California from January 1, 1990 through December
31, 1997. The class settlement, which is subject to court
approval, would provide class members with nontransferable
tuition credits to attend a different educational program at any
of our institutes in the amount of:

          (1) $250 per quarter off the then prevailing quarterly
              tuition for class members who completed at least
              50% of an associate degree program at one of our
              institutes in California;

          (2) $125 per quarter off the then prevailing quarterly
              tuition for class members who completed:

              (a) less than 50% of an associate degree program at
                  one of our institutes in California or

              (b) at least 50% of a bachelor degree program at
                  one of our institutes in California; and

          (3) $62.50 per quarter off the then prevailing
              quarterly tuition for class members who completed
              less than 50% of a bachelor degree program at one
              of our institutes in California.

The class member can use the tuition credit toward the cost of
attending any of our institutes' programs that the class member
had not previously attended. In addition to the issuance of
tuition credits, we have also agreed to stipulate to a permanent
injunction that would enjoin us from certain recruitment
practices (none of which we currently follow) and to pay the
plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. If more than
1% of the class members opt out of the class settlement, we may,
in our sole discretion, terminate the class settlement. On
February 11, 1999, the court granted preliminary approval of the
class settlement.


     (C) IVERSON, ET AL. V. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., ET
AL.(Civil Action No. 00707705); OHRT V. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES,
INC., ET AL. (Civil Action No. 00707706); SAYERS V. ITT
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL. (Civil Action No. 00707707);
BARRENT, ET AL. V. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL. (Civil
Action No. 00707708); and KELLUM, ET AL. V. ITT EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES, INC., ET AL. (Civil Action No. 00707709) were each
filed on January 31, 1997, in the Superior Court of San Diego
County in San Diego, California. Each of the five actions
(involving, in total, 16 former students who attended the
hospitality program at our San Diego institute) alleged statutory
violations of the CEC, the CBPC and the California Consumer
Contract Awareness Act of 1990, intentional misrepresentation
and/or concealment, and civil conspiracy by us, ITT and one of
our employees. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants:

          (1) made misrepresentations and engaged in deceptive
              acts in the recruitment of the plaintiffs for,
              and/or in the promotion of, the program,

          (2) used inadequate facilities and equipment in the  
              program and inappropriate forms of contracts with
              the plaintiffs,

          (3) failed to provide the plaintiffs with all required
              information and disclosures and a fully executed  
              copy of their contracts with us and

          (4) misrepresented the plaintiffs' prospects for
              employment upon graduation, the employment of the
              program's graduates and the externship portion of
              the program.

The plaintiffs in each action sought various forms of recovery,
including:

          (1) an unspecified amount for compensatory damages,
              disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, restitution,
              attorney's fees and costs,

          (2) state statutory penalties equal to two times actual
              damages,

          (3) injunctive relief and

          (4) $10 million in exemplary damages.

In May 1998, we settled all of the claims of four of the five
plaintiffs in the Kellum Case and five of the six plaintiffs in
the Barrent Case. In September 1998, we settled all of the claims
of the remaining seven plaintiffs in these five legal
proceedings. In October 1998, the court dismissed all five of
these legal proceedings with prejudice.

     (D) COLLINS, ET AL. V. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., ET
AL. (Civil Action No. 98 cv 0659 BTM) was filed on April 6, 1998,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California in San Diego, California by nine former students who
attended the hospitality program at either our Maitland or San
Diego institutes. The suit alleged violations of the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the CEC, the
CBPC, the CCLRA, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and
Florida statutes prohibiting misleading advertising, common law
fraud and/or concealment and civil conspiracy by us and ITT. The
plaintiffs claimed that the defendants:

          (1) made misrepresentations and engaged in deceptive
              acts in the recruitment of students for, and/or in
              the promotion of, the program,

          (2) failed to provide students with all required
              information and disclosures and

          (3) misrepresented students' prospects for employment
              upon graduation, the employment of the program's
              graduates and the students' externship portion of
              the program.

The plaintiffs sought various forms of recovery on behalf of the
plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated who attended
the program at our Indianapolis, Maitland, Portland or San Diego
institutes at any time from January 1, 1990 through December 31,
1996, including:

         (1) an unspecified amount for compensatory damages,
             exemplary damages, rescission and the return of all
             tuition and fees paid to us by or on behalf of
             students who attended the program, the disgorgement
             of ill-gotten gains, restitution, attorney's fees
             and costs,

         (2) state statutory penalties of two and three times
             actual damages,

         (3) a federal statutory penalty of $45 million and

         (4) injunctive relief.

In September 1998, we agreed to seek a class settlement of the
claims of the nine plaintiffs in this legal proceeding and of the
approximately 1,200 other persons who attended an associate
degree program in hospitality at our institutes in Maitland, San
Diego, Portland or Indianapolis (the only institutes where the
hospitality program was offered). The class settlement, which is
subject to court approval, involves our payment of cash to the
class members and the plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses. If more than 1% of the class members opt out of the
class settlement, we may, in our sole discretion, terminate the
class settlement. In December 1998, the court granted preliminary
approval of the class settlement.

     (E) On September 22, 1997, we received an inquiry from the
staff of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") requesting
information relating to our offering and promotion of vocational
or career training. We responded to this inquiry in November
1997.  On February 11, 1999, the FTC notified us orally that
it was closing this inquiry and would not take any further
action.



NORTHWEST BANCORP: Management Vows to Vigorously Defend Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, Northwest Bancorp,
Inc., advises investors that Northwest Savings Bank and Northwest
Bancorp MHC, along with unrelated parties, have been named as
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in the Allegheny
County Court of Common Pleas.  This lawsuit is brought on behalf
of purchasers of common stock in the Bank's initial public
offering in November 1994.  It alleges that the defendants
breached their contractual obligations and fiduciary duties by
carrying out the offering at a price that allegedly was not
justified by market and financial conditions. The defendants
previously obtained the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the
same counsel in federal court making similar allegations under
federal law.  Management intends to vigorously defend this
lawsuit.


OAK TECHNOLOGY: Shareholder Suit Pretrial Proceedings Continue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oak Technology, Inc., relates to investors in its latest Form
10-Q filed with the SEC the status of on-going securities
litigation against it:

The Company and various of its current and former officers and
Directors are parties to several class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the Company's
stock (excluding the defendants and parties related to them) for
the period July 27, 1995 through May 22, 1996.

The first, a state court proceeding designated IN RE OAK
TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. CV758510
pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court in Santa Clara,
California, consolidates five class actions.  This lawsuit also
names as defendants several of the Company's venture capital fund
investors, two of its investment bankers and two securities
analysts. The plaintiffs allege violations of California
securities laws and statutory deceit provisions as well as
breaches of fiduciary duty and abuse of control.  On December 6,
1996, the state court Judge sustained the Oak defendants'
demurrer to all causes of action alleged in plaintiffs' First
Amended Consolidated Complaint, but allowed plaintiffs the
opportunity to amend.  The plaintiffs' Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint was filed on August 1, 1997.  On December
3, 1997, the state court Judge sustained the Oak defendants'
demurrer to plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Complaint
without leave to amend to the causes of action for breach of
fiduciary duty and abuse of control, and to the California
Corporations Code Sections 25400/25500 claims with respect to the
Company, a number of the individual officers and directors, and
the venture capital investors. The judge also sustained the
demurrer with leave to amend to the California Civil code
Sections 1709/1710 claims, however plaintiffs elected not to
amend this claim.  Accordingly, the only remaining claims in
state court action, IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES LITIGATION,
is the California Corporations Code Sections 25400/25500 cause of
action against four officers of the Company and the Company's
investment bankers and securities analysts.  On July 16, 1998,
the state court provisionally certified a national class of all
persons who purchased the Company's stock during the class
period.  The class was provisionally certified with the order
held in abeyance pending resolution of the question of whether a
nationwide class may bring a California Corporations Code
Sections 25400/25500 claim.  This issue was resolved in favor of
allowing such nationwide class actions by the California Supreme
Court, Case No. 5058723, on January 4, 1999, in the DIAMOND
MULTIMEDIA SECURITIES LITIGATION appeal by the California Supreme
Court.  Discovery has commenced in this action.  Defendants and
certain third parties have produced documents and a small number
of depositions have been taken.
     
The Company and various of its current and former officers and
Directors are also parties to four putative class action lawsuits
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. These actions have been consolidated as IN RE OAK
TECHNOLOGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
C-96-20552-SW(PVT).  This action alleges certain violations of
federal securities laws and is brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's stock for the period July 27, 1995 through May 22,
1996. This action also names as a defendant one of the Company's
investment bankers. On July 29, 1997, the federal court Judge
granted the Oak defendants Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs'
First Amended Consolidated  Complaint, but granted plaintiffs
leave to amend most  claims.  The plaintiffs'  Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint was filed on September 4, 1997.
Defendants Motion to Dismiss was heard on December 17, 1997.  The
federal court Judge took the matter under submission and has not
yet issued a ruling.
     
Additionally, various of the Company's current and former
officers and Directors are defendants in three consolidated
derivative actions pending in Santa Clara  County Superior Court
in Santa  Clara, California, entitled IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY
DERIVATIVE ACTION, Master file No. CV758510.  This lawsuit, which
asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and a claim under
California securities law based upon the officers' and Directors'
trading in securities of the Company, has been stayed pending
resolution of the class actions.

In all of the state and putative federal class actions, the
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and equitable relief.  In
the derivative action, the plaintiffs are also seeking an
accounting for the defendants' sales of Company stock and the
payment of monetary damages to the Company.  All of these actions
are in the early stages of proceedings.  Based on its current
information, the Company believes the suits to be without merit
and will defend its position vigorously.  Although it is
reasonably possible the Company may incur a loss upon conclusion
of these claims, an estimate of any loss or range of loss cannot
be made.  No provision for any liability that may result upon
adjudication has been made in the Company's Consolidated
Financial Statements.

The Company and its current Directors are also parties to six
putative class actions filed on behalf of all Oak Technology,
Inc. shareholders (other than defendants) in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County
concerning a proposal by a management-led investor group
known as "Gold Acquisition Group" to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company for a price of $4.50 per share.  
Plaintiffs have requested consolidation of the actions under the
caption IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, C.A.
No. 16789 ("Delaware Shareholders Litigation"). The other civil
action numbers are 16792, 16793, 16794, 16818, and 16831.  
Plaintiffs allege that the offer is inadequate and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and entire
fairness.  On December 14, 1998, a Special Committee of the Board
of Directors that had been formed to evaluate the proposal
announced that it would not recommend the proposal to the
Company's full Board of Directors.  In addition, on December 21,
1998, Gold Acquisition Group announced that its proposal had
expired and to date, it has not been renewed.  Based on its
investigation to date, the Company believes the suits to be
without merit and will defend its position vigorously. No
provision for any liability that may result upon adjudication
has been made in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements.
   
The Company and its current Directors are also parties to a
putative class action filed on behalf of all Oak Technology, Inc.
shareholders (other than defendants) in Santa Clara County
Superior Court, designated KRIM V. OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,
Case No. 778281.  The allegations of Plaintiffs in this action
are nearly identical to the Delaware Shareholders Litigation.  
This action has been stayed by agreement of the parties as a
result of the Special Committee's announcement that it would not
recommend to the Company's full Board of Directors the proposal
made by Gold Acquisition Group to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the Company for a price of $4.50 per share as well as
the subsequent announcement of the expiration of the proposal by
Gold Acquisition Group.  Based on its investigation to date, the
Company believes the suit to be without merit and will defend its
position vigorously. No provision for any liability that may
result upon adjudication has been made in the Company's
Consolidated Financial Statements.

In September, 1998, the Company and certain of its current
Directors became parties to a putative class action lawsuit
pending in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware,
entitled MANNING V. OAK TECHNOLOGY, ET AL., Civil Action No.
16656NC.  This action alleges violations of the Delaware General
Corporation Law and breaches of fiduciary duty and is brought on
behalf of all owners of Oak Technology common stock at any time
between August 19, 1997 and the date of class certification.  
Plaintiffs' claims are based upon the Board of Directors'
adoption on or about August 19, 1997 of a Stockholder Rights Plan
that included a provision that limited the redemption or
modification of the Plan to its Continuing Directors or their
designated successors.  Plaintiffs allege that the Stockholder
Rights Plan with the Continuing Directors provision
disenfranchises public stockholders by forcing them to  vote for
incumbent  directors who enjoy full voting rights; that it
restricts the ability of future directors to exercise their
full statutory prerogatives;  and that the particular provision
at issue is an unreasonable and disproportionate response to any
threatened takeover.  Plaintiffs are seeking an injunction and a
declaratory judgment that the Stockholder Rights Plan is invalid
and unenforceable and monetary damages for the alleged violations
of fiduciary duty. On November 18, 1998, in light of the change
in the law due to the decision in CARMODY V. TOLL BROS., the
Company's Board of Directors voted to amend the Shareholders
Rights Plan to eliminate the Continuing Directors provision. On
December 11, 1998, plaintiffs amended their complaint to include
a cause of action which asserted that the directors elected after
the adoption of the Company's Shareholder Rights Plan were not
validly elected and another cause of action for breach of
fiduciary duty related to the proposal by the Gold Acquisition
Group to acquire all of the outstanding stock of the Company for
$4.50 per share (also the subject of the DELAWARE SHAREHOLDERS
LITIGATION and the KRIM litigation described above). A tentative
settlement has been reached with the plaintiffs.  The settlement
should not have a material effect on the Company's Consolidated
Financial Statements.  To date, no provision for any loss has
been made in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Price Fixing Litigation Poses No Threat
-------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., reminds investors that it has been named as
a defendant in a number of antitrust lawsuits filed in federal
and state courts by various plaintiffs.  These suits allege
PPG was involved with competitors in fixing prices and allocating
markets for certain glass products.  Twenty-eight cases were
filed in federal courts, all of which have been consolidated in a
single federal district court (W.D. Pa.) for pretrial proceedings
under the multidistrict litigation rules.  Ten cases were filed
in state courts in California, Wisconsin and Tennessee; the
Wisconsin case was removed to federal court and then consolidated
under multidistrict litigation.

Among the defendants in these actions are Pilkington
plc; Libbey-Owens Ford Co., Inc.; AFG Industries; Asahi Glass
Co., Ltd.; Guardian Industries Corp., and Ford Motor Company.
These lawsuits purport to be class action suits.  The plaintiffs
in these cases are seeking economic and treble damages and
injunctive relief.

In its latest annual report filed with the SEC, Management
restates its belief that the outcome of this litigtation will not
have a material effect on PPG's consolidated financial position,
results of operations, or liquidity.


PREMIER LASER: Cash and Stock Settlement Pact in the Works
----------------------------------------------------------
In its latest Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, Premier Laser
Systems, Inc., reminds investors that it and certain of its
officers and directors have been named in a number of securities
class action lawsuits which allege violations of the Securities
Exchange Act or the California Corporations Code. The plaintiffs
seek damages on behalf of classes of investors who purchased the
Company's stock between May 7, 1997 and April 15, 1998. The
complaints allege that the Company misled investors by failing to
disclose material information and making material
misrepresentations regarding the Company's business operations
and projections.  The Company has been successful in having all
of such securities class actions lawsuits consolidated into a
single action in the federal court and a single action in the
state court.  The Company has also been named in a shareholder
derivative action purportedly filed on its behalf against certain
officers and directors arising out of the same alleged acts.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle with lead
plaintiffs and their counsel to settle the class and derivative
actions. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, in
exchange for a release of all claims, the Company would pay
2,250,000 shares of common stock and $4,600,000 in cash.  The
cash portion of the settlement would be paid by the Company's
insurance carrier.  Completion of the settlement is subject to
execution of the final settlement agreement, court approval and
certain other conditions.  If the settlement is not completed, is
not approved or is not consummated for any reason, the parties
would continue to litigate the actions.  

Although the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the
actions, the ultimate outcome is uncertain and no provision for
any alternative form of settlement or other adverse resolution of
the actions has been reflected in the accompanying financial
statements. Any significant adverse resolution of the actions
would seriously impact the Company's financial condition. The
Company maintains insurance coverage for these types of actions
and has filed claims with the carrier. The policy has a limit of
$5 million and a $250,000 deductible amount.

In accordance with the terms of the agreement in principle to
settle class and derivative actions, the Company established a
reserve during the three months ended December 31, 1998 for the
issuance of 2,250,000 shares of common stock. These shares were
valued at a price of $3.31 per share which was the closing price
of the Company's stock on November 18, 1998, the effective date
of the proposed settlement agreement. The Company has included
approximately $384,000 of associated legal and professional fees
in this reserve, but has not included in the reserve
approximately $4,600,000 in cash that would be paid by
the Company's insurers.

The Company believes that its present liquid assets and cash to
be generated by sales of its inventories (including substantial
amounts of reserved inventory) will be sufficient to meet its
working capital requirements through at least March 31, 1999. Any
significant uninsured settlement or judgment associated with the
class action litigation would materially adversely affect the
Company's ability to satisfy its working capital requirements. If
additional capital is required, the Company would consider
several financing alternatives including the issuance of
securities, licensing of technology and marketing rights, and/or
bank financing. There can be no assurances that the Company would
be successful in obtaining additional financing.


PRIMEDEX HEALTH: 1996 $240,000 Settlement Still Not Finalized
-------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, Primedix Health
Systems, Inc., reminds investors that the Company is a defendant  
in a class action  pending in the United  States District  Court
for the District of New Jersey  entitled "In re Hibbard  Brown &
Company  Securities  Litigation"  [No. 93 CV 1150].  

The plaintiffs filed and amended their Consolidated Class Action
Complaint and in July 1994, filed a Second Amended and  
Consolidated  Class Action Complaint [the "Second  Consolidated  
Complaint"] in the  matter. In the Second Consolidated Complaint,
the plaintiff identified certain alleged "control" companies
including among others, the Company, ITI, Digital Products
Corporation and Site and alleged that the  defendants  violated
the federal securities laws and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt  
Organizations  Act ["RICO"] by initiating and/or joining in a  
conspiracy and course of conduct designed to manipulate and
artificially inflate the market prices of the stocks of the
various "control" companies [allegedly  controlled by the
Company, the Company's former principal stockholder and others]  
in order to permit  the  defendants  to sell  "large" amounts of
the  "control"  companies'  securities  to the public at  
manipulated prices and reap  "huge"  profits.  The Second  
Consolidated  Complaint  claimed damages as well as punitive
damages [including a trebling of damages pursuant to the RICO  
statute],  interest,  attorneys'  fees and  costs,  all of which  
were unspecified in amount.  In September  1994, the Court  
certified the matter as a class  action.  Subsequent  thereto,  
certain of the  defendants,  including the Former  Principal  
Stockholder, FNW, WFG and Hibbard filed for protection from
creditors  pursuant to the federal  bankruptcy  laws.

Management contended that the Company was not a party to any
conspiracy and did not engage in any illegal course of conduct.  
The Company entered into a preliminary settlement with the
plaintiff class in this lawsuit by the payment of $240,000 in
April 1996.  Although the settlement between the Company and the
plaintiff class was granted preliminary court approval, the  
settlement is subject to final approval by the class and to final
court approval, which has not yet been obtained.

Management expects there will be no additional costs to settle
the case beyond the $240,000. The lawsuit continues with respect
to the other defendants.  The Company remains convinced that it
has not engaged in any inappropriate conduct in this matter.


QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Denies Merits of Shareholder Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quintiles Transnational Corp., provides investors with this
update concerning on-going litigation in its latest Form 8-K
filed with the SEC in connection with its acquisitions of a
Pharmaceutical Marketing Services, Inc., and ENVOY Corporation:

Class action complaints were filed on each of August 20, 1998,
August 21, 1998 and September 15, 1998, in the United States
District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division,
against the Company and certain of its executive officers. On
December 28, 1998, the plaintiffs filed, pursuant to the Court's
instructions, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Complaint"), consolidating the three cases into a single action.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 12,
1997 to August 18, 1998 (the "Class Period") the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements about the
Company, its business, operations and financial position and
failed to disclose material facts necessary to make defendants'
statements not false and misleading in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and also asserts
additional claims under Tennessee common law for fraud and
negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs allege that the Company
failed to disclose that the Company's financial statements were
not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles due to the improper write-off of certain acquired
in-process technology, resulting in the Company's stock trading
at allegedly artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages,
attorney's fees and other relief. The Company believes that these
claims are without merit and intends to defend the allegations
vigorously. Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor
the amount of the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to
these claims can be determined at this time.


RANDALL'S FOOD: Awaiting Court's Limited Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest quarterly report filed with the SEC, Randall's Food
Market, Inc., recalls that, following the Company's acquisition
of Cullum Companies, Inc. in August 1992, the Company terminated
the Cullum's Management Security Plan for Cullum Companies, Inc.
("the MSP").  Thereafter, the Company paid MSP participants the
greater of (i) the amount of such participant's deferral or (ii)
the net present value of the participant's accrued benefit, based
upon the participant's current salary, age and years of service.

Thirty-five of the former MSP participants have instituted a
claim against the Company on behalf of all persons who were
participants in the MSP on its date of termination (which is
alleged by plaintiffs to be approximately 250 persons).  On May
7, 1997, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for the Court
to recognize their action as a class action, to recover
additional amounts under the MSP, for a declaration of rights
under an employee pension benefit plan and for breach of
fiduciary duty.  The plaintiffs assert that the yearly plan
agreement executed by each participant in the MSP was a contract
for a specified retirement and death benefit set forth in such
plan agreements and that such benefits were vested and
nonforfeitable.  A pre-trial order in the MSP litigation, which
was submitted to the Court on October 22, 1997, states that an
expert for the plaintiffs, assuming class certification, may
testify that the damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff
class may range from approximately $18.0 million to $37.2 million
and, assuming that a court were to award additional damages based
on a rate of return achieved by an equity index over the relevant
period, such damages may range from approximately $37.4 million
to $70.6 million.  On December 30, 1997, the Court issued an
order denying the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion on the
plaintiffs' claim that the MSP was not an exempt "top hat plan"
(a plan which is unfunded and maintained by an employer primarily
for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select
group of management or highly compensated employees).  The order
also granted the Company's summary judgment motions on two of the
plaintiffs' ancillary claims, but did not address the
plaintiffs' request for certification as a class action. On June
5, 1998, the Court ruled that the plan was "unfunded", meaning
that the trial of the limited class action issue will deal only
with the question of whether the MSP was "maintained primarily
for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select
group of management or highly compensated employees."

On June 16, 1998, the Court certified the case as a class action
for the limited issue of determining if the MSP was an exempt
"top hat plan".   The Court defined the class as all persons who,
on the date of the termination of the MSP, were participants in
the MSP and were employed by Randall's Food Markets, Inc.

On September 8, 1998, a pre-trial conference was held to discuss
burden of proof, expert testimony and meaning of "select
group" and the evidence to be considered at the trial.  The trial
of the limited class action issue was conducted before the Court,
sitting without a jury, on October 26, 1998.  Upon order of the
Court, both parties submitted post-trial briefs on November 6,
1998.  The Court has yet to rule on the limited class action
issue.  Once the initial class issue is resolved, the Court will
make an evaluation as to whether any other issues should be dealt
with in a class action context.  

Based upon current facts, the Company indicates it is unable to
estimate any meaningful range of possible loss that could result
from an unfavorable outcome of the MSP litigation. It is possible
that the Company's results of operations or cash flows in a
particular quarterly or annual period or its financial position
could be materially affected by an ultimate unfavorable outcome
of the MSP litigation. However, the Company intends to vigorously
contest the MSP claim and, although there can be no assurance,
management currently does not anticipate an unfavorable outcome
based on management's independent analysis of the facts relating
to such litigation.


SIRROM CAPITAL: FINOVA Merger Agreement Accounts for Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
On July 13, 1998, a purported class action was filed in U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against
Sirrom and certain officers, directors and affiliates. This
lawsuit is captioned Trinity Holdings Corporation v. Sirrom
Capital Corporation, John A. Morris, Jr., George M. Miller, II,
Carl W. Stratton, H. Hiter Harris, III and Christopher H.
Williams, Case No. 3-98-0643, United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville.  The Trinity
Holdings Lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws
related to a secondary offering of securities that was made under
a registration statement that was declared effective on March 5,
1998, certain press releases and oral communications with
analysts. The plaintiff purports to sue on its own behalf and on
behalf of all persons who acquired Sirrom common stock between
March 5, 1998 and July 9, 1998, including all persons who
purchased Sirrom common stock in connection with the March 5,
1998 secondary offering. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary
damages as well as reasonable costs and expenses.

On September 4, 1998 and September 9, 1998, two additional
purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee against Sirrom and certain
officers, directors and affiliates.  These lawsuits are captioned
John Brown v. Sirrom Capital Corporation, David Resha,
Christopher H. Williams, H. Hiter Harris, III, John A. Morris,
Jr., George M. Miller II, and Sirrom Partners, L.P., Case No. 3-
98-0826, United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville, and James Hirsch v. Sirrom Capital
Corporation, John A. Morris, Jr., George M. Miller, II, Carl W.
Stratton, H. Hiter Harris, III, and Christopher H. Williams,
Case No. 3-98-0833, United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville, respectively.  The allegations
made in the Brown Lawsuit and the Hirsch Lawsuit are
substantially similar to those made in the Trinity Holdings
Lawsuit, with the exception that the plaintiff in the Brown
Lawsuit purports to sue on behalf of all persons who acquired
Sirrom common stock between January 20, 1998 and July 10, 1998.  
The plaintiffs seek monetary damages.

The District Court has ordered that the Trinity Holdings Lawsuit,
the Brown Lawsuit and the Hirsch Lawsuit be consolidated and
proceed as one case. Before the order, Sirrom and the individual
defendants had moved to dismiss the Trinity Holdings Lawsuit for,
among other reasons, the plaintiff's failure to state a claim.
Pursuant to the Court's consolidation order, on December 14,
1998, the Plaintiffs filed a single, Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint. In this amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege
generally the same violations of federal securities laws as
alleged in the original Trinity Holdings, Brown and Hirsch
complaints. The amended complaint, however, also contains the
additional allegation that Sirrom's accounting for its loans
violates GAAP, and asserts a class action on behalf of all
persons who acquired Sirrom's stock between January 20, 1998 and
July 10, 1998. Pursuant to the Court's consolidation order,
Sirrom filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 8, 1999.

A separate purported class action was filed on the same date as
the Trinity Holdings Lawsuit by Scott Orrock in the Chancery
Court for Davidson County, Tennessee against Sirrom and certain
officers, directors and affiliates. This lawsuit is captioned
Scott Orrock v. Sirrom Capital Corporation, David Resha,
Christopher H. Williams, H. Hiter Harris, III, John A. Morris,
Jr., George M. Miller, II and Sirrom Partners, L.P., Docket No.
98-2103, 111, Chancery Court, Davidson County, Tennessee (the
"Orrock Lawsuit"). The Orrock Lawsuit alleges violations of state
securities laws in connection with the March 5, 1998
secondary offering, certain periodic reports filed with the SEC,
certain press releases and oral communications with analysts. The
plaintiff purports to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of all
persons who purchased Sirrom common stock between January 20,
1998 and July 10, 1998. The plaintiff, who has been joined
by another intervening plaintiff, seeks unspecified monetary
damages with interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and
equitable relief. Sirrom and the individual defendants have filed
a motion to dismiss the Orrock Lawsuit. That motion has not yet
been set for a hearing before the Chancellor.

Sirrom believes that these shareholder actions are without merit,
and it will continue to vigorously defend the claims brought
against it and the individual defendants.

On January 6, 1999, Sirrom entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of January 6, 1999, by and among The FINOVA
Group Inc., a Delaware corporation ("FINOVA"), FINOVA Newco Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and newly formed wholly-owned subsidiary
of FINOVA ("merger Sub"), and Sirrom.  Pursuant to and subject to
the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
be merged with and into Sirrom, with Sirrom continuing as the
surviving corporation. As a result of the Merger, Sirrom will
become a wholly-owned subsidiary of FINOVA. At the Effective
Time, each issued and outstanding share of common stock of
Sirrom, will be converted into the right to receive .1634 shares
of common stock of FINOVA. If the Effective Time of the Merger is
after June 1, 1999, the Exchange Ratio would increase by .0005
shares. In addition, if Sirrom has entered into a binding
agreement for the settlement of securities class action
litigation, the cost of which to Sirrom is less than $10,000,000,
the Exchange Ratio would also increase, as specified in the
Merger Agreement.


                           *********

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  * * *