CAR_Public/990225.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, February 25, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 15

                           Headlines

AMERICAN BANKNOTE: Berman DeValerio Files Complaint in New York
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment Against John Crane Undisturbed
ASSISTED LIVING: Goodkind Labaton Files Complaint in Oregon
AT&T CORP.: Loses Appeal Over Cellular Billing Suit
CELL PATHWAYS: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in [California]

CENTRAL SPRINKLER: Omega Litigation Settlement Approved
CHARLES SCHWAB: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in Virgin Islands
DRUG PRICING: Details Released About Price-Gouging Settlement
EASTERN ILLINOIS: Sexy Music Class Student Seeks Tuition Refund
GUN MAUFACTURERS: NAACP President Urges Joining Litigation

HOKKAIDO ELECTRIC: Court Rejects Residents' Bid to Close Reactor
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Deutsche Denies Compensation Fund Limitless
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: B'nai B'rith Comments on Deutsche/BT Merger
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Swiss Fund to Mail Payments to US Survivors
INDIAN TRUST: Federal Judge Holds Two Cabinet Members in Contempt

LASER TECHNOLOGY: Hagens Berman Files Complaint in Colorado
LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Pomerantz Haudek Files Suit in Massachusetts
LYCOS, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Massachusetts
MICROSOFT, INC.: Class Action Suits Filed in State Courts
PAN AM 73: U.S. Supreme Court Declines Further Review of Cases

PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Florida
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Berger & Montague File Complaint in Florida
TEXLON CORP.: Company Says SEC Has Initiated Investigation
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Three-Phase Ohio Labor Union Trial Underway
TOTAL RENAL: Spector & Roseman File Complaint in California

TOTAL RENAL: Schatz & Nobel Flies Complaint in California
TOTAL RENAL: Berger & Montague Files Complaint in California
TOTAL RENAL: Weiss & Yourman Files Complaint in [California]
TRANSCRYPT: Posts 4th Quarter Loss After Reserve for Settlement
ZILA, INC.: Berman DeValerio Files Complaint in Arizona

ZILA, INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway File Complaint in Arizona
ZILA, INC.: Berger & Montague File Complaint in Arizona
ZILA, INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Investigating Class Period Extension

                           *********

AMERICAN BANKNOTE: Berman DeValerio Files Complaint in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio & Pease LLP has commenced a securities fraud
class action in the United States District Court for the  
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased the common stock of American Bank Note
Holographics, Inc. (NYSE: ABH) during the period of July 14, 1998
through and including January 15, 1999, and who suffered damages
as a result.

The action charges that ABH made materially false and misleading
statements and omitted from disclosure material facts about the
Company's revenues and earnings.  In particular, ABH revealed
that "sales and net income" for its 1998 fiscal second and third
quarters were materially overstated and that its previously
issued financial statements would have to be restated.  Upon  
disclosure of the news, ABH's common stock price plummeted almost
70% to close at $4 9/16 per share from its prior closing price of
$15.125 per share.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment Against John Crane Undisturbed
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Carelli, writing for the Associated Press, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court left intact a $10.6 million award against
John Crane Inc., an Illinois manufacturer sued over its past use
of asbestos in some of its products.

The justices, without comment, rejected an appeal in which John
Crane Inc., attacked as fundamentally unfair a consolidated trial
in Baltimore in which it was one of many defendants in John Crane
Inc. vs. Abate, Case No. 98-873.  The eight-month Maryland state
court trial that ended in 1995 centered on  thousands of health
claims arising from exposure to products containing  asbestos,
used extensively for decades in insulation and fireproofing
before it  was linked to severe and sometimes deadly respiratory
problems.  The claims of more than 1,000 plaintiffs against about
a dozen defendants were consolidated before Judge Richard Rombro,
but the trial fully handled only  the claims of five
"representative" plaintiffs.

Crane, based in Morton Grove, Illinois, and a subsidiary of Bundy
Corp., manufactures sealing products, including packing used to
seal pumps and valves.  The packing once contained asbestos.   
Crane's liability was upheld by a state appeals court and
Maryland's highest court refused last October to hear the case.

Urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, lawyers for
Crane said, "A sprawling consolidated trial of this complexity
presents such a high probability of jury confusion and prejudice
to the defendant that it must be deemed inherently lacking in due
process."   The appeal noted the growing trend of massive
product-liability litigation, stating, "It seems certain that at
least many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of cases are
resolved by state and federal courts each year in consolidated
proceedings."  Crane's appeal was supported in a friend-of-the-
court brief submitted by, among others, the National Association
of Manufacturers.  "In a consolidated action," they told the
justices, "there is a grave risk that the jury will confuse the
facts applicable to any particular plaintiff or defendant with
those applicable to others."  The trial in Baltimore provided "an  
all too familiar example of the jury confusion, prejudice and
plain error that  can occur," they said.


ASSISTED LIVING: Goodkind Labaton Files Complaint in Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP announces that a class
action complaint alleging violations of Section 10(b)  and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the  
Securities Act of 1933 has been filed against Assisted Living
Concepts, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALF) and certain of its senior officers
and directors.  The lawsuit was filed on February 19, 1999
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's securities between April 29, 1997
and February 1, 1999 and alleges that defendants artificially
inflated the price of Assisted Living's securities during the
Class Period by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial results.  

Specifically, since 1997, the Company improperly recognized  
reimbursements from its joint venture residences as other income
in its financial statements.  The Company will now treat such
loss reimbursement as loans.  Accordingly, the company will be
restating its year ended December 31, 1997 and each of the first
three quarters of 1998.


AT&T CORP.: Loses Appeal Over Cellular Billing Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Reuters relates that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by
an AT&T Corp. subsidiary which argued that a class-action lawsuit
on behalf of its cellular phone customers should be dismissed.  
The justices, without any comment or dissent, let stand a ruling
by a Washington state Supreme Court that reinstated a 1995
lawsuit against AT&T  Wireless over its billing practices.  The
Supreme Court's action cleared the way for the lawsuit to go
forward.

The lawsuit accused AT&T Wireless of breach of contract for
unlawfully "rounding up" bills to the next minute, rather than
billing customers for actual airtime used.  It included other
state law claims of misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of
the state consumer protection act on the grounds that AT&T  
Wireless did not adequately disclose its practice of charging
customers in full-minute increments.

A King County Superior Court dismissed the case in 1996 on the
grounds that the federal law governing telephone carriers took
precedence over state consumer protection laws.  But the state
Supreme Court held in September that an award of damages
to  consumers was not the equivalent of rate-making, which is the
sole domain of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, and
that the state law was not preempted.

Lawyers for AT&T Wireless said the decision contravened the
intent of Congress, promised increased regulatory uncertainty and
will have "a profound, adverse impact on the wireless industry"
if allowed to stand.  "Virtually every major wireless carrier in
the country has been the target of class-action lawsuits
attacking how their calls are charged," they said, adding that
more than 45 cases were filed seeking hundreds of millions of  
dollars in damages.  The lawyers cited a "patchwork of
conflicting and confusing decisions" interpreting the federal law
regulating wireless telecommunications services, and told the
Supreme Court the Washington state case would be "ideal" to  
resolve the issue.

Congress in 1993 amended the law, which says, "No state or local
government shall have any authority to regulate the entry of or
the rates charged by any commercial mobile service or any private
mobile service."  But the law says states were not prohibited
from regulating the other terms and conditions of commercial
mobile services.   

The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association strongly
supported the appeal by AT&T Wireless.  The trade group said the
Washington Supreme Court decision incorrectly allowed state
regulation of wireless rates and that consumers have a federal  
forum to redress their grievances.

But Steve Berman, a lawyer for those customers who brought the
lawsuit, urged the Supreme Court to deny the appeal.  "The
Washington Supreme Court decision simply requires AT&T to charge
the rate it promised," he said.


CELL PATHWAYS: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in [California]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Cell Pathways Inc. (Nasdaq:CLPA) securities between
Nov. 1, 1998, and Feb. 2, 1999, for violations of federal
securities laws.  

Defendants include Cell Pathways and certain of its officers and
directors.  The complaint charges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10-b(5) by, among other things, issuing false and
misleading statements regarding Cell Pathways' financial  
condition, as well as its present and future business prospects.


CENTRAL SPRINKLER: Omega Litigation Settlement Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
Central Sprinkler Corporation (Nasdaq:CNSP) announced that a
California judge has handed down a final ruling that concludes a
two-year-old class action suit filed against the Company related
to its Omega sprinkler heads.  The decision certifies the case as
a  national class action for settlement purposes and dismisses
with prejudice the claims of class members who failed to exclude
themselves prior to the court imposed deadline of February 6,
1999.

The Company praised the decision as a major step in concluding
the Omega matter.  E. Talbot ("Tal") Briddell, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, said:  "The judge's final approval of the
class action settlement is excellent news for the Company.  With
the courts approval of the class action settlement, the Company
is now focused on its core business of developing, manufacturing  
and marketing the most innovative, safe and cost-effective
sprinkler systems on  the market."

Mr. Briddell also said that, as previously announced, current
reserves remain adequate to fund the settlement and parallel
product recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  
Central Sprinkler continues to receive claims pursuant to the
settlement and recall, and has been filling these claims on
a  timely basis.



CHARLES SCHWAB: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in Virgin Islands
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it filed
a class action lawsuit in Federal Court in the U.S. Virgin
Islands on behalf of all persons who placed market  orders to
purchase or sell shares of stock or other securities through
accounts  with Charles Schwab and Co., Inc. between February 1,
1996 and the  present and were damaged by the conduct alleged in
the Complaint.

The lawsuit charges defendants with violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and applicable common law to benefit themselves at the
expense and to the detriment of plaintiff and members of the
while 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.


DRUG PRICING: Details Released About Price-Gouging Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported, see TCR 22-Feb-1999, 19 drug
manufacturers agreed to settle a price-gouging class action
lawsuit for $176 million.  The settlement, given preliminary
court approval last Thursday, provides for payment of:

     $148.0 million worth of brand-name drugs to be provided to
                    300 nonprofit California medical clinics that
                    provide drugs to the poor;

       $1.6 million in fees to to administer the three-year
                    program; and

      $27.0 million in fees to attorneys for the plaintiffs.

"We view this to be an exceptional result," said plaintiffs'
attorney Bill Bernstein.  "The cost of auditing claims and
distributing money would eat up so much of the benefit that we
thought we could do so much public good by distributing through
the public health community."

Among the settling defendants are Merck & Co., Carter- Wallace  
Inc., Glaxo Wellcome, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer,
SmithKline Beecham, Pharmacia & Upjohn, Schering-Plough, Zeneca,
Warner Lambert, Abbott, Rhone-Poulenc, Dupont, Boehringer
Ingleheim and Knoll.

Companies named in the class-action lawsuit that did not join the
settlement are: Ciba-Geigy, G. D. Searle, Hoffmann LaRoche,
Johnson & Johnson, Marion Merrell Dow, Ortho Pharmaceutical,
Purdue-Frederick, Forest Laboratories and Sandoz Pharmaceuticals.

In a federal case filed in Chicago, many of the same companies
agreed three years ago to pay $700 million to settle allegations
they conspired to charge pharmacists more than health maintenance
organizations and other big volume buyers such as mail-order drug
firms.  Several companies declined to take part in the Chicago
settlement, and when they went to trial the judge dismissed the
case.   Although federal law does not allow it, California law
allows suits to be filed on behalf of so-called "indirect
purchasers" -- in this case prescription drug users who bought
the products from pharmacies and not directly from the companies
themselves.  Last December, a judge approved a $64.3 million
settlement between 10 states  and the District of Columbia and
the world's largest drug companies in a lawsuit that charged the
manufacturers conspired to destroy competition between  retailers
and health maintenance organizations.

Merck spokesman John Doorley said the company settled the
California case "rather than risk an inaccurate **verdict**. We
price our products competitively and fairly in response to market
pressure and we never have been involved in any price
conspiracy."

Lowell Weiner, a spokesman for American Home Products Corp., said
the companies "agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the
burden and expense of litigation."

Druggists claimed, for example, that they paid up to $28.90 for
100 tablets of a  synthetic thyroid drug, while HMOs paid as
little as $1.43.


EASTERN ILLINOIS: Sexy Music Class Student Seeks Tuition Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
A music class taught by a professor at Eastern Illinois
University is generating controversy because it contains material
some students find offensive, reports United Press International.  
A 30-year-old woman who needed the course on non-Western music
for a teaching credential is seeking a tuition refund.  April
Hixson claims instead of music, she spent the semester in
professor Douglas DiBianco's class reviewing material on bizarre
sexual practices and scatological fetishes.

The 56-year-old DiBianco admits (in the Chicago Tribune) that
some of his material is outrageous. But he says he includes it to
provide context and open his students' minds. Another DiBianco
class was the target of a 1993 sexual harassment complaint by two
female students.  The school rejected their claim but the two
women have since brought the matter before the Illinois Human  
Rights Commission.


GUN MAUFACTURERS: NAACP President Urges Joining Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
New Orleans and some other cities may be getting some assistance
in their efforts to sue gun manufacturers from the NAACP.  Since
gun-related crimes hit minority communities at high rates across
the country, United Press International relates, the NAACP is
considering joining the growing number of cities filing lawsuits
against gun makers, says NAACP president Kweisi Mfume.  His
comments came at the weekend annual meeting of the organization
in Washington. Mfume said he would present several options to the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's 64-
member board of directors ranging from issuing a resolution that  
voices concern about guns to joining suits filed by cities
including Chicago and New Orleans.  He also said the NAACP could
file a separate suit.


HOKKAIDO ELECTRIC: Court Rejects Residents' Bid to Close Reactor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Sapporo District Court on Monday rejected a lawsuit
brought by people living near Hokkaido Electric Power Co.'s
nuclear plant in Tomari to have its reactors closed down.  In a
ruling that puts into question the use of nuclear plants,
Presiding Judge Yoshihiro Katayama said a concrete risk of danger
cannot be recognized, though the safety of nuclear power plants
cannot be deemed absolute.

"Looking at the future of mankind, the suspension of nuclear
reactors that produce radioactive waste could be one path to be
taken through the reduction of electricity consumption while
enduring a bit of inconvenience," Katayama said.

Some 1,000 plaintiffs near the company's nuclear power plant in
the village of Tomari on the Sea of Japan coast argued that
radioactivity emitted from the two reactors, both 579,000-
kilowatts, in its normal operations may have adverse effects on
human health and that there is no guarantee against accidents at
the  nuclear facility, according to Kyodo News.  The suit claimed
the plant operation infringes on the Constitution-guaranteed  
rights of the people to a favorable environment and to live
without life and health being threatened.  The power company
argued that the constitutional rights cannot be grounds for  
the plaintiffs' claim, and that safety measures at the plant make
the occurrence of accidents that would cause damage to neighbors
unthinkable.

The case was brought to the court in 1988, two years after the
disastrous accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine,
then in the Soviet Union.  The No. 1 reactor began operation in
June 1989 and the No. 2 reactor in April 1991.  Hokkaido
Electric, which currently relies on nuclear energy for 30% of the  
total power it generates, made public in July last year a plan to
construct a third reactor to meet a growth in demand for
electricity.  The proposed No. 3 reactor is envisioned to begin
operations in 2008 with a capacity to generate 912,000 kw of
electricity.  Kyodo relates that the ruling is the latest in a
series of court** rejections of suits seeking shutdown of
reactors at power stations, including Tohoku Electric Power Co.'s  
Onagawa nuclear plant in Miyagi Prefecture, Kansai Electric Power
Co.'s Takahama plant in Fukui Prefecture, and Hokuriku Electric
Power Co.'s Shika plant in Ishikawa Prefecture.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Deutsche Denies Compensation Fund Limitless
--------------------------------------------------------------
>From Frankfurt, Reuters reports that the chief executive of
Deutsche Bank AG, Rolf Breuer, denied previous press reports that
German companies setting up a compensation fund for Holocaust
victims had decided to put no limit on the fund.  


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: B'nai B'rith Comments on Deutsche/BT Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, a press release announced opposition by B'nai B'rith
International, the world's largest Jewish human rights group and
Claims for Jewish Slave-Labour Compensation, an international
association representing Jewish ghetto and concentration camp
survivors, to the merger of the Deutsche Bank and Bankers Trust.
The release suggested that B'nai B'rith broke with the World
Jewish Congress's willingness to accept a German reparations deal
for Holocaust survivors aid, and is strongly opposed to any
merger agreement or aid package that allows that merger to go
forward, until the rightful claims of slave laborers are fully
met.

Pointing to the recent revelation by Deutsche Bank of it's role
in financing the building of the Auschwitz death camp, B'nai
B'rith International President Richard D.Heideman said, "The
bank's record of crimes against humanity is not something which
can be removed with a simple statement of apology.  Before U.S.  
regulators can look past this terrible corporate history, the
Bank needs to fulfill its moral and material obligations to the
surviving victims of the Holocaust.  To do so would be morally
reprehensible."

"It is clear that United States-based lawsuits and international
interest in German company mergers in the United States have by
no means ended," said Michael D. Hausfeld, a partner at Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., and lead counsel for W.W.II
forced laborer plaintiff class action lawsuits.  Mr. Hausfeld, a
Washington, D.C. attorney, was co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs
in the recent case against the Swiss banks that resulted in a
1998 settlement by the banks for $1.25 billion.  

Thursday, B'nai B'rith International said its position was mis-
characterized in Wednesday's release issued from the office of
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll.  B'nai B'rith International --
too late -- called upon all media to refrain from using the
characterizations of the organization's position erroneously
conveyed in the release issued on behalf of Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll.

While the quote attributed to B'nai B'rith International
President Richard D. Heideman was correct, it was incorrect to
claim that B'nai B'rith International is "strongly opposed to any
merger agreement or aid package that allows that  merger to go
forward. . . ."  It was also incorrect to characterize B'nai
B'rith International as "breaking with the World Jewish Congress"
(or, as stated in a  "correction," that B'nai B'rith "disagrees
with the World Jewish Congress") on this issue.

B'nai B'rith International clearly stated its position in a
February 12 press release in which Heideman expressed his
encouragement "that Deutsche Bank has now agreed to enter into a
process whereby they will make fair restitution to those who
suffered so brutally and their families.  While we are optimistic
that the process will fairly compensate the victims," the B'nai
B'rith president continued, "we believe it inappropriate for any
regulatory decision on the merger to be made before the process,
including resolution of the pending litigation in the United
States District Court, has concluded."

B'nai B'rith International stands by its previous statement and
regrets that its position was inaccurately characterized and that
this was done without consultation with the organization.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Swiss Fund to Mail Payments to US Survivors
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Swiss-based Fund for Needy Victims of the Holocaust will
start mailing checks today for $502 to each of the 60,071 Jewish
Holocaust survivors who live in the United States, according to
the World Jewish Restitution Organisation.  "While the sum is
largely symbolic, it is a significant humanitarian gesture from
the Swiss and we greatly welcome it," Gideon Taylor, treasurer,
said in prepared remarks.

A separate process was set up by the Swiss Fund for non-Jewish
victims of the Holocaust, Reuters reported in its coverage of
this news, adding that around 40,000 survivors in Eastern Europe
already have gotten checks and payments were expected to soon
begin in the United Kingdom and other European countries.  The
U.S. payout is more generous than the $400 given in December 1998
to each of the 3,200 Jewish survivors of World War II who live in
the Ukraine.

This aid is separate from the $1.25 billion settlement that last
year Swiss banks agreed to pay to Holocaust victims.   

The Swiss Fund for Needy Victims of the Holocaust was founded in
March 1997.  In the United States, payments will be made to Jews
who are in need, are citizens or legal residents of the United
States, and who lived in countries that were occupied by the
Nazis or who lived in nations that were ruled by their
collaborators.   The Fund at present has around 284 million Swiss
francs (about $185 million), which was contributed by the three
major Swiss banks, other Swiss companies and the Swiss National
Bank, according to Taylor.   Additionally, the Fund has gotten at
least one outside contribution.  The deadline for applications
was Nov. 30, 1998


INDIAN TRUST: Federal Judge Holds Two Cabinet Members in Contempt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Brasher, writing for the Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge held two Clinton Cabinet secretaries in contempt
this week over the Government's delay in producing records of
Indian trust funds.  U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued
the contempt order, saying Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt failed to produce documents
related to a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Indian  
trust funds.  The secretaries and Assistant Interior Secretary
Kevin Gover were ordered to pay legal fees and other expenses
that resulted from their delay in complying with Lamberth's
November 1996 order to produce documents.

"The federal government . . . engaged in a shocking pattern of
deception of the court.  I have never seen more egregious
misconduct by the federal government," Lamberth said in a 76-page
ruling.  "The court is deeply disappointed that any litigant
would fail to obey orders for production of documents, and then
conceal and cover up that disobedience with outright false
statements that the court then relied upon," the judge wrote.  
"But when that litigant is the federal government, the misconduct
is even more troubling."

The judge's ruling followed a contempt hearing last month that
grew out of a class-action lawsuit related to a long and
embarrassing attempt to clean up $2.5 billion in Indian trust
funds.  The funds include 300,000 accounts held by individual
Indians and another 2,000 tribal accounts worth $2 billion.  The
government pays an estimated $500 million a year into about
300,000 trust accounts held by individual Indians.  Most of the
trust accounts were set up long ago to handle the proceeds from
the sale of natural resources on Indian lands, lease revenues,
royalties and court settlements.  Some of the accounts are worth
only a few dollars.  The largest one, valued at $400 million, is
a court's award to the Sioux nation for its loss of the Black
Hills.

Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs was ordered two years ago to
turn over statements, checks and other documents on accounts held
by five Indians who are the lead plaintiffs in the suit against
the Interior and Treasury departments.  So far, only a small
number of the documents have been produced.  Government lawyers
admitted they missed two court-ordered deadlines to provide the
records -- deadlines set so the plaintiffs and their attorneys  
could prepare for trial.

Lamberth indicated he regrets that Rubin became enmeshed in the
Indian funds "fiasco" and suffered the tarnish of a civil
contempt citation as a result.  "What is clear is that he has
totally delegated his responsibility to others and they have
miserably failed to comply with this court's orders," the
judge wrote.  The Treasury Department, the Associated Press said,
had no immediate reaction to the ruling.

The judge also said he would appoint a special master to oversee
the production of the documents from the two departments.


LASER TECHNOLOGY: Hagens Berman Files Complaint in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action proceeding was commenced by Hagens Berman &
Mitchell, P.S., in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Laser Technology, Inc. (Amex: LSR) during the period
from February 12, 1996 through December 23, 1998.

The complaint charges that LSR and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws.
Specifically, plaintiffs have brought claims sections 10(b) and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that LSR and certain of its officers and
directors participated in a fraudulent scheme by misstating its
reported financial results during the Class Period.  The
complaint alleges that these misrepresentations caused LSR shares
to trade at an artificially inflated price during the Class
Period.  

The complaint further alleges that in October of 1998, a Special
Committee of the board of directors was convened to look into
financial misconduct by the  Company.  During the pendency of
this investigation, the Company's independent auditors, BDO
Seidman, LLP resigned as the Company's auditors and withdrew its  
previously issued audit opinions on LSR's fiscal 1993 through
fiscal 1997 financial statements.  When this resignation was
announced on December 23, 1998, the American Stock Exchange
halted trading in the Company's stock -- and trading has never
resumed.

The complaint also alleges that based upon their investigation,
the Special Committee recommended the termination of the
President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company
and other serious steps which the Special Committee felt
"necessary and fundamental to restore the credibility of the  
Company."  LSR refused to take such remedial action, and, as a
result, the entire Special Committee resigned from the Company's
board of directors on January 7, 1999.


LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Pomerantz Haudek Files Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP and Bruce G. Murphy,
Esq., have filed suit against Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products
(Nasdaq: LHSPF) and certain corporate insiders in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of all purchasers of Lernout securities during the period
February 3, 1998 through and including December 1, 1998.

The price of Lernout's common stock fell dramatically after the
Company announced on December 1, 1998 that the Securities and
Exchange Commission was reviewing the Company's accounting
methods for acquisitions since 1996, with twelve of Lernout's 23
acquisitions during this time period coming under scrutiny.  
According to one analyst who follows the Company, earnings for
the year could decline by nearly 50 percent, depending on what
actions Lernout takes in response to the SEC inquiry.  The
complaint alleges that, by improperly accounting for certain
expenses arising from acquisitions during the Class Period,
Lernout issued false and misleading financial statements to the  
public, thereby causing the price of its stock to be artificially
inflated.  In addition, the complaint alleges that certain
insiders sold more than 528,000 shares of Lernout common stock
during the Class Period at the artificially inflated prices,
yielding proceeds of more than $23 million.


LYCOS, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLC, announced it filed a
class action suit on February 22, 1999, in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on  behalf of
all persons who purchased the common stock of Lycos Inc. (NASDAQ:  
LCOS), between January 25, 1999 and February 9,  1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Lycos and its Chief Executive Officer 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 false
statements which represented that Lycos was "committed to an  
independent strategy" when, in fact, Lycos was in serious and
advanced discussions to merge with USA Networks, Inc., with Lycos
shareholders constituting no more than 30 percent of the equity
holders in the newly-formed entity.  When Lycos announced that it
had agreed to a transaction with USA, the price of Lycos common
stock fell sharply -- dropping from $127.25 per share to $94.25
per share, a decline of 25% on extremely heavy trading volume.


MICROSOFT, INC.: Class Action Suits Filed in State Courts
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hines of Newsbytes reports that Microsoft Corp.
[NASDAQ:MSFT] has become a target for an increasing number of
lawsuits.  Last week, two new claims were leveled against the
software giant.   As Microsoft continues to battle its high-
profile antitrust suit against the Justice department and 19 US
states in Washington, as well as fight ongoing legal battles
against Sun Microsystems Inc., Blue Mountain Entertainment,  
Caldera, and Bristol Technology.

Like the federal antitrust case, the new, class-action claims
filed separately in Washington and California, both charge that
Microsoft is using anti-competitive tactics in marketing and
distributing its Windows operating system (OS).  The two suits
also utilize much of the testimony and evidence being used in the
government case to argue their respective points. Microsoft  
could stand to pay substantial damages if the latest charges
against it are proven true.

The first claim, filed in Washington, by Fort Worth, Texas-based
Gravity, Inc., contends that Microsoft worked with partners --
including Compaq Computer Corp., Dell Computer Corp., and Packard
Bell NEC -- to help create a monopoly for the popular OS.  
Gravity charges that the bundling of Windows with the three PC
vendor's machines constitutes a monopoly by  controlling end
users' choice in operating systems.  The claim also accuses the
companies of helping to control pricing on their products through
their partnership relationships.  Gravity, which specializes in
document and evidence management for the legal market, further
contends that Microsoft harmed it by failing to disclose
application interfaces, or APIs, needed to develop programs that
sit on top of Windows.

The second claim, brought in California, charges that Microsoft
has effectively limited customers freedom of choice and
maintained certain levels of pricing by bundling Windows on
vendor's PCs.  The case was filed by a retired consumer named
Charles Lingo who bought a PC that came with the Windows OS
last year.  Lingo attempted to return the Windows software but
was denied a refund of any kind by Microsoft.  "He has
effectively been forced to pay twice for operating software,"
said a release issued by Lingo's attorney's.  "Once for
Microsoft's and a second time for the privilege of using what he
believes to be a superior competing product."  The claim includes
charges filed on behalf of all customers who received Microsoft
products bundled onto Intel-based systems within the past five
years.

"There's nothing new in [these suits] that we haven't seen
before," a Microsoft spokesman told Reuters, arguing that the
company has kept the price of Windows low and cut the price of
its application software due to competition.  


PAN AM 73: U.S. Supreme Court Declines Further Review of Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court refused to revive lawsuits stemming from the
1986 terrorist hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi,
Pakistan, the Associated Press reports.  The justices, without
comment, turned away arguments that allegations against Pan
American World Airways and a security firm should be restudied in  
light of their decision last year on transfers of complex
lawsuits from one federal trial court to another.

A New York-based federal appeals court ruled in the Flight 73
case last June that the earlier Supreme Court decision should not
be applied retroactively.

In response to public concern over terrorism on international
airline flights, Pan Am contracted with Alert Management Systems
to enhance security on those flights. The airline advertised its
program to improve airport security.  

On Sept. 5, 1986, Pan Am Flight 73 left Bombay, India, en route
to New York with a scheduled stop in Karachi. While the plane was
on the ground at Karachi's airport, armed hijackers boarded and
eventually fatally gunned down 20 passengers.  Many others were
wounded.

About a dozen lawsuits against Pan Am and Alert Management
Systems were consolidated in a federal court in New York.  Some
of the victims and victims' surviving relatives challenged the
transfer of their case.

All claims stemming from international air travel are governed by
the Warsaw Convention, which imposes a $75,000 per passenger
limit on liability, unless an air carrier engaged in willful
misconduct.  The Flight 73 lawsuits alleged such willful
misconduct.

A federal trial jury in 1994 concluded that Pan Am had engaged in
willful misconduct in touting its security system but that there
was no proof the misconduct caused the hijacking.  The $75,000
limits on liability therefore were imposed.

When the Supreme Court decision on transferring complex cases was
announced last March, appeals in the Flight 73 case still were
pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  But that
court said the March ruling "does not apply retroactively."

The original Pan Am World Airways declared bankruptcy and closed
down operations in 1991.  Pan Am Corp., its parent firm, is in
the final stages of liquidation following that bankruptcy. The
name Pan Am Airways was sold during the bankruptcy proceedings,
but the airline in its newest incarnation is not involved in the
lawsuit.

The cases rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court are Singh vs. Pan
Am, 98-905, and Patel vs. Pan Am, 98-907.


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP announced that it 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
condition and operating performance.


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Berger & Montague File Complaint in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. announced that it has filed a Complaint
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The action, seeking class action status, was filed 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 during the period from April 28, 1998, through
February 12, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Pediatrix
overstated  its earnings by at least $1.3 million by capitalizing
bonuses paid to its acquisition team instead of treating those
payments as expenses.  Plaintiffs also allege that Pediatrix
issued false and misleading statements concerning its accounts
receivable.  The Complaint alleges that Pediatrix recently
engaged a new auditor because the SEC found that its former
auditor had violated auditor independence rules.  Problems were
identified, the complaint alleges, during the new auditor's audit  
of Pediatrix' 1998 financial statements.


TEXLON CORP.: Company Says SEC Has Initiated Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Telxon Corp. , a maker of wireless communication devices, said it
is the subject of a federal probe of heavy trading in the  
company around the time of its Dec. 11 earnings restatement
announcement.  The Akron, Ohio, company was served with a
subpoena on Feb. 11 by the Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding the trading activity and "specified accounting
matters,"  Telxon said in a quarterly filing with the SEC  
on Feb. 16.  It did not elaborate on those two items in the SEC
filing.

The company said in the document that it was "cooperating fully"
with regulators but declined in a telephone call Monday to give
specifics about the probe.  

The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter,
said the SEC in December began an informal inquiry into insider
trading after there were unusual buys of Telxon put options,
contracts that give the right to sell a set number of shares at a
certain price by a specified date.  In advance of the December
news release, there was greater-than-usual buying of puts
exercisable at $25 per share before Dec. 11.  But the puts soared
in value as Telxon's stock fell to the teens from nearly $30, the
newspaper reported.  The Journal added that the SEC also
subpoenaed a Telxon rival, Symbol Technologies Inc. which had
been in talks with Telxon about a $900 million takeover before
the December announcement in which Telxon said it would be  
restating revenues for the second quarter ended Sept. 30, 1998.    
Symbol, based in Holtsville, N.Y., backed off from the deal after  
questioning whether $14 million in revenue booked by Telxon in
late September was a true sale, the newspaper reported, adding
that shortly after those talks ended, Telxon announced the
restatement.

Telxon said at the time it would lower second-quarter revenues to
about $110 million from the reported $124 million, and will
report a second-quarter loss, before one-time items, of about 5
cents per diluted share, rather than the reported profit of 22
cents before items.

That news prompted a total of 26 class-action suits against the
company for alleged fraud.  Telxon, saying the claims lack merit,
plans to file a motion to dismiss, according to a report
circulated by Reuters.

The SEC, which lately has been on a vigorous campaign of
scrutinizing companies' accounting methods, notified Telxon via a
letter dated Dec. 18 that it was conducting the informal inquiry,
Reuters said.  By Jan. 20, the agency issued a formal order
directing a private investigation and designating its officials
to take testimony, followed about a month later by the subpoena,
Telxon said in the regulatory filing.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Three-Phase Ohio Labor Union Trial Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey T. Ottenbacher, a United Press International reporter
attending the trial which opened in an Akron federal courtroom
Monday to hear a $2 billion class-action suit filed  by Ohio
labor unions against the nation's tobacco companies, reports that  
a jury of six men and six women has been seated.  The trial, the
jurors were told, is expected to last as long as three months. A
59-person jury panel was questioned by lawyers and U.S. District
Judge  James Gwin whether they had a relative die from a smoking-
related illness or if they had any significant legal knowledge
about previous similar trials involving the tobacco industry.
Prospective jurors answering "yes" to either question were
dismissed.

The lawsuit, Mr. Ottenbacher recalls, accuses the tobacco
companies of maintaining a long-standing pattern of targeting
blue-colar workers and their children through advertising and
promotional campaigns that encouraged them to smoke.  The lawsuit
also alleges that since the mid-1950s, major tobacco companies
have hidden the health hazards of cigarette smoking that had been
determined by the companies own research laboratories.  
Allegations included in the original lawsuit, such as federal and
state antitrust violations, fraud, misrepresentation, breach of
warranty, and negligence, were dismissed before trial.

The trial, Mr. Ottenbacher reports, is to be conducted in three
phases:

   * First a trial will be held to determine liability.

   * If the defendants are found liable, a second trial then will
     be held to determine damages for the six named plaintiffs.

   * And then, if the defendants are found liable, a third trial
     will be held to determine damages for the class members.

Named defendants include Philip Morris Inc.; the R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., RJR Nabisco Inc., the RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp.,
the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., the British American Tobacco
Co. Ltd., the Lorillard Tobacco Co., the American Tobacco Co.,
the Liggett Group Inc. (reportedly severed and cooperating with
the plaintiffs), and the United States Tobacco Sales and
Marketing Co.

The plaintiffs are a class of all labor plaintiffs and 108 absent
class members.  The named plaintiffs are Iron Workers Local Union
No. 17 Insurance Fund, IBEW Local No. 38 Health and Welfare Fund;
Ohio Laborers' District Council - Ohio Contractors' Association
Insurance Fund, Dealers-Unions Insurance Fund, Local 47 Welfare
Fund No. 1, and the Toledo Electrical Welfare Fund.

During the plaintiff lawyers' opening statements, numerous
documents and slides were shown to the jury, allegedly showing  
discrepancies between the tobacco companies' private and public
communications.  The plaintiffs' lawyers told the jury they would  
prove, among other things, the tobacco companies used additives
to increase and  make available more nicotine to smokers and,
therefore, increase usage;  suppressed development of safer
cigarettes; and concealed research results.

Tobacco company lawyers, in their opening statement, said they
would prove the companies did not band together to suppress
developments and other information, as alleged in the lawsuit.
The lawyers said they have tried for years to develop a safer
cigarette -- as demonstrated by both domestic and foreign  
research -- but their attempts were failures in the marketplace.

A senior vice president with the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Dan
Donahue, was asked by United Press International why the case was
being heard since 10 similar lawsuits by unions in other state
had been dismissed.  He said, "Because some very talented lawyers
engaged in a massive case of judge shopping to find a judge
sympathetic to their position."


TOTAL RENAL: Spector & Roseman File Complaint in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Spector & Roseman, P.C., connenced a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Total Renal Care
Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:TRL) between February 17, 1998 and
February 17, 1999.

The lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  It charges TRC and
certain of its officers and  directors with violating the federal
securities laws by making misrepresentations about TRC's
business, the successful integration of Renal Treatment Centers,
TRC's earnings growth and financial condition, and its ability to
continue to achieve profitable growth.

These allegedly false and misleading statements caused TRC's
stock price to be artificially inflated during the Class Period,
and allowed TRC to make acquisitions using TRC stock as currency,
and to complete a $345 million convertible debt offering.

On February 17, 1999, however, the Company unexpectedly disclosed
much weaker earnings for the fourth quarter, that it was writing-
off $11 million in receivables, and that it received a letter
from the Securities and Exchange Commission questioning the
Company's accounting practices in its 1998 filings.  As a result
of this announcement, TRC's stock price collapsed from a Class  
Period high of $36-1/8 in June 1998, to as low as $8-3/4 per
share.


TOTAL RENAL: Schatz & Nobel Flies Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was commenced on February 22, 1999 in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of Total Renal Care
Holdings Inc. (NYSE:TRL) common stock from February 17, 1998 to
February 17, 1999, inclusive.  The Plaintiff is represented by
the law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Total Renal
Care and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among
other  things, knowingly or recklessly making misrepresentations
about Total Renal Care's business, financial condition, earnings,
and the Company's integration of Renal Treatment Centers.  The
Complaint further alleges that by making these material
misrepresentations, the Defendants artificially inflated the
price of the Company's common stock during the Class Period.


TOTAL RENAL: Berger & Montague Files Complaint in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. announced that it has filed a securities
class action against Total Renal Care Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: TRL)
in the United States District Court for the Central District of  
California on behalf of purchasers of Total Renal Care Holdings,
Inc. common stock during the period from February 17, 1998,
through February 17, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Total Renal Care and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting or failing to
disclose material information about TRL's operations and
financial condition.  Plaintiff specifically alleges that  
defendants' statements during the Class Period were false and
misleading because the Company, in connection with its
acquisition of Renal Treatment Centers, Inc., lacked adequate
internal controls to accurately track operating costs and
uncollectible receivables.  As a result, more than ten months
after the Company announced that its integration plan was
essentially complete and going smoothly, extraordinary charges of
$12.3 million were incurred in the fourth quarter of 1998 without
warning to investors.

On February 18, 1999, Total Renal Care shocked the investment
community with the news that fourth quarter 1998 earnings fell
far short of expectations and that Total Renal Care is the target
of an SEC inquiry.  In response to the Company's February 18,
1999, disclosures, the stock price collapsed on extraordinarily
heavy trading from $21.75 per share to $8.875 per share.


TOTAL RENAL: Weiss & Yourman Files Complaint in [California]
------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Total Renal Care Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: TRL)
securities between February 17, 1998 and February 17,  1999 for
violations of federal securities laws.  Defendants include Total
Renal  Care. and certain of its officers and directors.  

The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5) by,
among other things, issuing false and misleading statements
regarding Total Renal Care's financial results.


TRANSCRYPT: Posts 4th Quarter Loss After Reserve for Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transcrypt International, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: TRII)
announced revenues of $11.9 million for the quarter ended
December 31, 1998, and $62.0 million for the year ended December
31, 1998.  Against those revenues, the Company posted a $14.7
million loss for the quarter ended December 31, 1998, and a $22.3
million loss for the year.  The fourth quarter loss includes a
special provision of $10.0 million relating to the federal and
state class action lawsuits pending in Nebraska against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers.  

As previously reported, the Company is in ongoing settlement  
discussions regarding these lawsuits.  While no settlement
agreement has been reached, the $10.0 million special provision
is the Company's best estimate of the amount that would be
necessary for the Company to contribute to settle the class
actions.  The Company would anticipate satisfying any settlement
by  issuing shares of common stock to the class members rather
than using its cash  reserves.  Despite the taking of the
special provision, the Company can give no assurances to
investors whether any settlement can be reached, what would be
the terms of any settlement or whether the Company would be
required to contribute more than $10.0 million.

In addition to the $10.0 million special provision, during the
year ended December 31, 1998, the Company incurred a charge of
$1.2 million for restructuring the workforce and incurred legal,
audit and severance expenses of $3.0 million associated with the
Company's restatement of its financial statements, the audit
committee investigation, class action lawsuits and SEC
investigation.  During the year ended December 31, 1997, the
Company incurred a charge of $9.8 million for in-process research
and development cost  in connection with its acquisition of EFJ.


ZILA, INC.: Berman DeValerio Filed Complaint in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
Zila, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZILA) was [again] charged with misleading
investors with respect to its FDA application regarding its
OraTest (R) oral cancer detection device. The case was filed as a
class on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of Zila during the period September 9, 1998 through
and including January 13, 1999 and who suffered losses on their
investments.  The complaint, filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona, charges defendants with
violations of the federal securities laws.

The action charges that Zila and certain of its senior officers
and directors misrepresented the Company's application to the FDA
for approval of its OraTest (R) oral cancer detection device.  On
January 13, 1999, an FDA advisory panel unanimously voted against
recommending approval.  One of the panel members stated that "I
cannot think of a single credible scientific organization that  
would accept the research offered by the company."  During the
class period, the Company had represented that it submitted
strong and compelling evidence of the product's efficacy to the
FDA and that it expected FDA approval.  Zila's stock plunged 44%
when it was revealed that the FDA panel would recommend  
against approval.


ZILA, INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway File Complaint in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announced that it commenced a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District **Court**
for the District of Arizona on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Zila, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZILA) from June 29, 1998
through January 13, 1999, inclusive.  

The complaint charges Zila and certain of its officers and
directors with misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information concerning Zila's OraTest(R) product and the status
of its clinical trials.


ZILA, INC.: Berger & Montague File Complaint in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. announced that it has filed a complaint
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The action, seeking class action status,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on behalf  of purchasers of Zila, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZILA)
common stock during the period from  September 9, 1998 through
January 13, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Zila and certain of its senior
officers and directors misrepresented the status of the clinical
trials and the Company's application to the FDA for approval of
its OraTest(R) oral cancer detection device.  During the Class
Period, Zila represented that it had submitted strong and
compelling evidence of the product's efficacy to the FDA and that
it expected approval.  On January 13, 1999, an FDA advisory panel
unanimously voted against approval.  One panel member said, "I
cannot think of a single credible scientific organization that
would accept the research offered by the company."  Zila's stock
plummeted 44% upon disclosure of the recommendation of non-
approval.


ZILA, INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Investigating Class Period Extension
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP previously announced
the filing of a suit against Zila, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZILA) and
certain corporate insiders in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona on behalf of all  purchasers of Zila
securities during the period September 9, 1998 through and  
including January 13, 1999.  Since that announcement, the  
Pomerantz firm says it has received numerous inquiries from
interested investors, including many who acquired Zila securities
prior to the beginning of the Class Period.

In light of the investor response to the original notice, the
Firm says, it is currently contemplating filing an amended
complaint extending the Class Period back to January 8, 1997,
when Zila reported that it expected "near-term FDA approval" of
OraTest, touting the $500 million market for the product in the
United States.  Given the apparent severe  deficiencies in Zila's
FDA application, the Pomerantz firm believes that the  defendants
either knowingly or recklessly misled the market concerning the  
status of its application and the evidence purporting to support
the validity of OraTest.


                           *********

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  * * *