CAR_Public/990302.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, March 2, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 18

                           Headlines

AMERICAN BANKNOTE: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in New York
ARKANSAS FARMERS: Pine Bluff Attorney Holds How-To Meeting
AVON PRODUCTS: Continuing to Defend Against PERCS Class Action
BOSTON HOUSING: HUD Backs Tenants in Boston Housing Disputes
BREAST IMPLANTS: Corning's Comments From its Annual Report

CARNIVAL CORP.: Status of Passenger & Travel Agent Litigation
CHEVRON PRODUCTS: Achieves Resolution of ADA Class Action Suit
CHILDRENS PLACE: Discovery Continues in IPO Shareholders' Suit
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Defending Texas & Massachusetts Complaints
COMPLETE MANAGEMENT: Stull Stull Files Complaint in [California]

CONTINENTAL INVESTMENT: Wastemasters May Seek to Rescind Purchase
CORNING, INC: Discovery Continues for Summary Judgment Response
CUBAN AIR: Victims' Relatives Attempt to Garnish ETECSA Accounts
DNAP HOLDING: Company Will Vigorously Defend Shareholder Suits
DTE ENERGY: Detroit Edison Preparing for Binding Arbitration

DTM CORPORATION: Proactive Deal Does Not Disturb Settlement Pact
ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Milberg Weiss File Complaint in Iowa
ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Reinhardt & Anderson Files Suit in Iowa
GEOCITIES: Fighting California Privacy Complaints
ILM LEASE: Amended Complaint Coming; Company Vows to Fight Claims

INTERCARGO CORP.: Merger Proposal Undeterred by Shareholder Suit
INTERNET FRAUD: Texas AG Available at fightback@oag.state.tx.us
JDA SOFTWARE: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Arizona
LASER TECHNOLOGY: CEO and CFO Resign
LASER TECHNOLOGY: Norton & Frickey File Complaint in Colorado

LASER TECHNOLOGY: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Colorado
LASER TECHNOLOGY: Company Comments on Suits & Intends to Fight
LYCOS, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Massachusetts
MERCANTILE BANK: Unfair Check Overdraft Charges Prompts Lawsuit
SPYGLASS, INC.: Berger & Montague Files Complaint in Illinois

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Blue Cross Blue Shield Trial Begins in 2000
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Testimony Continues in Ohio Union Trial
TOBACCO LITIGATION: English High Court Dismisses 46 Suits
TOTAL RENAL: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California
TOTAL RENAL: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in California

TWINLAB CORPORATION: Scope of Shareholder Class to be Expanded
TWINLAB CORP.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in New York
VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Summary Judgment Appeal Before 9th Cir. Pends
WASTEMASTERS, INC.: Announces Positions in Shareholder Litigation
WASTEMASTERS, INC.: Creditors File Involuntary Bankruptcy Case

WORLD ACCESS: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Complaint in Georgia

                           *********

AMERICAN BANKNOTE: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP, filed a class action complaint in the United  
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a  Class of persons who purchased securities issued by
American Banknote Holographics, Inc. (NYSE: ABH) in the Company's  
initial public offering, or in the open market at artificially
inflated prices during the period July 15, 1998 through January
15, 1999.

The Complaint charges that defendants knowingly issued materially
false and misleading statements which resulted in the
overstatement of the Company's reported sales and net income for
the second and third quarters of 1998 in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On
January 19, 1999, the Company announced that its financial
results for the second and third quarters of fiscal 1998 will be
restated.  When trading in ABH shares resumed on January 20,
1999, the market price of ABH plunged nearly 70% from $15-1/8 to
$4-9/16 per share.


ARKANSAS FARMERS: Pine Bluff Attorney Holds How-To Meeting
----------------------------------------------------------
More than 400 black farmers showed up for a meeting with
attorneys to find out how to benefit from the settlement of a
class-action discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Department
of Agriculture.  Pine Bluff, Arkansas, attorney Othello Cross
organized a meeting at the Pine Bluff Convention Center.  Some
farmers may object to the proposed settlement they say does not
do enough to provide reparations for longtime discrimination,
United Press International reports.


AVON PRODUCTS: Continuing to Defend Against PERCS Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 1991, a class action lawsuit was initiated against Avon
Products, Inc., on behalf of certain classes of holders of Avon's
Preferred Equity-Redemption Cumulative Stock ("PERCS").  This
lawsuit alleges various contract and securities law claims
relating to the PERCS (which were fully redeemed that year).  
Avon has rejected the assertions in this case, believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims and is continuing to
vigorously contest this lawsuit.


BOSTON HOUSING: HUD Backs Tenants in Boston Housing Disputes
------------------------------------------------------------
Last week, the Patriot Ledger reports, the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development sided with nine tenant families in
accusing Boston, Massachusetts, housing officials of ignoring
harassment complaints by minorities who lived in the Old Colony
and Bunker Hill developments between 1992 and 1996.  Both
developments are in predominantly white areas of the city and are
being desegregated as part of a legal settlement between housing
officials and the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People.

The HUD report, which came after a three-year inquiry into
minority tenant complaints about threats and violence they
encountered, marked the first time the federal housing agency has
found a pattern of "systematic discrimination" by a city housing
authority.

In a parallel move, they also filed a civil rights lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in Boston. They are seeking class-action
status to turn the legal case into an argument on behalf of all
minority tenants in Boston public housing.  Ozell Hudson,
executive director of the Boston Lawyer's Committee for Civil
Rights, is representing the tenants for free.  He declined to
discuss his legal strategy, but said the Boston Housing Authority
has done too little, too late in evicting a handful of tenants
who terrorized minority residents.

Meanwhile, HUD is reviewing whether the city has properly
implemented its 1996 Civil Rights Protection Plan, which was
enacted after Rodriguez and the other tenants filed their
complaints. The plan calls for increased police coverage at
public housing developments, better tenant transfer policies and
a new 24-hour harassment hot line.  If HUD finds the city's
strategy lacking, the department could withhold or reduce
funding, or institute new monitoring procedures, the Ledger said.


BREAST IMPLANTS: Corning's Comments From its Annual Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
>From Corning, Inc.'s latest Form 10-K filed with the SEC:

     Corning, Inc., and The Dow Chemical Company each own 50% of
the common stock of Dow Corning Corporation. On May 15, 1995, Dow
Corning sought protection under the reorganization provisions of
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy
proceeding is pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division (Bay City,
Michigan).  The effect of the bankruptcy is to stay the
prosecution against Dow Corning of approximately 19,000 breast-
implant product liability lawsuits, including 45 class actions.
On December 2, 1996, Dow Corning filed its first Plan of
Reorganization in the bankruptcy case.  On January 10, 1997, the
Tort Claimants Committee and the Commercial Creditors Committee
filed a joint motion to modify Dow Corning's exclusivity with
respect to filing a plan of reorganization, requesting the
right to file their own competing plan. The motion was denied by
the Bankruptcy Court in May 1997. Dow Corning filed a First
Amended Plan of Reorganization on August 25, 1997 and a Second
Amended Plan of Reorganization on February 17, 1998. The Tort
Claimants Committee and other creditor representatives opposed
these Plans. As a result of extended negotiations, Dow Corning
and the Tort Claimants Committee reached certain compromises and
on November 8, 1998 jointly filed a revised Plan of
Reorganization.  After hearings held in early 1999, the Federal
Bankruptcy Court ruled in February 1999 that the Amended Joint
Plan of Reorganization filed on February 4, 1999 (the "Joint
Plan") and related disclosure materials were adequate. These
materials will be mailed to claimants, who have until May 14,
1999 to return their votes on the Joint Plan.  A hearing to
confirm the Joint Plan is scheduled to begin on June 28, 1999.
Although the Tort Claimants Committee has supported the Joint
Plan, the timing and eventual outcome of these proceedings remain
uncertain.

     Under the terms of the Joint Plan, Dow Corning would be
required to establish a Settlement Trust and a Litigation
Facility to provide means for tort claimants to settle or
litigate their claims. Dow Corning would have the obligation to
fund the Trust and the Facility, over a period of up to 16 years,
in an amount up to approximately $3.2 billion (nominal value),
subject to the limitations, terms and in conditions stated the
Joint Plan. Dow Corning proposes to provide the required funding
over the 16 year period through a combination of cash, proceeds
from insurance, and cash flow from operations. Each of Corning
and Dow Chemical have agreed to provide a credit facility to Dow
Corning of up to $150 million ($300 million in the aggregate)
subject to the terms and conditions stated in the Joint Plan. The
Joint Plan also provides for Dow Corning to make full payment,
through cash and the issuance of senior notes, to its commercial
creditors.

     In related developments, a Panel of Scientific Experts
appointed by Judge Sam C. Pointer Jr., a United States District
Judge in the Northern District of Alabama who has been serving
since 1992 as the coordinating federal judge for all breast
implant matters, was asked to address certain questions pertinent
to the disease causation issues in the cases against Dow Corning
or its  shareholders. The Panel held hearings in 1998 and issued
its report on November 30, 1998. The report is generally
favorable to the implant manufacturers concerning connective
tissue disease and immunologic dysfunction issues.

     In the period from 1991 through 1998, Corning and Dow
Chemical, the shareholders of Dow Corning Corporation, were named
in a number of state and federal tort lawsuits alleging injuries
arising from Dow Corning's implant products. The claims against
the shareholders allege a variety of direct or indirect theories
of liability. From 1991 through 1998, Corning has been named in
approximately 11,470 state and federal tort lawsuits, some of
which were filed as class actions or on behalf of multiple
claimants. In 1992, the federal breast implant cases were
coordinated for pretrial purposes in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Alabama (Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr.).
In 1993, Corning obtained an interlocutory order of summary
judgment, which was made final in April 1995, thereby dismissing
Corning from over 4,000 federal court cases. On March 12, 1996,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the
plaintiffs' appeal from that judgment. The District Court
thereafter entered orders in May and June 1997 directing that
Corning be dismissed from each case pending in or later
transferred to the Northern District of Alabama after Dow Corning
filed for bankruptcy protection.  In state court litigation,
Corning was awarded summary judgment in California, Connecticut,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Dallas, Harris and Travis Counties
in Texas, thereby dismissing approximately 7,000 state cases. On
July 30, 1997, the judgment in California became final when the
Supreme Court of California dismissed further review as
improvidently granted as to Corning. In Louisiana, Corning was
awarded summary judgment dismissing all claims by plaintiffs and
a cross-claim by Dow Chemical on February 21, 1997. On February
11, 1998, this judgment was vacated as premature by the
intermediate appeals court in Louisiana. Corning has filed
notices transferring the Louisiana cases to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
District (the "Michigan Federal Court") to which substantially
all breast implant cases were transferred in 1997. In the
Michigan Federal Court, Corning is named as a defendant in
approximately 60 pending cases (including some cases with
multiple claimants), in addition to the transferred Louisiana
cases, but Corning is not named as a defendant in the Master
Complaint, which contains claims against Dow Chemical only.
Corning has moved for summary judgment in the Michigan Federal
Court to dismiss these remaining cases by plaintiffs as well as
the third party complaint and all cross-claims by Dow Chemical.
Plaintiffs have taken no position on such motion.  The Michigan
Federal Court heard Corning's motion for summary judgment on
February 27, 1998, but has not yet ruled.


CARNIVAL CORP.: Status of Passenger & Travel Agent Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest annual report filed with the SEC, Carnival
Corporation provides investors with information about material
litigation brought against Carnival or Holland America Westours
on behalf of purported classes of persons who paid port charges
to Carnival or Holland America, alleging that statements made in
advertising and promotional materials concerning port charges
were false and misleading.  The Passenger Complaints allege
violations of the various state consumer protection acts and
claims of fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages or,
alternatively, refunds of portions of port charges paid,
attorneys' fees, costs, prejudgment interest, punitive damages
and injunctive and declaratory relief.  The status of each
pending Passenger Complaint is as follows:

     (a) In 1996, four Passenger Complaints were filed against
Carnival in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit
in Dade County, Florida, by Michelle Hackbarth, Larry Katz,
Michelle A. Sutton, Pedro Rene Mier, and others, respectively, on
behalf of purported nationwide classes.  In February 1998,
Carnival's motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended
complaints were granted in part and denied in part. In May 1998,
the court consolidated all four actions. The court has lifted,
solely with respect to the issue of class certification, a
previously-imposed stay on discovery.  Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was argued on January 13, 1999, and a
decision on that motion has not yet been rendered.  Carnival had
previously reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action
filed against it by Michelle Hackbarth and others under terms
that would apply to a nationwide class of Carnival passengers.
That agreement-in-principle was subject to the parties' entering
into a definitive agreement.  A definitive agreement was not
executed, and the action is now proceeding.

     (b) In March 1997, a Passenger Complaint was filed against
Carnival in the Chancery court in Dyer County, Tennessee, by
Brent Mezzacasa and others, on behalf of a purported nationwide
class. The complaint also named, as co-defendants, Norwegian
Cruise Lines, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and Princess Cruise
Lines. Simultaneous with the filing of the complaint, the court
granted Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the class.  
In October 1997, the court granted Carnival's motion to dismiss
on the grounds of inconvenient forum.  Plaintiffs' appeal from
that order is under consideration in the Tennessee Court of
Appeals.

     (c) In April 1997, a Passenger Complaint was filed against
Carnival in the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Ohio,
by Cathy J. Miller and others, on behalf of a purported statewide
class. Carnival's motion to dismiss on inconvenient forum grounds
is under consideration.  In October 1997, a Passenger Complaint
was filed against Carnival in Georgia state court by Elizabeth
Forsling on behalf of a purported statewide class, and in
February 1999, the court granted Carnival's motion to dismiss on
inconvenient forum grounds.

     (d) In March 1998, a Passenger Complaint was filed against
Carnival in the Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial Circuit in
St. Clair County, Illinois, by John R. Birdsell and others on
behalf of a purported nationwide class.  The complaint also
names, as co-defendants, Norwegian Cruise Lines, Royal Caribbean
Cruise Lines and Princess Cruise Lines.  The court overruled
Carnival's objection to the court's exercise of personal
jurisdiction and denied its motion to dismiss on grounds of
improper forum. Carnival is now appealing the trial court's
decision and plaintiffs have moved to certify a class.

     (e) In April 1996, a Passenger Complaint was filed against
Holland America Westours in the Superior Court in King County,
Washington, by Francine Pickett and others on behalf of a
purported nationwide class.  The court denied both Holland
America Westours' motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  Thereafter Holland America Westours
entered into a settlement agreement for this action, the only
Passenger Complaint filed against it. The settlement agreement
was approved by the court on September 28, 1998. Five members of
the settlement class have appealed the court's approval of the
settlement. The appeal is likely to take between one and two
years to be resolved.  Unless the appeal is successful, Holland
America will issue travel vouchers with a face value of $10-$50
depending on specified criteria, to certain of its passengers who
are U.S. residents and who sailed between April 1992 and April
1996, and will pay a portion of the plaintiffs' legal fees. The
amount and timing of the travel vouchers to be redeemed and the
effects of the travel voucher redemption on revenues is not
reasonably determinable.  Accordingly, the Company will account
for the redemption of the vouchers as a reduction of future
revenues.  In 1998, the Company established a liability for the
estimated distribution costs of the settlement notices and
plaintiffs' legal costs.

Several complaints have been filed against Carnival and/or
Holland America Westours on behalf of purported classes of travel
agencies who had booked a cruise with Carnival or Holland
America, claiming that advertising practices regarding port
charges resulted in an improper commission bypass. These actions
allege violations of state consumer protection laws, claims of
breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, unlawful business practices and common law fraud, and
they seek unspecified compensatory damages (or alternatively, the
payment of usual and customary commissions on port charges paid
by passengers in excess of certain charges levied by government
authorities), an accounting, attorneys' fees and costs, punitive
damages and injunctive relief. The status of each pending Travel
Agent Complaint is as follows:

     (1) In August 1997, a Travel Agent Complaint was filed
against Carnival in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in Dade County, Florida, by N.G.L. Travel Associates, on
behalf of a purported nationwide class of travel agencies who
booked cruises with Carnival.  The court dismissed the action
with prejudice in January 1999, and plaintiff has appealed.

     (2) In September 1997, a Travel Agent Complaint was filed
against Holland America Westours in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for King County by N.G.L. Travel Associates
on behalf of a purported nationwide class of travel agencies who
booked cruises with Holland America.  Holland America Westours
filed summary judgment motions as to all of the claims.  The
motions were granted as to every claim except for one alleging a
breach of contract under the Sales Agreement between Holland
America Westours and GEM, the travel agent consortium of which
N.G.L. Travel Associates was a member.  Both parties have
requested the court to reconsider its rulings on the summary
judgment motions; those requests are pending. The court has ruled
that a class of travel agents will be certified in this matter.
The exact composition of the class is uncertain at this time as
the order signed by the court is inconsistent with the previous
decisions made by the court on the summary judgment motions.
Holland America Westours expects the situation to be clarified in
the near future and may appeal the court's class certification
order.

     (3) In August 1996, a Travel Agent Complaint was filed
against Carnival and Holland America Westours in the Superior
Court in Los Angeles, County, California, by Nelsons Travel
Associates, on behalf of purported nationwide classes of travel
agencies who booked cruises with Carnival and Holland America.
Upon Carnival's and Holland America Westours' motions to dismiss
or stay the action on the grounds of inconvenient forum, the
court stayed the action, pending resolution of the Florida and
Washington actions.

     (4) In February 1998, a Travel Agent Complaint was filed
against Carnival in Alabama state court by Flora Price and others
on behalf of a purported statewide class of travel agencies who
booked cruises with Carnival.  The case was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama which
granted Carnival's motion to dismiss or transfer on the grounds
of inconvenient forum.

Carnival says is not now possible to determine the ultimate
outcome of the pending Passenger and Travel Agent Complaints if
such claims should proceed to trial.  Management believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims.  Management indicates that
purported class actions similar to the Passenger and Travel Agent
Complaints have been filed against several other cruise lines.


CHEVRON PRODUCTS: Achieves Resolution of ADA Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chevron and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
announced a comprehensive agreement that will improve access
for customers with disabilities at stations owned by Chevron
throughout the United States.  The amicable agreement resulted
from the settlement of a class action lawsuit filed under the
Americans with Disabilities Act by plaintiffs represented by
Arlene Mayerson, attorney for the Berkeley, Calif.-based DREDF,
and Lainey Feingold, a civil rights lawyer.

As part of the agreement, which covers more than 1,600 stations
owned by Chevron, the company will survey each station and
complete any necessary improvements within the next five years.
Other Chevron stations are not covered by this agreement.  In
addition, Chevron will broaden its existing employee training
program and add more accessibility information to enhance
employee sensitivity and increase the level of service offered to
customers with disabilities.

"This agreement is consistent with Chevron's business philosophy
and complements efforts already under way to make Chevron
products and services accessible to everyone," said Dave Reeves,
general manager of retail marketing for Chevron Products Co. He
noted that many Chevron stations are already accessible and/or
provide services, such as fueling assistance, to those with  
disabilities.

"With this cooperative agreement, Chevron has demonstrated a
strong commitment to its customers with disabilities," said
Feingold.

Mayerson applauded Chevron's commitment to increase access to
fuel pumps, convenience stores and restrooms in stations
nationwide.  "The agreement with Chevron sets a standard which
should be followed by all companies."

Finalization of the settlement, which still requires approval by
the U.S. District Court, is expected to take several months.


CHILDRENS PLACE: Discovery Continues in IPO Shareholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On October 16, 1997, Stephen Brosious and Rudy Pallastrone, who
allegedly purchased shares of Common Stock in the initial public
offering by CHILDRENS PLACE RETAIL STORES INC in September
1997, filed a lawsuit against The Children's Place, several of
its directors and officers, and the underwriters of the IPO  in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  
The named plaintiffs purport to maintain a class action on behalf
of all persons, other than the Defendants, who purchased our
Common Stock issued in connection with the IPO on or about
September 19, 1997 through October 13, 1997.  The complaint
alleges that the Defendants violated federal securities laws by
making false or misleading statements and/or omissions in
connection with the IPO.  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages of
an unspecified amount, rescission or rescissory damages and fees
and costs.  Since October 16, 1997, 15 additional putative class
actions making substantially similar allegations and seeking
substantially similar relief have been filed against some or all
of the Defendants.  On or about January 13, 1998, the 16 putative
class actions were consolidated in the Court and on February 26,
1998, the plaintiffs served and filed their amended consolidated
complaint.  On April 16, 1998, the Defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint.  On September 4, 1998 the Court entered an order
granting the motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part.
The Court also dismissed the case against the underwriters
without prejudice.  On October 5, 1998, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint against all Defendants including the
underwriters.  The Company filed its answer to the amended
complaint on October 26, 1998.  The parties have commenced
discovery.

Separately, on October 27, 1997, Bulldog Capital Management,
L.P., a limited partnership that serves as a general partner for
a series of investment funds which allegedly purchased shares of
The Children's Place's Common Stock issued in connection with the
IPO, also filed a lawsuit against The Children's Place and
several of our directors and officers in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Essex County Division.  The complaint also alleges
that by making false or misleading statements and/or omissions in
connection with the IPO, The Children's Place and several of its
directors and officers violated provisions of federal and state
law.  The plaintiff seeks monetary damages of an unspecified
amount, rescission or rescissory damages and fees and costs.  
This action and the federal action described above have been
coordinated for purposes of discovery.

The Company believes that the allegations made in the complaints
described above are untrue and totally without merit and intend
to defend them vigorously.  The Company does not believe that any
ultimate liability arising out of the actions described above
will have a material adverse effect on our business; however the
Company cautions it can give no assurance as to the ultimate
resolution of the proceedings or the amount to be paid, if any,
in the disposition of the actions.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Defending Texas & Massachusetts Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------
Five  class  action  lawsuits against Compaq Computer Corporation
have  been consolidated in the United States District  Court  for  
the  Southern  District  of  Texas, Houston Division.  The
actions  are  purported class actions of all persons who
purchased Compaq common stock from July 10, 1997 through March 6,
1998, and the named defendants include the  Company  and certain
of its current and former officers and directors.  The complaints  
allege  that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by, among other  things,  withholding  information  
and making misleading statements about channel  inventory  and  
factoring of receivables in order to inflate the market price  of  
Compaq's  common  stock, and further alleges that certain of the
individual defendants sold Compaq common stock at these inflated
prices.  Lead counsel for the plaintiff has been appointed.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, interest, costs and expenses.  
Compaq intends to defend the suits vigorously.

Several  purported  class action lawsuits were filed against
Digital Equipment Corporation (acquired by Compaq in June 1998)
during 1994 alleging  violations  of  the Federal Securities laws
arising from alleged misrepresentations  and omissions in
connection with Digital's issuance and sale of  Series A 8-7/8%
Cumulative Preferred Stock and Digital's financial results for  
the  quarter ended April 2, 1994.  During 1995, the lawsuits  
were consolidated into three cases, which were pending before the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  
On August 8, 1995, the Massachusetts federal court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss all three cases in their entirety.  
On May 7, 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of
two of the  cases, and remanded for further proceedings.  The
parties are proceeding with discovery.


COMPLETE MANAGEMENT: Stull Stull Files Complaint in [California]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody announced that it filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court on behalf of  purchasers of
Complete Management, Inc. common stock between May 1, 1996 and
August 13, 1998.

CMI provides physician practice management services to medical
practices and hospitals in the New York metropolitan area.

The defendants include CMI, certain of its officers and
directors, underwriters and accountants.  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 misleading statements regarding CMI's
financial condition as well as its present and future business
prospects  and improperly accounting for its doubtful accounts in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.


CONTINENTAL INVESTMENT: Wastemasters May Seek to Rescind Purchase
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits have been filed against Continental Investment
Corporation which allege that CIC violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 by illegally inflating the market
price of its common stock at the time of the transaction  with
the Company through the dissemination of false and misleading
information to the public through its SEC filings, press releases
and statements to investors.  

Wastemasters, Inc., which entered into a transaction with  
CIC in September 1997, received 300,000 shares of common stock of
CIC in consideration for the issuance to CIC by the Company of
4.5 million shares of common stock, 5 million shares of preferred
stock which are convertible into 25 million shares of common
stock and a warrant under which CIC has the right to acquire 100
million shares of common stock of the Company in return for 1  
million shares of common stock of CIC.  At the time of the
transaction, CIC's common stock was selling for $23.50 per share.  
Since the transaction, the market price of CIC's common stock has
dropped to under $2 per share.

Wastemasters says that it is currently investigating the
allegations made against CIC in the shareholder suits.  The
Company believes that those allegations, if true, would enable
the  Company to rescind the transaction with CIC and cancel
the shares and warrant.  The securities acquired by CIC in the
transaction have features which make them very dilutive for other
shareholders and new investors, which has proven to be an
impediment to raising capital on attractive terms.

Furthermore, the consideration received by Wastemasters from
CIC, being 300,000 shares of its common stock, has depreciated in
value substantially.  Therefore, Wastemasters believes that
rescission of the transaction with CIC will result in substantial  
benefits to existing shareholders of the Company.  Pending
Wastemasters' investigation and any legal action which the
Company may decide to take, Wastemasters intends to oppose any
transfer of the common or preferred stock issued to CIC or the
exercise of the warrant issued to CIC.


CORNING, INC: Discovery Continues for Summary Judgment Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal securities class action lawsuit was filed in 1992
against Corning, Inc., and certain individual defendants by a
class of purchasers of Corning stock who allege
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts relative to
the silicone gel breast implant business conducted by Dow
Corning.  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The court in 1997
dismissed the individual defendants from the case, but has
permitted the case to proceed into discovery.  In December 1998,
Corning filed a motion for summary judgment requesting that all
claims against it be dismissed. Plaintiffs claimed the need to
take the depositions of certain officers and directors of Dow
Corning and other individuals before responding to the motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiffs have proposed a schedule giving them
until June 28, 1999 to file papers in opposition to Corning's
motion for summary judgment.  Although no written order has been
entered, the Court has indicated that limited additional
discovery would be permitted before Corning's motion is
entertained.


CUBAN AIR: Victims' Relatives Attempt to Garnish ETECSA Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, a federal judge in Miami awarded a $187 million judgment
to relatives of Cubans whose two unarmed aircraft were shot down
by MiG jets north of the island in February  1996.  Since then,
they have tried unsuccessfully to collect the money from the
Republic of Cuba and the Cuban Air Force.  Unsuccessful in
collecting compensation from the Cuban government directly, the  
families are trying to garnish millions of dollars of payments
U.S. telephone companies make to Empresa de Telecomunicaciones de
Cuba S.A., known as ETECSA, Cuba's telephone company.

The U.S. State Department has opposed the families' case, saying
that the telecommunications payments cannot be seized because the
Cuban telephone company is a separate entity from the government
and is not legally responsible for Cuban Government debts.  The
families' request to garnish the telephone payments is being
considered by U.S. District Court Judge James Lawrence King.  The
judge indicated he would issue a ruling shortly.

Just after midnight last Thursday, Cuba's telephone company made
good on its threat to cut off direct service with the United
States.  Cellular telephone service was also interrupted.


DNAP HOLDING: Company Will Vigorously Defend Shareholder Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing earnings for the year ended December 31, 1998, DNAP
Holding Corporation (Nasdaq:DNAP) reported a net loss of $15.6
million on total revenues of $262.1 million.  

DNAP Holding went on to state that it will vigorously contest two
class action lawsuits filed in January on behalf of former
holders of DNA Plant Technology's preferred stock.  The lawsuits
allege that there were material misrepresentations and omissions  
in the proxy statement/prospectus relating to the 1996 merger of
DNA Plant Technology with a subsidiary of the company.  The
company believes the claims are without merit.


DTE ENERGY: Detroit Edison Preparing for Binding Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Edison and plaintiffs in a class action pending in the
Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan (Gilford, et al v.
Detroit Edison), as well as plaintiffs in two other pending
actions which make class claims (Sanchez, et al v. Detroit
Edison, Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan; and Frazier v.
Detroit Edison, United States District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan), are preparing for binding arbitration to settle these
matters.  A July 1998 Consent Judgement has received preliminary
Court approval.  A Fairness Hearing with respect to the terms of
the settlement was held in August 1998, and no objections to the
settlement were raised.  A second Fairness Hearing is
contemplated following the results of the arbitration.  The
settlement agreement provides that Detroit Edison's monetary
liability is to be no less than $17.5 million and no greater than
$65 million after the conclusion of all related proceedings.  
This disclosure appeared in a Form 10-K405 filed by DTE Energy
and Detroit Edison with the SEC.


DTM CORPORATION: Proactive Deal Does Not Disturb Settlement Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
DTM Corporation has been notified that on February 12, 1999, DTM
Acquisition Co., L.P., an affiliate of Proactive Finance Group,
LLC, acquired from The B.F.Goodrich Company all of the 3,157,190
shares of the Common Stock of DTM Corporation currently held by
BFGoodrich, as well as all right, title and interest in a
$907,000 receivable due to BFGoodrich from Registrant.  As of
February 12, 1999 and after giving effect to the issuance of
334,485 shares of Common Stock pursuant to the terms of
settlement of the shareholder class action against Registrant
styled Danielson, et al. v. DTM Corporation, et al., Civ. No.
97-CI-16633, the Goodrich Shares represent approximately 47.68%
of the outstanding Common Stock of Registrant.

This purchase represents the closing of the transactions
contemplated by the previously disclosed Stock Purchase Agreement
dated as of January 2, 1999 between BFGoodrich and Proactive. The
Stock Purchase Agreement permitted Proactive to assign its rights
to purchase the Goodrich Shares.  Proactive subsequently assigned
such rights to its affiliate DTM Acquisition Co.

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stock Purchase
Agreement, a copy of which has been provided to DTM Corporation,
but to which DTM Corporation is not a party, DTM Acquisition Co.
purchased from BFGoodrich all of the Goodrich Shares, as well as
all right, title and interest in the Goodrich Receivable for an
aggregate purchase price of $3,500,000. To DTM Corporation's
knowledge, DTM Acquisition Co.'s source of funds was from the
sale of limited partnership interests.  DTM Corporation is not
aware whether any of the consideration paid to BFGoodrich was
obtained in the form of a loan.

DTM Corporation and DTM Acquisition Co. are currently negotiating
the terms of the Goodrich Receivable, which to date has not been
documented and has not borne interest.


ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Milberg Weiss File Complaint in Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
announced that it filed a class action lawsuit on February 25,  
1999, in the United States District Court for the District of
Iowa on behalf of  all persons who purchased the common stock of
Engineering Animation, Inc. (NASDAQ: EAII), between February 19,  
1998 and February 17, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Engineering Animation and certain officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued a
series materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial performance. Because of the issuance of a  
series of false and misleading statements, the price of
Engineering Animation common stock was artificially inflated
during the Class Period.  Prior to the disclosure of the adverse
facts described above, certain insiders sold significant amounts
of the Engineering Animation common stock to the unsuspecting
public. These sales generated proceeds of over $20 million.


ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Reinhardt & Anderson Files Suit in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt & Anderson announced that it filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Iowa on behalf of all persons who purchased the  common stock of
Engineering Animation, Inc. (Nasdaq: EAII), between February 19,
1998, and February 17, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Engineering Animation and certain officers
and directors of the Company during the relevant time period with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's financial results in order to:

      (i) permit the  Individual Defendants to dump    
          $20,800,000.00 of Engineering Animation stock on the  
          unsuspecting public at artificially inflated prices;

     (ii) acquire multiple companies using the Company's inflated
          stock as currency for the acquisitions; and

    (iii) and materially understate the Company's losses for
          the first and third quarters of 1998.

The Complaint further alleges that the Defendants were able  to
complete their scheme through engaging in improper accounting
practices  involving violations of the Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.  Because of the issuance of a series of
false and misleading statements, the price of Engineering
Animation common stock was artificially inflated during the Class
Period.


GEOCITIES: Fighting California Privacy Complaints
-------------------------------------------------
On August 14, 1998, a lawsuit was filed against Geocities in Los
Angeles County Superior Court involving GeoCities' collection and
use of personal identifying information (Hyatt v. GeoCities). The
complaint in this case follows a 1998 FTC draft complaint
(resolved, subject to final FTC approval, by a consent order)
without alleging any new facts.  This case involves a single
cause of action for the alleged violation of California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200 ("Section 17200") and seeks an
injunction, disgorgement of any profits obtained as a result of
the alleged improper activity, and attorneys' fees. The Company
filed an answer to this lawsuit on September 17, 1998.

On September 30, 1998, an additional case was filed against the
Company in Los Angeles County Superior Court related to the same
activity (Wormly v. GeoCities et. al.).  The complaint in this
case also follows the FTC draft complaint and alleges no new
facts.  This suit purports to be a class action and alleges
causes of action for the violation of Section 17200 and
California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, fraud,
unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and invasion of
privacy. This suit seeks injunction, disgorgement of any profits
obtained as a result of the alleged improper activity,
unspecified damages, and attorneys' fees.  The Company intends to
file a response to the complaint in this case in the near future.

Based on the Company's analysis of these lawsuits and given the
fact that they involve the same set of circumstances that are
covered in the FTC matter, Geocities says it believes that the
allegations contained in the two complaints are without merit and
intends to defend these actions vigorously.


ILM LEASE: Amended Complaint Coming; Company Vows to Fight Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 8, 1998, Andrew A. Feldman and Jeri Feldman, as Trustees
for the Andrew A. & Jeri Feldman Revocable Trust dated September
18, 1990, commenced a purported class action on behalf of that
trust and all other shareholders of ILM I LEASE CORPORATION and
ILM II LEASE CORPORATION in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, against ILM I, ILM II and Lawrence A.
Cohen, Jeffry R. Dwyer, Julien G. Redele, Carl J. Schramm and J.
William Sharman, Jr. as the Directors of both corporations.  The
class action complaint alleges that the Directors engaged in
wasteful and oppressive conduct and breached fiduciary duties in
preventing the sale or liquidation of the assets of ILM I and ILM
II, diverting certain of their assets and changing the nature of
ILM I and ILM II.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, punitive damages, the judicial dissolution of ILM I and
ILM II, an order requiring the Directors to take all steps to
maximize shareholder value, including either an auction or
liquidation, and rescinding certain agreements, and attorney's
fees.

On July 8, 1998, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint on all counts.

In an oral ruling from the bench on December 8, 1998, the Court
granted the Company's dismissal motion in part and gave the
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.  In sum, the Court
accepted the defendant's position that all claims relating to so-
called "derivative" actions were filed improperly and were
properly dismissed.  In addition, the Court dismissed common law
claims for punitive damages, but allowed plaintiffs 30 days to
allege any claims which allegedly injured shareholders without
injuring ILM II as a whole.

The defendants doubt that such a cause of action could be alleged
and continue to believe that this lawsuit is meritless.  The
defendants have directed outside counsel to continue vigorously
contesting the action.


INTERCARGO CORP.: Merger Proposal Undeterred by Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On February 17, 1999, certain purported stockholders of
Intercargo Corporation filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery
in New Castle County, Delaware against Intercargo and
Intercargo's directors, seeking class action status and claiming,
among other things, that Intercargo's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Intercargo's stockholders in approving the
previously announced definitive agreement to merge between
Intercargo and a subsidiary of XL Capital Ltd., a Cayman Islands
corporation, and that they failed to adequately explore
alternative transactions and maximize shareholder value.  The
lawsuit requests, among other things, injunctive relief and
payment of damages to the class members.  

Intercargo says it believes that the lawsuit is without merit and
intends to contest the lawsuit vigorously.  The Merger, announced
on December 2, 1998, is subject to customary closing conditions,
including, the Company pointed-out, approval by its stockholders.


INTERNET FRAUD: Texas AG Available at fightback@oag.state.tx.us
---------------------------------------------------------------
Providing help for victims of Internet fraud, Texas Attorney
General John Cornyn says he is starting a new e-mail address --
fightback@oag.state.tx.us -- for victims of Internet fraud to
contact his office.


JDA SOFTWARE: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP announced that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of  Arizona on behalf of purchasers of JDA Software,
Inc. (Nasdaq:JDAS) common  stock between January 29, 1998 and
January 5, 1999.

The complaint charges JDA Software, 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.


LASER TECHNOLOGY: CEO and CFO Resign
------------------------------------
Laser Technology Inc. said its president and chief executive and
its chief financial officer resigned.  Former COO Blair Zykan
replaces David Williams as president and CEO.  No replacement was
named for Pamela Sevy resigned as CFO.  The Company gave no
reason for the resignations.  On Dec. 23 the Company's auditors
resigned and the Board undertook and investigation into the
company's accounting practices.


LASER TECHNOLOGY: Norton & Frickey File Complaint in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Laser Technology, Inc., during the period
from February 12, 1996 through December 23, 1998, by Norton &
Frickey & Associates.

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.


LASER TECHNOLOGY: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit on February 22,
1999 in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock
of Laser Technology, Inc. (AMEX:LSR), between January 25, 1996
and December 25, 1996 and December 23,  1998, inclusive.

The Complaint charges LSR and certain officers and directors of
the Company during the relevant time period with violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of false
financial statements during the Class period, which had the
effect of artificially inflating the price of LSR common
stock.

On December 23, 1998, LSR announced that its independent public
accountants, BDO Siedman, LLP, had resigned and withdrawn its
previously issued audit letters on the Company's fiscal year 1993
through 1997 financial statements.  Trading on the Company's
common stock was halted pending the announcement, and it has yet
to resume. On December 28, 1998, the Company also reported that
the auditor had resigned because it could "no longer rely on
management's representations" and was "unwilling to be
associated" with the Company's previously issued financial
reports.


LASER TECHNOLOGY: Company Comments on Suits & Intends to Fight
--------------------------------------------------------------
On February 10, 1999, a securities class action entitled Moshe
Rosenfeld, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, vs. Laser Technology, Inc., David Williams, Pamela
Sevy, Dan N. Grothe and H. DeWorth Williams, was filed in the
United States District Court, District of Colorado (Case no. 99-
Z-266).  The Complaint alleges that the Laser Technology, Inc.,
and certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws, particularly Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "1934 Act").
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company's financial
statements were false and misleading during the "class period"
(February 12, 1996 to December 23, 1998) and that the Company
made certain false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial statement during this period.  The individual
named defendants are directors and/or executive officers of the
Company.

The action appears to have followed and be premised on the
resignation of the Company's independent accountant, BDO Seidman,
LLP ("BDO"), on December 21, 1999, and the resignation of three
members of the Audit Committee of the Board of the Board of
Directors. The resigning members of the Audit Committee
were members of the Special Audit Committee (the "Special
Committee"), who also resigned from the Board of Directors on
January 7, 1999 as a result of disagreements between management
and the Special Committee.  BDO also withdrew its opinions on the
previously issued certified financial statements for the fiscal
years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. At the time of BDO's
resignation, the Special Committee was conducting an independent
investigation into the Company's accounting records and alleged
irregularities relating to the Company's accounting records.
Following the announcement of the resignation of BDO and
withdrawal of five years of audited financial statements, the
American Stock Exchange suspended trading in the Company's
shares on December 23, 1998.

On January 7, 1999, a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors
(the "Special Meeting") was held for the purpose of receiving the
report and recommendations from the Special Committee. At the
Special Meeting, the Special Committee made several proposals
including, but not limited to, asking for the resignation of the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.
Following the presentation by the Special Committee of its
findings and proposed actions, those directors not serving on the
Special Committee made a counter proposal. Without responding to
the counter-proposal, the individuals on the Special Committee
then informed the Board of Directors of their intent to resign
from the Special Committee and from the Board of Directors.

In its complaint, the plaintiff contends that the resignation of
BDO and the three directors is due to the Company's alleged
unreliable and misleading financial statements. Plaintiff's
complaint further alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the 1934
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The action specified
the period from February 12, 1998 through December 23, 1998
as the "class period."

The Company has not had ample time to fully review the complaint
nor to determine the extent of any possible liability or material
damage to the Company.  The Company further believes that the
allegations set forth in the complaint are groundless and without
merit and it intends to vigorously defend against the action.

The Company is aware of at least five additional class action
suits that have been filed recently against the Company. As of
the date hereof, the Company has not received a complaint in the
three actions, but the Company believes that the actions parallel
the one described above.  

Laser Technology, Inc., intends to vigorously defend against all
of the actions.


LYCOS, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed 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, by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP

The complaint charges Lycos and certain officers with violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint
alleges that defendants issued a series 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 plummeted -- dropping
from $127.25 per share to $94.25 per share, a decline of 25% on
extremely heavy trading volume.


MERCANTILE BANK: Unfair Check Overdraft Charges Prompts Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis lawyers John J. Carey and Joseph P. Danis filed a
class-action lawsuit last week against Mercantile Bank on
Wednesday in circuit court in Belleville, Missouri, on behalf of
a St. Clair County couple, Robert and Deborah Green, and others
who claim they were hit by unfair check overdraft charges,
according to a report appearing in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

A judge has already granted class certification in a similar suit
against NationsBank, filed earlier in the same court by three
Belleville lawyers.  That is a key step in a class-action suit
that defines which customers will be included.

The lawyers say the banks process big checks first, pushing the
number of overdrafts up in order to increase revenue from
overdraft fees that can range up to $29 a check.  The lawyers
claim customers were not notified that checks are not being
processed numerically or in the order received.


SPYGLASS, INC.: Berger & Montague Files Complaint in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague P.C. filed a securities fraud class action
against Spyglass Inc., and certain of its officers and directors.
(Nasdaq:SPYG).  The case was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of persons
who purchased Spyglass common stock during the period between
Oct. 20, 1998 and Jan. 4, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Spyglass 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 Spyglass' operations and financial
condition.

The Plaintiff specifically alleges that defendants' statements
during the Class Period were false and misleading because
contracts with several key clients were not finalized as
represented in public statements. The revenue expected  
from these contracts, which is likely to never materialize, had
formed the basis for forecasts of first quarter profitability.

In that regard, on Jan. 4, 1999 the Company announced that
contrary to statements made during the Class Period, first
quarter results would not meet prior estimates.  As a result, the
stock plummeted on heavy trading volume from $22.00 per share,
the closing price on Jan. 3, 1999, to a low of $14.50 per  
share on Jan. 4, 1999.  The market price of Spyglass common stock
was artificially inflated during the Class Period, enabling
certain defendants to take advantage of their inside knowledge by
selling more than 500,000 shares of their own Spyglass stock,  
netting proceeds in excess of $9.1 million.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Blue Cross Blue Shield Trial Begins in 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a significant defeat for the tobacco industry, senior federal
judge Jack B. Weinstein denied pleas by tobacco companies' to
dismiss the lawsuit brought by Blue Cross and Blue Shield
plans in the federal district court for the Eastern District of
New York.  Judge Weinstein set the trial date for January 10,
2000.

The plaintiffs in the suit are members of the Coalition for
Tobacco Responsibility, an alliance of more than 50 independent
Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans that came together to sue major
tobacco companies in April 1998.  The suit is likely to involve
tens of billions of dollars in damages.

This ruling comes on the heels of a punitive damage award of $50
million and recent remarks by President Clinton that the
Department of Justice is preparing a lawsuit to recover tobacco-
related health care costs paid by the federal government.

"The Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans filed this suit and two
others in federal courts in Chicago and Seattle because of their
concern for the heavy toll tobacco products have taken on smokers
and nonsmokers alike," said Vincent FitzPatrick of Dewey
Ballantine, one of the coalition's lead attorney's.  "We  believe
that tobacco companies should be held accountable for the damage
they have inflicted on the health of this nation -- damage that
will continue for a  generation.  We are gratified that the judge
has ruled that these matters  should be determined appropriately
and fairly in court."

The suits maintain that the industry concealed the addictive
nature of smoking, and manipulated nicotine levels to increase
the potential for addiction.  They allege that the industry
conspired to suppress the development and marketing of  less
harmful cigarettes and suppress the knowledge of the health
risks of  smoking.  They are based on federal antitrust and
Racketeer Influenced and  Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes,
state laws on consumer protection and  fair business practices,
and various common law tort claims.  The antitrust and  RICO
claims are perhaps the largest claims of these types in
U.S. history.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Testimony Continues in Ohio Union Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Following the Plaintiff's presentation of Bennett LaBow's
testimony to the jury, the Unions introduced John Pierce, a
University of California at San Diego professor and former
employee of the Centers for Disease Control, to discuss his
research published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association.

Pierce's first paper in 1991 involved surveying 10,000 California
residents during each of three years concerning tobacco
advertising's influence on adolescents.  Commenting on the "Joe
Camel" ad campaign, Pierce said, "Kids saw Joe Camel, but nobody
else did."  He said adults over 35 years of age didn't notice the
ads, with the highest recognition occurring among 12 year olds.

In another JAMA paper published in 1998, Pierce found a 34%
increase in smoking among young people who had a favorite ad or
promotional item.  Pierce said his studies indicate more than
6,000 people under the age of 18 experiment with cigarettes each
day, with more than 3,000 of them eventually becoming addicted
and continuing smoking for between 15 and 20 years.  Of those  
smokers, he said one-quarter will die from smoking-related
diseases.

The plaintiffs rested in four days and the defense was underway.  

First to the witness stand in defense of the tobacco companies
was David Townsend, a vice president of product development for
the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., to confirm allegations that the
nation's tobacco industry did nothing to develop a safer
cigarette are false.  

Mr. Townsend testified that RJR started its chemical and
biological research toward a safer cigarette during the early
1950s, after an experiment showed tumors developed after the
skins of mice were painted with concentrated tar.  He said
Reynolds has researched tar and nicotine reduction since the
1950s using such methods as filtering, ventilation, the use of
porous paper, faster burning paper, additives and changing the
dimension of cigarettes.  But while it is possible to completely
eliminate tar through filtering, he said that has not been done,
since consumers don't want a cigarette without any tar because of
its greatly diminished taste.  Townsend related his company's
research by 1959 had identified 459 various chemical compounds in
cigarette smoke.  That figure has grown to about 4,800 today,
with some of the compounds being carcinogenic.  He said that
demonstrates how sophisticated the tobacco industry's research
has become.

Jeffrey T. Ottenbacher, a reporter writing for United Press
International, provides gavel-to-gavel coverage from the Akron,
Ohio, courtroom in which the Ohio Unions are suing tobacco
companies for reimbursement of medical costs.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: English High Court Dismisses 46 Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
>From London, Reuters' reporter Lisa Jucca says that an English
High Court judge on Friday dismissed smoking related health
actions brought by 46 claimants against British cigarette
companies Imperial Tobacco Group and Gallaher.  "Today, in the
High Court Mr Justice Michael Wright ordered the dismissal of 46
claims against Imperial Tobacco Limited and Gallaher Limited with
costs against those plaintiffs," Imperial said in a statement.

Imperial and Gallaher, who supply nearly 80% of the cigarettes
sold in Britain, faced claims from 53 people who alleged that the
two companies negligently failed to reduce tar levels in their
cigarettes and caused their lung cancer.  Gallaher produces well
known British brands such as Benson and Hedges and Silk Cut while
Imperial markets Lambert & Butler, John Player and Embassy.   
Imperial said that the action had begun in 1996 after Leigh Day &
Co, one of the two firms of solicitors involved, advertised for
litigants.

The plaintiffs were lung cancer sufferers and initiated Britain's
first class-action law suit against tobacco companies.  The
solicitors acting for the plaintiffs said in a statement that
their firms had decided not to continue with the litigation.  It
added that the remaining seven claimants were considering their
position -- but without their legal representation.  Earlier this
month the assigned judge Mr. Justice Wright declined the
request of eight claimants to pursue claims outside the time
limit required by law.  In his judgment, Mr Judge Wright wrote:
"Taking a broad view, it seems to me plainly legitimate to say
that the prospects of success in this litigation on behalf of any
plaintiff is by no means self evident. * * * It is plain that the
entirety of the plaintiff cases are contentious to a degree" and
"it must be acknowledged that the plaintiffs' chances of
establishing their primary case is to a degree speculative."

The two plaintiffs' firms, Leigh Day & Co and Irwin Mitchell are
giving up their seven-year "no win no fee" litigation battle,
with the former suffering losses of 2-3 million pounds ($3.2
million to $4.8 million).  Both firms agreed not to take up
further tobacco litigation for five years.

Imperial Tobacco Chief Executive Gareth Davis said he was very
pleased with the outcome.  "It will convey an important message
to others, who are contemplating similar proceedings, about their
prospects of success," he said in a statement.  Imperial and
Gallaher have agreed not to enforce orders for costs in their
favour, save in certain specific circumstances, Imperial said.

In a statement released by Gallaher Group Plc (NYSE: GLH), Head
of Corporate Affairs Ian Birks said, "We have always expressed
confidence that these claims were without merit and  
would be defeated."

"Gallaher will continue to robustly defend itself against any
remaining plaintiffs as well as against any other actions which
may be contemplated in the future," Birks added, "The company and
its advisors have every confidence in Gallaher's ability to
defend itself and in the judicial process.  Gallaher will not
settle actions."

The British Medical Association said the ruling was a grave  
disappointment, and showed the tobacco industry using its
financial muscle to hamper attempts to hold it accountable for
death and disease caused by smoking.  "Today's setback is deeply
frustrating," BMA science and research adviser Dr. Bill O'Neill
told Reuters.  "The tobacco companies have built up huge coffers
by exploiting smokers over many years. They have used their
financial might quite ruthlessly to block action against them,"
O'Neill added.


TOTAL RENAL: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for Class Plaintiffs, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, announced
that a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Total Renal Care
Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: TRL) between February 17, 1998 and February
17, 1999, inclusive.

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


TOTAL RENAL: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Total Renal Care
Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: TRL)  in the United States District Court
for the Central District of  California.  The lawsuit was filed
by the law firm Wolf Popper LLP on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Total Renal securities in the
open  market during the period February 17, 1998 through February
17, 1999.

The Complaint charges that Total Renal and certain of its
officers and directors violated the U.S. securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements and by
omitting material facts required to be disclosed so as to make
the statements issued not materially false and misleading
throughout the Class Period.  In particular, defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by misrepresenting material information concerning Total Renal's
financial results and by misrepresenting material information
concerning the acquisition of Renal Treatment Centers, Inc.

On February 18, 1999, the Company disclosed that its fourth
quarter 1998 earnings were far less than expected and that the
Company had incurred extraordinary charges of $12.3 million
related to the operation of Renal Treatment Centers, Inc., the
integration of which Total Renal had previously falsely publicly
represented to be proceeding smoothly.  Total Renal's common  
stock dropped substantially on heavy volume following these
disclosures.


TWINLAB CORPORATION: Scope of Shareholder Class to be Expanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, as Class Counsel in the
securities class action litigation involving Twinlab Corporation
(NASDAQ: TWLB), which was filed in early December 1998, intends
to extend the class period in an amended complaint.  The extended
class period will be March 17, 1998 through February 24, 1999.
The amended complaint will cover the recent announcement by
Twinlabs that it would be restating its operating results for
the first, second and third quarters of 1998 because it had
improperly recognized revenues in connection with sales of
product for which sales orders had been received but the product
had not yet been shipped.  The amended complaint will further
allege that the Company's financial statements issued during the
Class Period were materially false and misleading and in  
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

Milberg Weiss recalled that, in early December 1998, two class
action lawsuits were initiated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of all  
persons who purchased the common stock of Twinlab between March
17, 1998 and November 30, 1998, inclusive, including a subclass
of all persons who purchased Twinlab common stock in the
Company's secondary offering on or about April 8, 1998.  The
complaints alleged in part that Twinlab was engaging in channel  
stuffing to mask the decline in its sales.  Twinlab's recent
restatement announcement evidences that the Company was
attempting to mask the decline in  its sales by engaging in
channel stuffing and the premature recognition of revenue.


TWINLAB CORP.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announced that it filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of  New York on behalf of investors who
bought Twinlab Corp. (NASDAQ:TWLB) stock between April 28, 1998
and February 24, 1999.

The lawsuit charges Twinlab and several of its top officers with
violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United
States.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's revenues
during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters of its 1998 fiscal year. The
Company announced today that due to the incorrect statement of
its  revenues in the first three quarters of 1998 it would have
to restate those  results downwards. Upon the announcement of the
restatement of its financial  results the Company's stock price
dropped approximately 25% on extraordinarily heavy trading
volume.


VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Summary Judgment Appeal Before 9th Cir. Pends
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In May 1994, a series of class action lawsuits was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against VALENCE TECHNOLOGY INC and certain of its
present and former officers and directors. These lawsuits were
consolidated, and in September 1994 the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated and amended class action complaint. Following the
Court's orders on motions to dismiss the complaint, which were
granted in part and denied in part, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in October 1995.  The Complaint alleges
violations of the federal securities laws against the Company,
certain of its present and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings, claiming
that the defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements, including filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, with regard to the Company's business and future
prospects. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between May 7, 1992
and August 10, 1994. The Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs.

On January 23, 1996, the Court dismissed, with prejudice, all
claims against the underwriters of the Company's public stock
offerings, and one claim against the Company and its present and
former officers and directors.  In April 1996, the Court
dismissed with prejudice all remaining claims against a present
director and limited claims against a former officer and director
to the period when that person was an officer. In December 1996,
the Company and the individual defendants filed motions for
summary judgment, which the plaintiffs opposed. In November 1997,
the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and
entered a judgment in favor of all defendants.

Plaintiffs have appealed and the case is pending before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  


WASTEMASTERS, INC.: Announces Positions in Shareholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 1998, Stewart Rahr, a shareholder of
WasteMasters, Inc. (Nasdaq: WAST), filed a motion to intervene in
an action styled Nikko Trading of American Corporation, et al. v.
WasteMasters, Inc., pending in the United States District Court
for  the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Civil
Action No. 3-98CV0048-D.  Mr. Rahr requested that a Consent
Judgment entered in that action on February 5, 1998 be vacated,
and that Mr. Rahr be granted leave to defend the action
derivatively on behalf of the Company.  Under the Consent
Judgment, approximately 63 million shares of common stock were
issued to the plaintiffs to fully settle and compromise the
Company's liability under approximately $3.2  million of
debentures held by the plaintiffs therein.  Mr. Rahr alleges that
the  Consent Judgment was obtained as a result of collusion
between the plaintiffs in the action and the Company, and that
the Chairman of the Company at the time, R. Dale Sterritt, Jr.,
failed to disclose to the Company's board that he  beneficially
owned an interest in the plaintiffs and/or controlled the
plaintiffs through nominees.  Mr. Rahr further contends that,
because of that  collusion, the Company ignored certain legal
defenses in the action and agreed  to a judgment which was not in
the best interests of the Company.  Mr. Rahr  also seeks a
preliminary injunction preventing any transfer of the shares
issued under the Consent Judgment until the Court has ruled on
the validity of the shares.  The Court has not ruled on Mr.
Rahr's request for a preliminary injunction.  Based on the
Company's understanding of the evidence elicited to date in the  
discovery process by Mr. Rahr, the Company believes that there
may be valid grounds to vacate the Consent Judgment.  Therefore,
the Company intends to support Mr. Rahr's position in the
litigation.  If the Consent Judgment is vacated, the Company
estimates that from 40-49 million of its outstanding shares could
be cancelled.  The actual number of shares which could be
cancelled may vary depending on subsequent Court rulings as to
the rights of subsequent transferees of the shares, the actual
number of shares which are held by subsequent transferees, and
the circumstances under which subsequent transferees acquired
their shares.  Pending a final resolution of the litigation, the
Company will not consent to the transfer of any shares issued  
pursuant to the Consent Judgment or to the removal of any
restrictive legend on those shares except pursuant to an order of
the Court.  In the event the Court vacates the Consent Judgment,
the Company plans to request that the Court approve procedures to
notify existing holders of the shares of the litigation and
provide them with an opportunity to intervene in the litigation
to protect  their rights.  If the Court declines to vacate the
Consent Judgment, then the litigation will have no effect on the
number of shares which are outstanding.


WASTEMASTERS, INC.: Creditors File Involuntary Bankruptcy Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
On February 18, 1999, an involuntary bankruptcy petition was
filed against Wastermasters, Inc., in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division by three alleged creditors of the Company.  

One of the creditors is Edward Roush, Jr., who was the attorney
for the plaintiffs in the original Nikko Trading litigation,
acted as advisor and attorney to the Company subsequent to the
entry of the Consent Judgment, and is an intervenor in the Nikko
Trading litigation in his individual capacity.  Mr. Roush
intervened in the Nikko Trading litigation to protect his claim
to certain shares issued pursuant to the Consent Judgment which
he alleges he earned as a fee for handling the litigation on
behalf of the plaintiffs.  

Mr. Roush has also asserted claims in the Nikko Trading
litigation against the Company and its directors based on their
failure to take actions to comply with the Consent Judgment.  The
other two petitioning creditors were corporations  for which Mr.
Roush purports to act.  

One of the corporations is Kelso & Roush,  Inc., although the
Company has no record of ever having done business with Kelso &
Roush, Inc. and does not believe it is creditor of the Company.  
The  other corporation is American Recycling & Management, Inc.,
which is a wholly- owned subsidiary of the Company.  The Company
does not believe that Mr. Roush has any authority to act on
behalf of American Recycling since he is no longer  an officer or
director of that subsidiary, and in any event the Company is not  
aware of any liability which
it has to the subsidiary.

Mr. Roush and the two corporate creditors have filed a motion to
appoint a trustee for the Company and, in support thereof, have
alleged unspecified acts of fraud and mismanagement.  

The Company intends to vigorously oppose the involuntary petition
and the appointment of a trustee.  The Company has also filed a
motion to transfer the bankruptcy proceedings to the district
court  hearing the Nikko Trading litigation.  


WORLD ACCESS: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Complaint in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was announced today charging that World
Access, Inc. (Nasdaq:WAXS), a telecommunications company, pursued
an aggressive takeover and merger policy in 1998, based upon
false and misleading statements that lured unsuspecting
shareholders.

Finkelstein & Krinsk, a San Diego law firm representing the World
Access shareholders, charges that World Access and its management
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and
misleading statements concerning the company's operations thereby
artificially inflating the company's stock price.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of World Access
Inc. between October 7, 1998, and February 11, 1999.

According to the complaint, World Access, during the fourth
quarter of 1998, was desperate to complete its acquisition of
NACT Telecommunications, Telco Communications and Resurgens
Communications Group.  World Access made several public
statements to show a 60 percent increase in net income and
represent that it was well positioned to share in the tremendous
growth projected for the global telecommunications market.  At
the same time, in November 1998 key World Access insiders,
including Controller Martin Kidder and Chief Financial Officer  
Mark Gergel sold more than 82,000 shares for $1.9 million.  On
January 5, 1999, in direct contrast to its earlier positive
statements World Access was forced to reveal that its 4th quarter
earnings per share were $.15 and not $.31 per share as expected:
World Access stock plummeted 42 percent.  Finally, on February
11th the company stunned its investors by revealing that its  
operations showed a net loss of $.22 per share.  On this news the
stock price of World Access fell an additional $3.75 per share.

                           *********

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  * * *