CAR_Public/990303.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, March 3, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 19

                           Headlines

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Status Report About Material Litigation
CEDENT CORPORATION: Increases Share Repurchase Program to $1.4B
ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Company Responds to Shareholder Suits
INDUSTRIE-MATEMATIK: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
LEAD PIGMENTS: Litigation Updates From ARCO's Annual Report

LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: WSJ Article Describes Accounting Impropriety
MARYLAND WORKERS: Fund Sued for Illicit Telephone Call Taping
MEGO MORTGAGE: Status Report Concerning Pending Litigation
MORGAN STANLEY: Status Report About Material Litigation
NAKORNTHAI STRIP: McDonald & NatWest Sued for Fraud on Bond Deal

ORBITAL SCIENCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in Virginia
ORBITAL SCIENCES: Faruqi & Faruqi File Complaint in Virginia
ORBITAL SCIENCES: Berman DeValerio Files Complaint in Virginia
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Status Report About Material Litigation
SCHICK TECHNOLOGIES: No Action on Nine Shareholder Complaints

SIRROM CAPITAL: Files Motions to Dismiss Securities Cases
SPYGLASS, INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Illinois
STOLEN GENERATION: Two Aborigines Sue Australian Government
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Editorial by Defeated UK Plaintiffs' Lawyer
TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL: Hires Michael Jalbert as New CEO

UNION TEXAS: Delaware Shareholder Litigation Against KKR & ARCO
ZILA, INC.: FDA Says January 13 Press Release is Misleading


                           *********


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Status Report About Material Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
In its annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC, Atlantic
Richfield profides investors with information about material
litigation to which it is a party:

     (1) Natural Gas Royalty Owners.  In 1993, natural gas
royalty owners filed an action in Zapata County, Texas titled
Stanley Marshall, et al. v. ARCO (Case No. 3217).  The plaintiffs
claimed breach of lease, breach of Texas Railroad Commission
rules and regulations, conversion, and fraud.  On September 8,
1997, a jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and on March 19,
1998, the trial court entered the Second Modified Judgment on the
verdict awarding $3.8 million in actual damages, $50 million in
exemplary damages, $13.4 million in attorney's fees and $1.7
million in pre-judgment interest.  ARCO has appealed this
judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas
in San Antonio.

     (2) Pennsylvania Environmental Contamination.  On June 7,
1994, a purported class action was filed by several individuals
in United States District Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
against ARCO and Babcock & Wilcox Company (B & W) on behalf of
persons "estimated to be in the thousands" who lived or worked in
Apollo and Parks Township, Pennsylvania, and areas downwind of
those places, from 1957 to the present.  The suit, Hall, et al.
v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. (Case No. 94-0951), claims
that the plaintiffs and alleged class members were exposed to
releases of radioactive and other toxic substances from two
nuclear materials processing facilities that have contaminated
the air, soil, and surface and ground water in those communities.
The suit seeks damages for death and personal injury, diminution
in property values, costs of decontamination of property,
injunctive relief requiring defendants to establish a fund for
medical monitoring, and punitive damages. ARCO has been sued as
the former owner of Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation
(NUMEC), the original owner and operator of the Apollo and Parks
Township facilities from March 1967 to November 1971.  On
September 17, 1998, the jury in a trial of eight "test-case"
plaintiffs' claims returned a verdict of $33.7 million jointly
and severally against ARCO and B & W and another $2.8 million
just against B & W.  On September 24, 1998, these eight test-case
plaintiffs withdrew their claim for punitive damages against
ARCO.  ARCO and B & W have filed motions for judgment in their
favor or for a new trial.  The claims of other plaintiffs remain
for trial or other disposition.

     (3) CARB Gasoline Class Action.  On June 7, 1996, the case
of Aguilar, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield, et al. (Case No.
700810) was brought in the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Diego against ARCO and eight other refiner-
marketers of CARB reformulated gasoline. The plaintiffs allege
that the defendants conspired to restrict the supply, and thereby
to raise the price, of CARB gasoline in violation of California
state antitrust and unfair competition law. The plaintiffs seek
to recover treble damages, restitution, attorneys fees, and
injunctive relief.  The court has certified a class of California
residents who bought CARB gasoline after March 1, 1996 other than
for resale. On October 17, 1997, the court granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment. On January 23, 1998, the
court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.  The
defendants have appealed from the order granting a new trial, and
the plaintiffs have cross-appealed from the summary judgment. On
January 23, 1998, the case of Gilley v. Atlantic Richfield, et
al., [Case No. CV UU132BTM (RBB)] was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
case, which is brought on behalf of a purported class of
wholesale purchasers of CARB gasoline including lessee and
contract gasoline dealers, claims violations of federal antitrust
laws based upon factual allegations that are essentially the same
as those contained in the Aguilar complaint.  On October 22,
1998, ARCO was served with a complaint filed in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Sacramento entitled Cal-Tex
Citrus Juice, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. (Case
No. 98AS05227).  The complaint is purportedly on behalf of a
class of all direct or indirect purchasers of California diesel
fuel between March 19, 1996 and December 31, 1997 against all
California refiners of California diesel fuel.  The complaint
alleges violations of various state statutes by the defendants'
alleged conspiracy to fix prices of California diesel fuel and
seeks treble damages and restitution.

     (4) ARCO Chemical Shareholder Litigation.  On June 26, 1998,
a purported class action was filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware in New Castle County, McMullin v. Beran, et
al. (Case No. 16493NC) against ARCO, Lyondell Petrochemical
Company, ARCO Chemical Company, and the individual directors of
ARCO Chemical relating to the acquisition of ARCO Chemical by
Lyondell.  The suit is brought by an individual shareholder of
ARCO Chemical on behalf of all common stockholders, other than
defendants, and seeks rescission of the transaction, damages for
the allegedly inadequate consideration being paid by Lyondell for
the shares, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The plaintiff alleges
that ARCO and the individual directors of ARCO Chemical, who are
alleged to be dominated and controlled by ARCO, breached
fiduciary duties to the minority shareholders.


CEDENT CORPORATION: Increases Share Repurchase Program to $1.4B
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cendant Corporation (NYSE: CD) announced that its Board of
Directors has authorized a $200 million increase in the Company's
share repurchase program to $1.4 billion.  The Company stated
that while it has not fully utilized the previously disclosed
$1.2 billion aggregate authorization, it has increased the  
authorization in order to take advantage of current market
opportunities.  Under the share repurchase program, which
commenced in the fourth quarter of 1998, the Company has
purchased about 59 million shares of Cendant common stock on the
open market.  As previously announced, for the foreseeable future
the Company's excess financial resources, including net income
and potential proceeds from further asset sales, will be devoted
to retiring debt and equity, building shareholder value and
maintaining appropriate credit protection.  To date, the Company
has reduced its shares outstanding by about 8%, including the 7.1
million shares acquired as part of the sale of Hebdo Mag
International.


ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Company Responds to Shareholder Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the filing of a purported class action lawsuit
against the Company and certain of its officers, Engineering
Animation, Inc. (Nasdaq: EAII), issued the following statement
from Jamie Wade, vice president of administration and general
counsel of EAI:

     "Late Thursday, February 25, 1999, EAI learned that a
complaint purporting to be a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased EAI common stock between February 19,
1998 and February 17, 1999 was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District, Iowa.  The complaint
alleges that EAI and certain officers violated certain federal
securities laws and asks for unspecified damages.

    "Although we have not been served with the complaint, we have
had an opportunity to review the document.  The complaint is
completely without merit and the company intends to vigorously
defend against these charges.

    "Regrettably, it is not uncommon for these kinds of lawsuits
to be filed against high-growth companies with volatile stock
prices.  They tend to be initiated by a small group of law firms
that specialize in such actions.

    "These firms often earn considerable fees from pressuring
companies and their insurance providers to settle such cases."


INDUSTRIE-MATEMATIK: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss announced that a class action has been commenced in
the United States District Court for  the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Industri-Matematik
International Corporation ("IMI") (NASDAQ:IMIC) stock during the  
period August 27, 1997 to May 5, 1998.

The complaint charges IMI and certain of its officers, directors,
controlling shareholders and its underwriters with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements about the successful introduction of, and strong
demand for and sales of, IMI's System ESS software product, the
success of IMI's joint marketing program with Oracle Corp., IMI's
dramatically shortening sales cycle, the successful expansion of
IMI's business into European markets and of IMI's direct sales
force, all of which they represented would result in F98 and F99
(to end April 30, 1998 and April 30, 1999, respectively) earnings
per share ("EPS") of $.34-$.37 and $.46-$.58 for IMI and  40% EPS
growth for IMI going forward.  These representations artificially  
inflated IMI's stock to a Class Period high of $33-5/8 and
allowed IMI, its insiders and its controlling shareholders to
sell or dispose of 10.5 million shares of IMI stock via a October
31, 1997 secondary offering at $20 and open market stock sales at
as high as $30.59 for total proceeds of $226.2 million.  In late
April 1998, just days after IMI's insiders had completed their
insider selling, rumors surfaced that IMI's 4thQ F98 results
would be much worse than earlier forecast by the Company and its
stock fell from $28-1/4 on Friday April  24, 1998, to $21 on
Monday April 27, 1998.  Then, on May 5, 1998, when IMI confirmed
these rumors and admitted weak demand for its System ESS product  
line, problems with its Oracle marketing partnership, its direct
sales staff, and its European operations and that its sales
cycles were lengthening, IMI's stock fell to $14-5/8.


LEAD PIGMENTS: Litigation Updates From ARCO's Annual Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
In its latest annual report filed with the SEC, Atlantic
Richfield provides investors with information about lead pigment
litigation to which it is a party:

     (A) On June 7, 1989, the City of New York, the New York City
Housing Authority, and the New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation brought suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York for the County of New York (Case No. 14365/89) against six
alleged former lead pigment manufacturers or their successors
(including ARCO as successor to International Smelting and
Refining Company (IS&R), a former subsidiary of The Anaconda
Company), and the Lead Industries Association (LIA), a trade
association. Plaintiffs sought to recover damages in excess of
$50 million including:

      (i) past and future costs of abating lead-based paint from
          housing owned by New York City and the New York City
          Housing Authority (Housing Authority);

     (ii) other costs associated with dealing with the presence
          of lead-based paint in that housing and privately-owned
          housing; and

    (iii) any amounts paid by the City or the Housing Authority
          to tenants because of injuries caused by the ingestion
          of lead-based paint.  

Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages and attorney's fees.  As a
result of various court rulings, the plaintiffs' only remaining
claims are for fraud and restitution and indemnity.  Recently,
two stipulated dismissals have further narrowed the case.  The
City of New York and the New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation entered into a stipulated order dismissing with
prejudice all of their pending claims against ARCO and the other
defendants.  The remaining plaintiff, the Housing Authority, then
entered into another stipulated order dismissing its claims as to
all the Housing Authority properties except for two housing
projects. The Housing Authority initially sought relief for 322
housing projects.

     (B) On January 24, 1996, ARCO (as successor to International
Smelting and Refining Company, a former subsidiary of The
Anaconda Company) was added as a defendant to a class action suit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, German, et al. v. Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corp., et al. (Case No. 93 Civ 6941), by plaintiff
intervenors Naquan and Naiya Thomas, minors, and their mother and
guardian Kaii Henry. The complaint in intervention names as
defendants, in addition to ARCO, eight alleged former processors
of lead pigment and lead paint, the LIA, the City of New York and
its Housing Authority, and the owner of the building where
plaintiffs reside.  Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves, and
a purported class of children under seven and pregnant women
residing in dwellings in the City of New York containing or
presumed to contain lead paint, injunctive relief from all
defendants including orders to abate lead paint and to contribute
to court-administered funds to pay for abatement and medical
monitoring and treatment.  The complaint alleges causes of action
against the lead pigment defendants and the LIA for negligence,
strict product liability, fraud and misrepresentation, breach of
express and implied warranty, nuisance, conspiracy, concert of
action, and enterprise and market share liability. The City of
New York, its Housing Authority, and the owner of the building
where plaintiffs reside have filed cross-claims against ARCO, the
other alleged former processors of lead pigment and paint, and
the LIA seeking indemnification against or contribution toward
any liability they (cross-claimants) may have to plaintiffs.  On
November 12, 1998, the court dismissed without prejudice the
claims in this lawsuit brought against the lead pigment
manufacturers, including ARCO. The court ruled that the claims
against the pigment manufacturers should not have been joined to
this lawsuit.

     (C) On November 25, 1998, ARCO (as successor to IS&R) was
named as a defendant in a purported class action suit, Sabater,
et al. v. Lead Industries Association, et al. (Case No.
25533/98), filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
for the County of Bronx by the mothers of four minor plaintiffs.
The complaint also names the LIA and eight former lead
pigment/paint manufacturers.  The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class of children age six and under
residing in dwellings in the City of New York containing or
presumed to contain lead paint, compensatory damages and
injunctive relief from all defendants, including orders requiring
defendants to contribute to a court-administered fund to pay for:

           (i) notification to class members of the dangers of
               lead-based paint,

          (ii) abatement of properties where class members reside
               and to pay for temporary relocation during
               abatement,

         (iii) medical monitoring, including screening, testing,
               diagnosing, and treating of class members, and

          (iv) attorney fees.  

The complaint alleges causes of action against the defendants for
negligence, strict products liability, conspiracy, concert of
action, and enterprise and market share liability.

     (D) On August 25, 1992, ARCO (as successor to IS&R) was
added as a defendant to a purported class action suit pending in
the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Ohio,
Jackson, et al. v. The Glidden Company, et al. (Case No. 236835),
which seeks on behalf of the three named plaintiffs, and all
other persons similarly situated in the state of Ohio, money
damages for injuries allegedly suffered from exposure to lead
paint, punitive damages, and an order requiring defendants to
remove and abate all lead paint applied to any building in Ohio.
The suit names as defendants, in addition to ARCO, the LIA and 16
companies alleged to have participated in the manufacture and
sale of lead pigments and paints and includes causes of action
for strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty,
fraud, nuisance, restitution, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, and enterprise, market share and alternative liability.


LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: WSJ Article Describes Accounting Impropriety
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent article published on Feb. 23, 1999, The Wall Street
Journal reported that FASB, the accounting board, in an effort to
expand their crackdown on merger accounting abuses is considering
killing a popular merger write-off provision which concerning
one-time charges taken by companies for in-process research and
development.  Such write-off abuses were alleged by the law firm
of Weiss & Yourman when it filed the first class action lawsuit
on January 19, 1999 on behalf of Lernout & Hauspie Speech
Products (NASDAQ: LHSPF) shareholders.


MARYLAND WORKERS: Fund Sued for Illicit Telephone Call Taping
-------------------------------------------------------------
>From Towson, Maryland, United Press International reports that
state agency reviewing workman's compensation cases may have  
illicitly tape-recorded thousands of phone calls with lawyers and
clients.  A class action lawsuit accuses the state Injured
Workers Insurance Fund of taping calls without permission.  The
Complaint does not suggest what was done with the recordings, nor
how the allegation came to light.


MEGO MORTGAGE: Status Report Concerning Pending Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
On February 23, 1998, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Robert J.
Feeney, as a purported class action against Mego Mortgage
Corporation and Jeffrey S. Moore, the Company's former President
and Chief Executive Officer. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
in connection with the preparation and issuance of certain of the
Company's financial statements.  The named plaintiff seeks to
represent a class consisting of purchasers of the Common Stock
between April 11, 1997 and December 18, 1997, and seeks damages
in an unspecified amount, costs, attorney's fees and such other
relief as the court may deem proper. On June 30, 1998, the
plaintiff amended the complaint to add additional plaintiffs to
add as a defendant Mego Financial, the Company's former parent,
and to extend the class period through and including May 20,
1998.  On September 18, 1998, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint and believes it has meritorious defenses to
this lawsuit.

On October 2, 1998, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western Division of Tennessee by Traci
Parris, as a purported class action against Mortgage Lenders
Association, Inc., Mego Mortgage Corporation and City Mortgage
Services, Inc., one of the Company's strategic partners.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
charged interest rates, origination fees and loan brokerage
commissions in excess of those allowed by law.  The named
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of borrowers and seeks
damages in an unspecified amount, reform or nullification of loan
agreements, injunction, costs, attorney's fees and such other
relief as the court may deem just and proper.  On October 27,
1998, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and the
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit.

On October 8, 1998, the Office of the Consumer Credit
Commissioner of the State of Texas issued a denial of the
Company's application for licensing as a secondary mortgage
lender. On October 20, 1998, the Company filed an appeal of the
Commissioner's decision and an administrative hearing will be
held after March 1999.  The denial will not become final until
the Company's appeal has been resolved.  The Company believes
that it is capable of meeting such requirements as the
Commissioner may set to amend the Company's license application.
If the denial becomes final, the Company will not be able to make
secondary mortgage loans in the State of Texas at interest rates
of greater than 10%.  The Company is not required to hold a
secondary mortgage lender license in order to continue to produce
or acquire unregulated first mortgage loans in the state of
Texas.  


MORGAN STANLEY: Status Report About Material Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., in its latest annual report on
Form 10-K filed with the SEC, provides investors with information
about the status of material litigation in which it is involved:

     I. Term Trust Class Actions.  A putative class action,
Thomas D. Keeley, et al. v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. et al. (the
"Keeley Action") was commenced in the California Superior Court,
Orange County, on October 27, 1994 and later consolidated with
three similar class actions.  Defendants are the Company, DWR,
Dean Witter Distributors, Dean Witter InterCapital, Dean Witter
Services Company Inc., TCW Management Co., Trust Company of the
West, TCW Asset Management Co., Inc., TCW Funds Management, Inc.
and eight individuals, including two DWR employees. Plaintiffs
allege breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud, deceit
and violation of the California Corporation Code in the marketing
and selling of the TCW/DW Term Trusts 2000, 2002 and 2003.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
Defendants filed an answer to the first amended class complaint
denying all wrongdoing on December 6, 1995, and motions for
judgment on the pleadings on March 13, 1997. In the Keeley
Action, defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings were
denied on June 23, 1997.  On June 1, 1998, the plaintiff's
motion to certify the class was granted as to a California
statewide class and denied as to a nationwide class. On October
13, 1998, three separate state court actions were filed in
Florida, New York and New Jersey.  The Florida action was removed
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
November 10, 1998.

     II. TCW/DW North American Government Income Trust
Litigation.  Several purported class action lawsuits, which have
been consolidated for pretrial purposes, were instituted in
January 11, 1995 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the TCW/DW North American Government
Income Trust (the "Trust"), DWR, some of the Trust's trustees and
officers, its underwriter and distributor, the Trust's
unaffiliated adviser, the Trust's manager and other defendants,
by certain shareholders of the Trust.  The consolidated amended
complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933
and generally alleges that the defendants made inadequate and
misleading disclosures in the prospectuses for the Trust, in
particular as such disclosures related to the nature and risks of
the Trust's investments in mortgage-backed securities and Mexican
securities. Plaintiffs also challenge certain fees paid by the
Trust as excessive. Damages are sought in an unspecified amount.
Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
Although on May 8, 1996 the motions to dismiss were denied, upon
reconsideration on August 28, 1996 the court dismissed several of
plaintiffs' claims and clarified its earlier opinion denying
defendants' motion to dismiss. In addition, on August 28, 1996,
the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On
December 4, 1996, in light of a new decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, defendants filed a new motion for
reconsideration of the court's decision denying the motion to
dismiss, which was denied on November 20, 1997.

     III. Global Opportunity Fund Litigation.  On December 19,
1995, 20 investors in a Cayman Islands investment fund named The
Global Opportunity Fund (the "Fund") brought an action against
Morgan Stanley Bank Luxembourg, S.A. ("MSBL") in Luxembourg
Commercial Court seeking damages in the amount of $44 million and
costs. The apparent core of plaintiffs' complaint is that MSBL
was responsible for providing certain net asset valuations to the
Fund and performed that function in a negligent manner. On August
14, 1997, MSBL applied to the Luxembourg Commercial Court to join
Barclays de Zoete Weld Incorporated ("BZW") into the proceedings
in order to assert a claim for indemnity against BZW in the event
that MSBL is held liable. On November 15, 1998, the hearing for
both matters was adjourned to November 24-25, 1999.  On March 11,
1998, The Growth Fund, which was a sub fund of the Fund, and 14
investors in The Growth Fund (12 of whom are also plaintiffs in
the Luxembourg litigation against MSBL) brought an action against
Morgan Stanley & Co. International Limited ("MSIL") in New York
Supreme Court, New York County.  The complaint asserts purported
claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and violation of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing and seeks compensatory damages of approximately $7.25
million, punitive damages, interest, costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs assert that MSIL induced them to
enter into margin loans for the purpose of investing in another
sub fund of the Fund at a time when MSIL knew that MSBL was not
complying with its purported duty to monitor the Fund and the
Fund's manager was fraudulently inflating the value of certain of
its assets, which resulted in the investors' reliance on false
net asset values in making and continuing their investments in
the Fund.  The action was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York but thereafter remanded
to state court. On July 2, 1998, MSIL filed a motion to dismiss
the action.

     IV. In re Merrill Lynch, et al. Securities Litigation. On
January 19, 1995, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all
persons who placed market orders to purchase or sell securities
listed on the National Association of Securities Dealers
Automated Quotation System ("NASDAQ") with DWR between November
4, 1992 and November 4, 1994. The complaint, consolidated with
another action against other brokerage firms, seeks unspecified
damages and alleges that DWR failed to provide best execution of
customer market orders for NASDAQ securities.  The complaint
asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment.  On December 15, 1995, the court granted
summary judgment in favor of DWR and, on June 19, 1997, a three
judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.  On
January 30, 1998, the full Court of Appeals, sitting en banc,
reversed and remanded the action to district court for further
proceedings.  On April 30, 1998, a petition for certiorari in the
U.S. Supreme Court was filed by the defendants. On June 12, 1998,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint to extend the end date for the class period from
November 4, 1994 to August 28, 1996 and to name new class
representatives.  On July 21, 1998, the Magistrate granted the
plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint.  Defendants have
appealed that ruling to the district court judge.  On October 5,
1998, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.

     V. Penalty Bid Litigation.

          (A) On or about August 21, 1998, a purported class
action complaint, Friedman, et al. v. Salomon Smith Barney, et
al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and nine other
underwriters of securities.  An amended complaint dated
February 15, 1999, was filed against the Company and 16 other
underwriters of securities. The amended plaintiff class purports
to consist of all retail brokerage customers who purchased
securities in public offerings from defendants and their alleged
co-conspirators at artificially inflated prices.  The amended
complaint alleges that defendants and their co-conspirators
engaged in anti-competitive activity with respect to the
distribution of securities in public offerings by agreeing (i) to
discourage retail customers from "flipping" or selling shares
purchased in public offerings prior to the expiration of a
purported "Retail Restricted Period" (a period alleged to have
been arbitrarily set by the syndicate manager during which
restraints on retail accounts are imposed), and/or (ii) to
penalize retail customers who "flipped", and/or (iii) otherwise
to prevent retail customers from "flipping". The amended
complaint also alleges that similar restraints were not imposed
on institutional purchasers of shares in public offerings.  The
amended complaint alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act and breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks compensatory, treble
and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, injunctive relief,
costs and expenses, including attorneys', accountants' and
experts' fees.

          (B) Another purported class action, captioned Myers v.
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. et al., was filed on or about August
17, 1998 in California Superior Court, San Francisco County,
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Paine Webber Group
Incorporated, the Company, Travelers Group Inc., Legg Mason Inc.,
H.J. Meyers & Co., Inc. and The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. The
complaint alleges that defendants sold the stock of public
companies to investors in public offerings without disclosing the
existence of restrictions on "flipping" and serious conflicts of
interest with investors resulting from financial and other
penalties imposed on brokers and clients for "flipping." The
complaint also alleges that similar restrictions were not imposed
on larger institutional purchasers of stock in those offerings.
The complaint asserts claims for unfair competition and false
advertising under various sections of the California Business and
Professions Code, negligent misrepresentations under the Civil
Code and unfair, fraudulent and unlawful business practices under
the Business Code.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief and an
award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts'
fees. On September 15, 1998, the action was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. On
October 30, 1998, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

     VI. IPO Fee Litigation. On or about November 3, 1998, a
purported class action complaint, Gillet v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and 26 other
underwriters of initial public offering ("IPO") securities. The
complaint alleges that defendants conspired to fix the "fee" paid
by purported class members to buy and sell IPO securities of U.S.
companies by invariably setting the underwriters' spread at 7% in
issuances of $20 to $80 million in violation of the federal
antitrust laws, particularly Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton
Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint seeks treble
damages and injunctive relief, as well as reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs. On November 23, 1998 and December 2, 1998, two
other substantially similar class action complaints, captioned
Prager v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. et al. and Holzman v. Goldman,
Sachs & Co. et al. were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the same underwriter
defendants.

     VII. Nenni, et al. v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. In December
1998, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against DWR,
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Distributors Inc. and the Company. The
complaint, filed on behalf of all purchasers of certain of the
Company's mutual funds subject to a contingent deferred sales
charge (the "Mutual Funds"), alleges violations of Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
that the Mutual Funds' prospectuses and registration statements
allegedly omitted certain disclosures concerning the
transferability of the Mutual Funds to brokerage accounts outside
of DWR.  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees, interest and costs.


NAKORNTHAI STRIP: McDonald & NatWest Sued for Fraud on Bond Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crain's Cleveland Business reports that a group of disgruntled
bondholders has accused McDonald Investments Inc. and NatWest
Capital Markets Ltd. of securities fraud in connection with the
financing of a steel mill expansion in Thailand.  Five mutual
funds belonging to the IDS Mutual Fund Group, a family of mutual
funds managed by American Express Financial Corp. of Minneapolis,
said they bought $62 million of bonds as part of a $452.5 million
debt offering last February and March for the Nakornthai Strip
Mill PCL in Chonburi, Thailand.

But a string of negative announcements, including a credit
downgrade on the bonds last October, Crain's relates, has caused
those bonds to lose the vast majority of their value.  

IDS Mutual claims that two of the offering's underwriters,
McDonald  Investments and NatWest Capital Markets Ltd. of New
York, made "materially false and misleading statements" about the
Thai steel mill while promoting the bond offering.  "Had the
funds) known of the materially adverse information misrepresented  
or concealed by the defendants, they would not have purchased the
notes at such inflated prices, or would not have purchased the
notes at all," according to the lawsuit, filed Jan. 25 with the
U.S. District Court of Minnesota in Minneapolis.  IDS Mutual
wants its money back, plus interest.

In response to the lawsuit, McDonald Investments, a unit of
KeyCorp, issued a statement, saying: "We are aware that a lawsuit
has been filed.  We believe McDonald conducted itself properly in
this transaction and we plan to vigorously defend that position.
As this matter involves pending litigation, we have no further
comment."  McDonald owns 2% of Nakornthai, according to the  
lawsuit.  A NatWest spokeswoman declined comment to Crain's,
saying the company doesn't comment on pending litigation.

According to the suit, the complex's hot mill facility wasn't
completed even though McDonald and NatWest claimed it was. The
suit also alleges the complex couldn't process as much scrap
steel as the underwriters claimed in offering documents.  

The Nakornthai deal was the latest in a series of steel financing
deals led by David L. Stickler, managing director of McDonald's
steel group, Crain's says.  McDonald was brought in to
restructure the mill's finances after a Thai bank group couldn't
finance the project in the wake of the collapse of Thailand's
currency.  Last March, Mr. Stickler told Crain's Cleveland
Business that investors initially were skeptical about the
financing deal.  According to the IDS lawsuit, the underwriters
worked "to overcome this resistance" to the financing package by
misleading potential bond buyers about key parts of the mill
and its management.

To raise the money for the mill, underwriters sold two major bond
issues:  $249 million of 12% senior mortgage notes due in 2006,
and $203.5 million of 12.25% senior subordinated notes due in
2008.  While McDonald and NatWest are the only two underwriters
named in the suit, two others, PaineWebber Inc. and ECT
Securities Corp., both of New York, also participated in the
offering.  The four firms collected fees totalling $15  
million, according to the suit.  

Crain's describes a string of recent events has soured IDS on its
purchase of the Nakornthai bonds and has sent the bonds' value
plummeting.   According to the lawsuit, the Nakornthai steel mill
has dropped plans to build a power plant and an iron-production
operation -- both of which were promised during the offering. In
addition, Steel Dynamics Inc., a steel producer from Butler,
Ind., and part-owner of Nakornthai, has dropped plans to  
provide management services and technical assistance to the Thai
mill, the lawsuit says.  Though not mentioned in the lawsuit, the
bonds have been downgraded by Moody's.  In October, Moody's
dropped by one notch its rating on the 12% senior mortgage notes
to Caa3 from B3 and on the 12.25% notes to Ca from Caa2.  Moody's
cited a decline in worldwide steel markets and concerns about
Nakornthai's operating performance for its action.  The 12.25%
senior subordinated notes last traded Jan. 19 at a value of $9,  
down from their original par value of $100, and the 12% senior
mortgage notes last traded Jan. 20 at $20, according to the Bond
Investors Association of Miami Lakes, Fla., a nonprofit group
that publishes the Defaulted Bonds Newsletter.  A $30 million
payment on all the bonds issued at the offering is due Aug. 1,  
1999, according to the Bond Investors Association.  "We're
watching this, and from our viewpoint these (bonds) are ready to
go"  into default, said Jack Colombo, managing editor of
Defaulted Bonds Newsletter.  The newsletter has placed both the
12% and 12.25% bonds on its monthly list of "default candidates."


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, announced that it filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Orbital Sciences Corp. (NYSE:ORB) from April  21, 1998
through February 16, 1999, inclusive.

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


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Faruqi & Faruqi File Complaint in Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP announced that a Class
Action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all purchasers of
Orbital Sciences Corp. (NYSE: ORB) common stock in the period
between April 21, 1998 and February 16, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading financial statements and by failing to reveal that
Orbital Sciences was employing fraudulent accounting methods
which artificially inflated Orbital Sciences' earnings.  After
the close of trading on February 16, 1999, the Company announced
that due to the improper  accounting treatment of certain items,
the Company would materially restate earnings for the first three
quarters of 1998.  The Complaint also alleges that  defendants
utilized their inside information regarding the artificial
inflation  of the Company's stock price to sell significant
amounts of their own personal  Orbital Sciences holdings for
proceeds of over $3 million.


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Berman DeValerio Files Complaint in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE: ORB) was charged with
overstating its revenues and earnings in a shareholder class  
action filed by Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
February 26, 1999.  The case, which alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the  
common stock of Orbital from April 21, 1998 through and including
February 16, 1999, and who suffered losses on their investments.

According to the complaint, Orbital admitted on February 16, 1999
that it issued materially overstated financial results for the
first, second and third fiscal quarters of fiscal year 1998 by
restating its financial statements for those quarters.  In
particular, the Company stated that it was taking charges to
income to reflect "more conservative accounting procedure" in the
manner it recorded "profit rates on several long-term contracts."  
The Company also indicated that it had improperly capitalized
research and development costs and prematurely recognized
revenues from license fees on international franchise agreements.  
Moreover, during the Class Period, insiders of the Company sold  
approximately 102,000 shares of the Company's common stock,
realizing proceeds of approximately $3.7 million.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Status Report About Material Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION are defendants in 185
lawsuits involving approximately 730 plaintiffs arising out of
the use of synthetic estrogens by the mothers of the plaintiffs.  
In virtually all of these lawsuits, many other pharmaceutical
companies are also named defendants.  The female plaintiffs claim
various injuries, including cancerous or precancerous lesions of
the vagina and cervix and a multiplicity of pregnancy problems.  
A number of suits involve infants with birth defects born to
daughters whose mother took the drug.  The total amount claimed
against all defendants in all the suits amounts to more than $2
billion.  While it is not possible to precisely predict the
outcome of these proceedings, it is management's opinion that it
is remote that any material liability in excess of the amount
accrued will be incurred.

SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION is a defendant in more than 160
antitrust actions commenced (starting in 1993) in state and
federal courts by independent retail pharmacies, chain retail
pharmacies and consumers.  The plaintiffs allege price
discrimination and/or conspiracy between the Company and other
defendants to restrain trade by jointly refusing to sell
prescription drugs at discounted prices to the plaintiffs.

One of the federal cases is a class action on behalf of
approximately two-thirds of all retail pharmacies in the United
States and alleges a price-fixing conspiracy.  The Company agreed
to  settle the federal class action for a total of $22 million,
which has been paid in full as of January 31, 1999.  The
settlement provides, among other things, that the Company shall
not refuse to grant discounts on brand-name prescription drugs to
a retailer based solely on its status as a retailer and that, to
the extent a retailer can demonstrate its ability to affect
market share of a Company brand-name prescription drug in the
same manner as a managed care organization with which the
retailer competes, it will be entitled to negotiate similar
incentives subject to the rights, obligations, exemptions and
defenses of the Robinson-Patman Act and other laws and
regulations.  The United States District Court in Illinois
approved the settlement of the federal class action on June 21,
1996.  In June 1997, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
dismissed all appeals from that settlement, and it is not subject
to further review.  The defendants that did not settle the class
action proceeded to trial in September 1998.  The trial ended in
November 1998 with a directed verdict in the defendants' favor.

Four of the state antitrust cases have been certified as class
actions.  Two are class actions on behalf of certain retail
pharmacies in California and Wisconsin, and the other two are
class actions in California and the District of Columbia, on
behalf of consumers of prescription medicine. In addition, an
action has been brought in Alabama purportedly on behalf of
consumers in Alabama and several other states.  Plaintiffs are
seeking to maintain the action as a class action.  The Company
has settled the retailer class action in Wisconsin and the
alleged class action in Minnesota.  The settlements of the state
antitrust cases in Wisconsin and Minnesota have been approved by
the respective courts.  The settlement amounts were not
significant.  The Company has also recently settled in principle
the state consumer cases in all of the states except Alabama and
California.  Court approval of those settlements has either
already been obtained or is currently being sought.  The
settlement amounts were not material to the Company.  In August
1998, a class action was brought in Tennessee purportedly on
behalf of consumers in Tennessee and several other states.  The
court has conditionally certified a class of consumers, but has
stayed the case pending the resolution of an earlier-filed
Tennessee case, which the Company has settled in principle.

Plaintiffs in these antitrust actions generally seek treble
damages in an unspecified amount and an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.

In May 1998, the Company settled six of the federal antitrust
cases brought by 26 food and drug chain retailers and several
independent retail stores.  Plaintiffs in these cases comprise
collectively approximately one-fifth of the prescription drug
retail market.  The settlement amounts were not material to the
Company.  The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (A&P)
was among the settling plaintiffs.  Mr. James Wood, a director of
the Company, was an executive officer of A&P.  Mr. Wood did not
participate in any review or deliberations by the Board of
Directors relating to this action.

In April 1997, certain of the plaintiffs in the federal class
action commenced another purported class action in United States
District Court in Illinois against the Company and the other
defendants who settled the previous federal class action.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants conspired not to implement
the settlement commitments following the settlement discussed
above.  The District Court has denied the plaintiffs' motion for
a preliminary injunction hearing.  

The Company believes all the antitrust actions are without merit
and is defending itself vigorously.

On March 13, 1996, the Company was notified that the United
States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating whether
the Company, along with other pharmaceutical companies, conspired
to fix prescription drug prices.  The investigation is ongoing.
The Company vigorously denies that it has engaged in any price-
fixing conspiracy.


SCHICK TECHNOLOGIES: No Action on Nine Shareholder Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schick Technologies, Inc., reminds investors in its latest
quarterly report filed with the SEC that nine shareholder  
complaints  purporting to be class action  lawsuits have been
filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York alleging that the Company and several of its
current and former directors and officers violated sections 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rule 10b5
promulgated by the Commission thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  Named as defendants in one or more of the
complaints are the Company, David B. Schick, Thomas E. Rutenberg,
Mark Bane, Euval Barrekette, Fred Levine, Daniel Neugroschl, Zvi
N. Raskin, Howard Wasserman and David Spector.

The complaints allege that defendants issued false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's publicly reported earnings.   
The complaints seek certification of a class of persons who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 4, 1998 and
December 10, 1998, inclusive, and do not specify the amount of
damages sought.  No responsive pleading has been filed and no  
discovery has been taken.  The Company has retained counsel,  
believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend them.  Because these actions are in their
preliminary stages, the Company indicates it is unable to predict
the ultimate outcome of these claims.


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

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

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

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

Sirrom believes that these actions are without merit, and it will
continue to vigorously defend the claims brought against it and
the individual defendants.  Sirrom is unable, however, to predict
the outcome of these lawsuits or the costs to be incurred in
defending them.  Sirrom does not believe that these actions will
have a material adverse effect on the operations of Sirrom.


SPYGLASS, INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class
action suit against Spyglass Inc. (Nasdaq: SPYG) and certain of
its  officers and directors.  The case was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of all persons and entities  who purchased Spyglass common
stock during the period between October 20, 1998 and January 4,
1999, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

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.  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that
defendants misrepresented that certain major contracts with key
customers  had been finalized when in fact these contracts
had not been finalized.  The revenues expected from these
contracts, which are unlikely to materialize, had  formed the
basis for forecasts of first quarter profitability.  As a result
of  these misrepresentations and material omissions, the price of
Spyglass' common  stock was artificially inflated throughout the
Class Period.  On January 4,  1999, in a complete turnaround,
the Company announced that first quarter results would not meet
prior estimates.  The Company attributed the loss to a  failure
of certain transactions to close as expected.  In extremely heavy  
volume, the stock price fell from $22.00 per share on January 3,
1999, to $14.50 per share on January 4, 1999.

Prior to any public disclosure of Spyglass' problems, certain
Spyglass insiders began to bail out of their investments during
the last three months of 1998.  The individual defendants took
advantage of their inside knowledge to sell more than 500,000
shares of Spyglass getting proceeds exceeding $9.1 million during
the Class Period.


STOLEN GENERATION: Two Aborigines Sue Australian Government
-----------------------------------------------------------
>From Darwin, Australia, Reuters reports that two Aborigines from
Australia's "Stolen Generation" opened a historic court case on
Monday seeking damages from the government for being forcibly
removed from their parents and raised as whites.  Should Lorna
Cubillo, 60, and Peter Gunner, 51, succeed in the Federal  
Court in Darwin, it would boost 700 "Stolen Generation"
Aborigines also seeking damages from the government and 30,000
others who could take legal action.

"What the government did was genocide, in that it tried to wipe
us out because of the colour of our skin," Aborigine Barbara
Cummings, a spokeswoman for the Northern Territory Aborigines
seeking compensation, told Reuters.  

In 1997, Reuters explains, an Australian Human Rights Commission
report found a past assimilation policy of taking mixed-blood
Aboriginal children from parents to be raised on church missions
or in white families was a form of "genocide" and that surviving
victims should be compensated.  But Prime Minister John Howard
has refused to apologise for the policies and atrocities of
previous governments and has ruled out any compensation to  
the "Stolen Generation".  The report listed physical and sexual
abuse inflicted between the 1880s and 1960s on tens of thousands
of Aborigines, some of whom were virtual slaves to white
families.  It said thousands of Aborigines faced family
breakdowns, drug and alcohol abuse, violence and mental anguish
directly linked to the assimilation policy.

Both plaintiffs want compensation and punitive damages for the
psychological trauma, mental and emotional distress and isolation
from the cultural, social and spiritual lives of their families.

Last year, Reuters relates, another Aborigine lost a High Court
of Australia case arguing that the separation laws were
unconstitutional.  Cubillo and Gunner launched their civil suit
against the Australian government, which governed the Northern
Territory when they were children.  They will argue not that the
policy was wrong or genocidal, but that the government failed in
its "duty of care" towards wards of the state, their lawyer said.

"The cases starting today are important for the legal precedents
we hope they will set for the 30,000 members of the Stolen
Generation around Australia," Cummings said, adding that a
successful case would put pressure on the Howard government to
compensate "Stolen Generation" Aborigines and apologise.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Editorial by Defeated UK Plaintiffs' Lawyer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following letter, from Martyn Day, Esq., a partner at Leigh,
Day, one of the solicitors' firms which brought 50-plus personal
injury cases against UK tobacco firms, addressed to the Editor of
the Guardian, appeared in print on February 27, 1999, and is
reprinted in its entirety:

                            Stubbed out                                   

   Faced with a judge clearly hostile to our case, looking at a
rapidly escalating legal bill for the other side and, for us, the
lawyers acting under the "no win no fee scheme", costs spiralling
into many millions, the plug was pulled yesterday for nearly all
British litigants against the tobacco companies.  The surrender
(albeit sweetened by an agreement with them largely lifting the
cloud of bankruptcy from the heads of the aged cancer sufferers)  
was a bitter pill for them and for us to swallow. It calls into
question the way the courts deal with this type of case.

   In the light of undertakings I have had to give as part of the
agreement, it is not the role of this article to criticise the
tobacco firms.  But mass claims, where industry stands to face an
enormous bill if they succeed, are a fundamental part of our
democracy. It is the one way of ensuring that the ordinary
individual, by forming a group with others affected, can gain
access to justice; it equally ensures that industry is kept on
its toes in how it deals with employees, what it sells to
consumers and what pollution it pumps into the environment.

   The last four years have seen an explosion of information
about what the tobacco industry, largely in the US, has been up
to since it became clear in the early 1950s that smoking causes
lung cancer.  The picture that has emerged has not been a pretty
one and has led to $250 billion settlements for US Medicaid cases
and the decision a few days ago of a Californian jury to award
$50 million in punitive damages in a single case.

   US industries have to operate in a climate where any mistake
can lead to them being enveloped in claims.  Although this system
has its critics, I do not sense, in looking at the vibrant state
of the US economy, that these are problems their industry cannot
take in its stride.

   The cancer sufferers' case here, supported by some of the
country's leading experts, was that by the mid-1950s it should
have been clear that smoking caused lung cancer and that if tar
levels had been reduced much quicker than actually happened, the
chances of smokers contracting the cancer would have been far
less.  The case, as one would expect, was stoutly defended, not
least because if the victims were right, the firms' alleged
failures to comply with their duty of care will have caused the
deaths of thousands of smokers.  If ever a case deserved to be
heard at a full trial, this was it.

   In trying to bring this case to trial, the plaintiffs and our
legal team faced hurdle after hurdle: the withdrawal of legal
aid, the gagging of the lawyers, the threat of bankruptcy for the
legal team and costs orders making the claims unviable under the
conditional fee scheme.  The final hurdle was the court's
decision to hear the industry's application to strike-out the  
limitation cases (ie those not brought within three years of
diagnosis) at a point when the tobacco firms had only just
started providing us with their internal documents.

   So the historic picture we could present to the court was far
from complete.  Mr Justice Wright made it quite clear that he was
fundamentally unimpressed with the plaintiffs' case.  Faced with
him as the trial judge and with the remaining procedural weapons
in the hands of the tobacco firms, there was no  option but to
pull the plug on the best terms available.

   The key issues in the case are now highly unlikely ever to be
heard in a full trial in this country. The tobacco companies  may
well have, therefore, ensured that all their internal documents
will remain locked in their vaults, possibly forever.

   What has happened here needs to be considered alongside the
collapses in other key product liability cases such as the
Norplant cases a few weeks ago, where a group of women were
alleging that the company's contraceptive device caused serious
side-effects; and the benzodiazepine cases, where takers
of  these tranquillisers were again alleging significant side-
effects.  They never reached trial after some pounds 30 million
of legal aid funds had been spent  on them. I am left with the
clear conclusion that we have a judicial system that simply does
not work in these cutting edge claims.

   For those injured at work the courts see it as their clear
role to ensure fair play between David and Goliath, but when it
comes to product liability claims, Goliath has so often
triumphed.  The triumph has rarely arisen from a proper
consideration of the full merits of the case at trial because the
courts have provided the Goliaths with an ever increasing panoply
of procedural weapons that they are able to bring forward to
ensure they do not reach that stage.

   The resources at the defendants' disposal means that they can
afford the lawyers' fees to use them.  As if these procedural
weapons are not enough, the Goliaths are now also clearly
prepared to put considerable resources into trying to attack
claimants and their lawyers through the media and Parliament,  
as we have seen from leaked Cape Asbestos material on current
claims against them by 1,500 South African asbestos victims.

   If we are to have a society where the individual cannot be
crushed by the might of the multi-nationals, the role of the
judiciary must be to ensure the parties are fighting on a
reasonably even playing field.

   But the courts seem to be seeing it as their role to help
prevent David from even getting out of the changing-room and on
to the pitch.


TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL: Hires Michael Jalbert as New CEO
----------------------------------------------------------
Transcrypt International, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: TRII)
announced that Michael E. Jalbert has been hired as President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Prior to joining
Transcrypt, Mr. Jalbert (pronounced jal-bear) was President & CEO
of Microdyne Corporation of Alexandria, VA; a Nasdaq listed
company, which was recently acquired by L-3 Communications.
Microdyne is a communications company specializing in the
manufacturing and sale of signaling and telemetry products  
and technology outsourcing services.  After joining Microdyne in
1997, Mr. Jalbert refocused the company business units and
successfully concentrated the management team on profitable
growth strategies.  Mr. Jalbert, 54, also served as CEO of IDB
Mobile Communications in Bethesda, MD and prior to that held  
executive positions with Diversey Corporation and Air Products.

Mr. Jalbert joined Transcrypt on March 1, 1999.  Transcrypt's
Board of Directors intends to elect him as Chairman of the Board
at its next regular meeting on March 25th.  "Combining these
three jobs into one position makes good business sense and
allowed us to attract someone of Mike Jalbert's experience,"
stated current Chairman of the Board, John Connor.

Tom Thomsen, Chair of the Transcrypt Search Committee, stated
that, "The Company reviewed or interviewed over 50 candidates in
this national search.  The Board is very pleased to be able to
hire someone, who in a series of increasing accountabilities, has
demonstrated strong leadership skills, professional executive
capabilities and impeccable integrity.  He brings a working
knowledge of related industry marketing and manufacturing as well
as corporate governance of publicly held companies.

"The Board thanks John Connor for his dedicated hard work in
stepping back in as interim CEO during the past eight months of
the search," Thomsen added.  Connor, who has been Chairman of
Transcrypt since 1991, will remain as an outside director and has
agreed to a one year consulting arrangement to assist with the
CEO transition, matters relating to the class action lawsuits and  
strategic initiatives that may arise.


UNION TEXAS: Delaware Shareholder Litigation Against KKR & ARCO
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 6, 1998, two purported class actions were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in New Castle County,
Squyres v. Barry, et al. (Case No. 16357NC) and McMullen v. Union
Texas Petroleum, et al. (Case No. 16358NC), against Union Texas
Petroleum Company (UTP), individual directors of UTP, Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts and Co. (KKR), and Atlantic Richfield relating to
ARCO's acquisition and merger of UTP. On July 28, 1998, a
purported class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Squyres v.
Whitmire, et al. (Case No. 98-6085), against the same defendants,
except ARCO. The suits are brought by individual shareholders of
UTP on behalf of all holders of UTP common stock and seek
rescission of the transaction, damages for the allegedly
inadequate consideration being paid by ARCO for the UTP shares,
and attorneys' fees and costs. In the Delaware actions, the
plaintiffs assert that the individual director defendants and
KKR, as UTP's largest shareholder, breached fiduciary duties to
other shareholders and that ARCO aided and abetted the alleged
breach of duty.  In the California case, the plaintiffs allege
that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


ZILA, INC.: FDA Says January 13 Press Release is Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, which has filed a class
action against Zila, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZILA) for misrepresenting
investors concerning the status of its FDA application for
the  Company's OraTest(R) oral cancer detection system, reports
that, on January 28, 1999, the FDA sent a letter to Joseph Hines,
Zila's President, stating that the Company's January 13, 1999
press release concerning its FDA application for  OraTest was "in
violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) and  
its implementing regulations because it promotes an unapproved
drug product (Oratest) by making implied claims of safety and
effectiveness that have not  been demonstrated by substantial
evidence."   The FDA therefore requested that the Company
immediately cease using the press release or similar promotional  
claims.  

On January 13, 1999, an FDA Advisory Panel unanimously rejected
Zila's application for FDA approval of OraTest, citing material
discrepancies in the study submitted by Zila to support its
product.  In response, Zila issued a press release that day,
entitled "FDA Advisory Panel Recommends Refinement of Data on
Zila's OraTest Oral Cancer Detection System," in which the
Company continued to tout the purported safety and effectiveness
of the product.  The FDA became aware of the press release as
part of its routine monitoring program and a letter was sent to
Zila from Michael A. Misocky, Regulatory Review Officer for the
Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications.

According to the FDA letter, Zila's press release violated the
law by making numerous unapproved promotional claims concerning
OraTest's safety and effectiveness.  In addition, the FDA
concluded that Zila's headline for its January 13th press release
was "misleading because it does not accurately describe the
findings of the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee."  The  
letter explained that the committee had, in fact, "recommended
that Zila conduct a study with a different design to support
approval."  Finally, the FDA demanded that Zila "immediately
cease all activities that make the same or similar claims of
safety or effectiveness for Oratest," requiring Zila to  
submit a written response to confirm its compliance with the
order by February 11, 1999.  The Pomerantz firm has not seen the
Zila response to the FDA letter, if any.


                           *********

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  * * *