/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/990310.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 10, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 24


ALTRIS SOFTWARE: Announces Settlement of Securities Class Action
CEPHALON, INC.: Begins Non-Binding Mediation with Shareholders
CRANE CO.: Settling Leaky Toilet Claims Despite Class Formation
INTERNATIONAL AUTOMATED: Continues Defense of Shareholder Suit
INTERNATIONAL HERITAGE: Pyramid Victims May Recover Some Funds

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Update About Status of Material Litigation
LYCOS, INC.: Spector & Roseman Files Complaint in Massachusetts
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Asks 8th Circuit to Reconsider Antitrust Case
ORBITAL SCIENCES: Schubert & Reed Files Complaint in Virginia
SAIPAN WORKERS: "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Gap sweatshops have to go."

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Allegheny County Sues Cigarette Makers
USDA EMPLOYEES: Afro-American Employees Charge Discrimination
VANSTAR CORPORATION: Waiting for Ruling on Amended Complaint


ALTRIS SOFTWARE: Announces Settlement of Securities Class Action
Altris Software, Inc. (OTC BB:ALTS) announced today that it has
entered into a memorandum of understanding that provides for the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action lawsuits
currently pending against the company.

The settlement provides that the claims against Altris Software,
its former chairman and chief executive officer Jay Tanna and its
chief financial officer John W. Low will be dismissed.

Under the terms of the settlement, in exchange for the dismissal
and release of  these claims, (a) the company's insurance carrier
will pay $2,500,000 to the class of plaintiffs; (b) the company
will issue to the plaintiffs 2,304,271 shares of its common
stock, and (c) the company will cooperate with plaintiffs'  
counsel by providing certain documents and information regarding
the claims asserted in the class actions.

The settlement is subject to certain customary conditions,
including the execution of a definitive settlement agreement,
notice to the class and approval by the Court.

Roger H. Erickson, the company's president and chief executive
officer stated, "This settlement is an important step forward for
Altris that will enable the Company to avoid costly and
protracted litigation and to focus the Company's efforts on
meeting the needs of our customers and addressing the strategic  
issues facing the Company."

CEPHALON, INC.: Begins Non-Binding Mediation with Shareholders
Cephalon, Inc., a current director and officer, and a former
officer have been named as defendants in a number of civil
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, which have been consolidated into a single class
action.  The plaintiff class is comprised of those persons and
entities who purchased Cephalon common stock, or traded in
options to buy or sell Cephalon common stock, during the period
June 12, 1995 through and including June 7, 1996. Plaintiffs seek
to hold defendants liable for stock trading losses that stem from
alleged violations of the U.S. securities laws and alleged common
law negligent misrepresentation.  More specifically, plaintiffs
have alleged that statements by the Company and the named
defendants relating to the results of certain clinical studies of
MYOTROPHIN were misleading.  A judgment in this matter could
materially exceed the coverage which may be available under its
directors' and officers' liability insurance.  The Company is
vigorously defending this lawsuit and believes that there are
valid defenses against the claims, but the defense of the action
is expensive, and the costs of defense will reduce the available
insurance coverage that might otherwise be available to satisfy
the claims.  In an effort to resolve this dispute, in January
1999, the Company engaged a mediator to initiate a non-binding
mediation process and commenced discussions with counsel for the
lead plaintiffs.  

CRANE CO.: Settling Leaky Toilet Claims Despite Class Formation
Crane Canada, Inc., a subsidiary of Crane Co., is the defendant
in a class action pending in British Columbia, Canada alleging
damages to property from water escaping from toilet tanks
manufactured by Crane Canada.  Crane Canada has settled past
claims for property damage arising from water escaping from
cracked toilet tanks on a case by case basis, and has entered
into claims handling agreements with a number of property
insurers to process such claims pursuant to agreed claim
procedures and reimbursement formulas.  Although the class
certification order has been upheld on appeal, Crane Canada
continues to settle property damage claims in accordance with the
claims handling agreements and to enter into such agreements with
additional insurers. Accordingly, the company believes that the
pending legal action will not have a material impact on its
liabilities.  Based on the historical trends for claims related
to cracked toilet tanks and the experience of Crane Canada in
resolving such claims, the company
believes that pending and reasonably anticipated future claims
are not likely to have a material effect on its results of
operations or financial condition.

INTERNATIONAL AUTOMATED: Continues Defense of Shareholder Suit
On July 2, 1996, shareholders of INTERNATIONAL AUTOMATED SYSTEMS,  
INC., commenced a class action law suit filed against it by
shareholders for securities violations.  The class action has
been brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
shares of common stock from May 13, 1996 to June 27, 1996.  The
suit is seeking damages incurred based on the decrease in the
Company's stock price because of alleged material
misrepresentations by the Company regarding new technology
developed by the Company. The ultimate outcome of the litigation
cannot presently be determined.  Accordingly, no provision for
any liability that may result upon adjudication has been made in
the accompanying financial statements and the possible effect it
will have on future financial statements is unknown. Except for
proceedings resulting in the denial of class certification, the
parties have not engaged in extensive discovery.  No settlement
discussions have occurred to date.  The company intends to
continue vigorously defending the lawsuit.

served a formal order of private investigation by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  This investigation has
resulted in a complaint against IAS and Neldon Johnson being
filed by the SEC in the United States District Court, Central
Division, on September 23, 1998.  Donnel Johnson and Randale
Johnson were also named as relief defendants.  IAS continue to
stand by its Digital Wave Modulation (DWM) technology and its
inventor and president Neldon Johnson.  IAS and Neldon Johnson
denies the allegation of participation in fraudulent microcap
schemes and the other substantive allegations filed in the
complaint by the SEC and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

INTERNATIONAL HERITAGE: Pyramid Victims May Recover Some Funds
The News Observer Raleigh reports that a proposal calls for
bankrupt International Heritage Inc. to use a $5 million bond to
settle the Securities and Exchange Commission's one-year-old
civil complaint against the company has aroused opposition from  
creditors and Stanley Van Etten, IHI's controversial chief
executive.   The North Carolina bankruptcy court is scheduled to
hear arguments March 31 over the settlement proposed by IHI's
court-appointed trustee, attorney Holmes Harden.  

IHI posted the $5 million bond last year after the SEC filed a
civil complaint accusing the company of being a massive illegal
pyramid scheme.  The bond was required by a federal judge to pay
any judgments arising from the SEC action. IHI has steadfastly
denied the SEC's allegations, arguing that it was a legitimate
network marketing company like Amway.

An unusual feature of the proposed settlement is that the SEC
wouldn't receive the $5 million. Instead, the agency would turn
over the money to the trustee, who would use it to cover
administrative costs of the bankruptcy proceeding and then to pay
claims against the company. Priority would be given to paying
back disgruntled IHI sales representatives who paid up to $1,850
for the right to recruit other sales reps but say they never
received anything in return.

About 195,000 creditors are seeking more than $12 million in
claims, according to court documents.  The settlement proposed by
Harden would end the SEC's claims against the company, but not
against the individual defendants - Van Etten and IHI co-founders
Claude W. Savage of Charlotte and Larry G. Smith of Greenville,
S.C.  The SEC's case against them is in the discovery phase, and
no trial date has been scheduled, SEC attorney William Hicks

Opposition to the trustee's settlement proposal comes as no great
surprise, because the bond is a prime asset of the bankrupt
company.  IHI, which blamed negative publicity generated by the
SEC complaint for killing its business, filed for bankruptcy the
day before Thanksgiving.

In addition to Van Etten, IHI's bankruptcy attorney, a former
sales rep pursuing a class-action lawsuit against IHI, and the
companies that supplied the $5 million bond have filed objections
to the proposed settlement.

"It is pretty well a foregone fact that it is not going to be
approved," Van Etten said of the settlement proposal.

A major theme of those objecting to the settlement is that Harden
hasn't justified it.

"Before the court accepts the bald conclusion of the trustee as
to the ability of the SEC to 'prove up its claims,' the proof of
such ability should be offered to the court with an opportunity
for codebtors, lienholders, or other parties with interest to
respond," states the objection filed on Van Etten's behalf.

Van Etten put up $3.5 million cash for the bond -- the other $1.5
million came from the bond companies -- and has claimed that he
is entitled to get his money back if the SEC fails to win its
case. Overall,  Van Etten has asserted secured claims totaling $6
million.  A secured claim has the highest priority in Chapter 7
bankruptcy cases.

Attorney Brent Wood of Raleigh's Wood & Francis, which represents
Van Etten, said that given Van Etten's secured interest in the
bond, he should have been consulted about the settlement, but
wasn't.  He also said the bond was obtained on the ground that
IHI would fight the SEC's case, not just hand the money to the
agency.  Wood said Van Etten is interested in giving up his
secured claim in exchange for settling the SEC case against him
individually.  "That is what we are discussing with Holmes and
the SEC right now," Wood said.

Meanwhile, one of the bond companies, Connecticut-based Acstar
Insurance, argues that its bond contract with IHI gives Acstar
"the exclusive right to determine for itself" whether to settle
or defend any claims.

Harden said he was unaware of that contract provision when he
negotiated the settlement with the SEC.  He is researching the
legal issues surrounding Acstar's claim.  "They contend we can't
settle without their input. The SEC disputes that," he said.   
Harden also said he's willing to compromise. "We'll try to
fashion a resolution that resolves all the objections and makes
the bond money available to pay creditors' claims.  That is our
goal," he said.

Harden also said it's unclear whether Van Etten has a right to a
claim on the $5 million bond.

"That is another legal issue we haven't resolved," he said. "I
will certainly look at it closely. I would like to make the
argument that he doesn't have that interest."

As for the merits of the settlement proposal, Harden called it a
no-brainer.  First, the bankrupt IHI doesn't have the money to
defend against the SEC action.  And even if it contested the
action and won, IHI would get only $3.5 million to pay
administrative costs and creditors' claims, because the $1.5  
million put up by the bond companies would revert to them. So,
winning the case would actually bring less money to IHI than the
$5 million that would be disbursed under the proposed settlement.  
"That is a lot of money toward satisfying creditors' claims in
this case," Harden said.  "To me, it is a logical conclusion to
the SEC's litigation against the company."

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Update About Status of Material Litigation
In its latest annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC., advises
investors about the status of material litigation now pending:


In April 1986, Ahmed and Saleh Bamaodah commenced an action
against E.F. Hutton & Company Inc., ("EFH") to recover all losses
the Bamaodahs had incurred since May 1981 in the trading of
commodity futures contracts in a nondiscretionary EFH trading
account. The Dubai Civil Court ruled that the trading of
commodity futures contracts constituted illegal gambling under
Islamic law and that therefore the brokerage contract was void.
In January 1987, a judgment was rendered against EFH in the
amount of $48,656,000. On January 5, 1991, the Dubai Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgment. On March 22, 1992, the Court of
Cassation, Dubai's highest court, revoked and quashed the
decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered that the case be
remanded to the Court of Appeals for a further review. On April
26, 1994, the Dubai Court of Appeals again affirmed the judgment
of the Dubai Civil Court. The Company appealed the judgment to
the Court of Cassation, which reversed the Court of Appeals on
November 27, 1994 and ordered that a new expert be appointed to
review the case. A new expert was appointed, who returned a
report favorable to EFH. The Court ordered a review of additional
documents and has set an April 1999 hearing date.


Concurrent with the bankruptcy filing of First Capital Holdings
("FCH") in May, 1991 and the conservatorship and receivership of
its two life insurance subsidiaries, First Capital Life Insurance
Company and Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance Company ("Fidelity
Bankers Life"), a number of lawsuits were commenced, naming one
or more of Holdings, Lehman Brothers and American Express as
defendants. Most of these actions have been subsequently settled
and/or dismissed. The only material matter still pending is
described below.


On December 9, 1992, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the
"Virginia Court") by Steven Foster, the Virginia Commissioner
of Insurance (the "Commissioner") as Deputy Receiver of Fidelity
Bankers Life.  The Complaint names Holdings and Weingarten,
Ginsberg and Leonard Gubar, a former director of FCH and Fidelity
Bankers Life, as defendants. The Complaint alleged that Holdings
acquiesced in and approved the continued mismanagement of
Fidelity Bankers Life and that it participated in directing the
investment of Fidelity Bankers Life assets. The complaint
asserted claims under the federal securities laws and asserts
common law claims including fraud, negligence and breach of
fiduciary duty and alleged violations of the Virginia Securities
laws by Holdings. It sought no less than $220 million in damages
to Fidelity Bankers Life and its present and former policyholders
and creditors and punitive damages. On May 21, 1998, after trial,
the Court entered a Judgment Order in accord with the jury
verdict, ordering that the plaintiffs recover nothing and
dismissing the complaint. On July 7, 1998, the Commissioner filed
a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit from such Judgment Order.


Lehman Brothers was named as a defendant in two consolidated
class action complaints pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "N.J. District Court").
Easton & Co. v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., et al.
("Easton I"), and EASTON & CO. V. LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. ("Easton
II"). The plaintiff in both of these actions is Easton & Co.,
which is a broker-dealer located in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Both of
these actions allege federal securities law claims and pendent
common law claims in connection with the sale of certain
municipal bonds as to which Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company
("MBLI") has guaranteed the payment of principal and interest.
MBLI is an insurance company which was placed in rehabilitation
proceedings under the supervision of the New Jersey Insurance
Department on or about July 16, 1991.

Easton I was commenced on or about September 17, 1991. The
litigation was purportedly brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased DeKalb,
Georgia Housing Authority MultiFamily Housing Revenue Refunding
Bonds (North Hill Ltd. Project), Series 1991, due November 30,
1994 (the "DeKalb Bonds") during the period from May 3, 1991
(when the DeKalb bonds were issued) through July 16, 1991. Lehman
Brothers acted as underwriter for this bond issue, which was in
the aggregate principal amount of $18.7 million.

Easton II was commenced on or about May 18, 1992, and named
Lehman Brothers as the only defendant. Plaintiff purported to
bring this second lawsuit on behalf of a class composed of all
persons who purchased "MBLI-backed Bonds" from Lehman Brothers
during the period April 19, 1991 through July 16, 1991. On or
about February 9, 1993, the N.J. District Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in Easton I. The
parties agreed to certification of a class in Easton II for
purchases of certain fixed-rate MBLI-backed bonds during the
class period. LBI, together with the other defendants in Easton I
and Easton II, has agreed to settle both cases, subject to court


Under the terms of an agreement between American Express and
Holdings, American Express has agreed to indemnify Holdings for
liabilities which it may incur in connection with any action
relating to any business conducted by The Balcor Company, a
former Lehman Brothers subsidiary ("Balcor"), in which Holdings
is named as a parent company or control person of Balcor.
Holdings believes that some of the allegations in certain of the
actions described below are covered by this indemnity.


On October 18, 1996, a purported first consolidated and amended
class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in and for New Castle County on behalf of all
persons who purchased units in various public, proprietary
limited partnerships organized by Shearson or E.F. Hutton & Co.
or operated by affiliates of those entities between 1981 and the
present (with certain exceptions). Defendants are LBI and 56
Lehman-affiliated general partners. The complaint alleges that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties or aided and abetted
such a breach by allegedly misrepresenting and or failing to
disclose the nature of the risks and the status and financial
condition of the partnerships; collecting excessive fees; failing
to exercise due care in selecting investments for the  
partnerships; and recommending and selling the partnerships as
suitable investments. The complaint seeks, among other things (1)
to certify the case as a class action; (2) to declare that
defendants breached their duties; (3) to enjoin defendants from
operating the partnerships for their own benefit, (4) to account
for all profits and impose a constructive trust on them; and (5)
to award compensatory damages, costs and expenses and attorneys'


On January 15, 1998, a purported third amended class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division: Union County on behalf of investors in certain
specified limited partnerships sponsored by Balcor and sold by
various entities, including, among others, Shearson and certain
of its affiliates. Named as defendants are LBI, various
affiliates of LBI, American Express Company, Smith Barney
Holdings, Inc., Balcor, a number of Balcor-originated limited
partnerships and various individuals and entities affiliated with
Balcor. The complaint alleges claims in connection with the
marketing, sale and operation of the limited partnerships for
common law fraud and deceit, equitable fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and contract and
violation of certain New Jersey statutes relating to the sale of
securities. The complaint seeks compensatory damages for lost
principal and interest, general damages and punitive damages,
treble damages under the New Jersey statutes, and costs and
attorneys' fees. On September 24, 1998, the Court filed an
opinion dismissing the complaint, and plaintiffs have appealed
that dismissal.


On January 25, 1999 a purported class action complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division: Essex County
on behalf of investors in certain specified limited partnerships
sponsored by Balcor and sold by various entities, including,
among others, Shearson and certain of its affiliates. The
complaint mirrors the claims raised, the relief sought and the
defendants named in KLEIN, ET AL. V. LEHMAN BROTHERS, INC., ET


On December 6, 1996, the County of Orange, California (the
"County") filed a complaint in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Central District of California (the "Complaint"), naming
15 broker-dealers, along with various subsidiaries, including
LBI, Lehman Brothers International (Europe), Lehman Capital Corp
and Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. (the "Lehman defendants"), as
defendants. The Complaint alleges that defendants sold the County
unsuitable securities and entered into unsuitable reverse
repurchase transactions with the County that were ULTRA VIRES.
The County seeks a declaration that the reverse repurchase
agreements are void and unenforceable and violated the California
Constitution and Government Code, and it claims that the
defendants violated the California Constitution and Government
Code and committed negligence. No damages are specified, and
restitution is sought. Immediately after filing the Complaint,
the parties entered into a stay of the action.

On July 1, 1998, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, and on
August 21, 1998 the stay was lifted. On November 10, 1998 the
Lehman defendants answered the Complaint, denying its material
allegations. On December 21, 1998, the County moved to amend the
Complaint to add breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty claims, and the Court has ruled that
plaintiff may file the amended complaint (the "Amended
Complaint"). On January 5, 1999, the Court entered an order
granting summary judgment for defendants on the ULTRA VIRES


On November 15, 1994, two Lehman Brothers subsidiaries, Lehman
Brothers Commercial Corporation ("LBCC") and Lehman Brothers
Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF"), commenced an action against
Minmetals International Non-Ferrous Metals Trading Company
("Minmetals") and China National Metals and Minerals Import and
Export Company ("CNM") in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleging breach of contract
against Minmetals and breach of guarantee against CNM. The
litigation arose from the refusal by Minmetals and CNM to honor
their obligations with respect to certain foreign exchange and
swap transactions. LBCC and LBSF seek to recover approximately
$52.5 million from Minmetals and/or CNM.  On June 26, 1995, the
court granted CNM's motion to dismiss the claims against it, but
also granted LBCC and LBSF leave to replead. Minmetals filed
fourteen counterclaims against Lehman entities based on
violations of federal securities and commodities laws and rules,
and theories of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion.
The court denied a motion by the Lehman counterclaim defendants
to dismiss the six fraud-based counterclaims. On June 24, 1996,
the court granted the motion of LBCC and LBSF to file an amended
complaint naming CNM as an additional defendant. Discovery is
complete, and summary judgment motions are pending before the


Beginning in May, 1994, several class actions were filed in
various state and federal courts against various broker-dealers
making markets in NASDAQ securities, including LBI. Plaintiffs in
these cases alleged violations of the antitrust laws, securities
laws and have pled a variety of other statutory and common law
claims. All of these actions were based on the theory that  
because odd-eighth quotes occur less often than quarter quotes,
NASDAQ market makers must be colluding wrongfully to maintain a
wider spread. By Order filed October 14, 1994, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these actions in the
Southern District of New York and ordered that all related
actions be transferred and coordinated for all pretrial purposes.
The case is captioned In Re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1023.  

On December 16, 1994, plaintiffs served a consolidated Amended
Complaint naming 33 defendants including LBI. Plaintiffs claim
violations of the federal antitrust laws including Section I of
the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages trebled in accordance with the antitrust
laws, costs including attorneys' fees as well as injunctive
relief. The court dismissed the action with leave to replead,
stating that the complaint failed to identify the securities
involved with sufficient specificity. The plaintiffs repled and
the defendants answered the amended complaint on November 17,
1995.  On December 23, 1997, LBI settled the class action along
with 29 other broker-dealers. The Court entered a Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal on November 9, 1998.

                   AND BEAR STEARNS & CO., INC.

On July 9, 1997, LBI was served with a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in which 277
named plaintiffs assert 24 causes of action against LBI and Bear
Stearns & Co., Inc. The amount of damages claimed is unspecified.
The claims arise from the activities of an individual named Ahmad
Daouk, who was employed by an introducing broker which introduced
accounts to Shearson Lehman Hutton between 1988 and 1992. Daouk
allegedly perpetrated a fraud upon the claimants, who are mostly
investors of Middle Eastern origin, and the complaint alleges
that Shearson breached various contractual and common law duties
owed to the investors. On March 27, 1998, the District Court
dismissed without prejudice 18 of the 24 counts pleaded in the
complaint. On July 3, 1998 the plaintiffs served their First
Amended Complaint containing 18 causes of action against LBI
and/or Bear Stearns.


25, 1997, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
against 16 defendants, including LBI, which seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorney's fees on
behalf of purchasers of Bre-X common stock and/or Bresea common
stock. The Complaint raises claims under the federal securities
laws and the common law of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
The Complaint's stated basis for naming LBI is that one of its
securities analysts published research on Bre-X. On or about
November 21, 1997, several defendants, including LBI, moved to
dismiss the Complaint, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue
to the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs have also filed
a motion for class certification, which is stayed pending
resolution of the motions to dismiss. On January 6, 1999, the
Court issued an order dismissing the claims of Canadian
plaintiffs who bought their shares on Canadian exchanges. The
remaining motions to dismiss are still pending.

1997, William L. Klaasen, "individually and for all those
similarly situated within the State of California," filed a
Complaint against LBI in the Superior Court for the State of
California in and for the County of San Diego. The Complaint
raises a claim for common law negligence, and seeks, on behalf of
California purchasers of Bre-X and Bresea stock, class
certification, rescission, interest, compensatory and punitive
damages, disgorgement and restitution of profits and compensation
received by LBI, and costs. The action is currently stayed by
consent until the earlier of April 1, 1998 or 30 days following
the decision on the motion to dismiss in the MCNAMARA case.

     (C) CHOW ET AL. V. BRE-X MINERALS LTD. ET AL.  On October
10, 1997, 125 named plaintiffs filed an action in the Court of
Queen's Bench of Alberta, in Calgary, Canada, against 35 named
defendants, including LBI. Plaintiffs claim against LBI, which
has not yet been served, is for common law negligence.


LBI was named as a defendant in several purported class actions
filed in December, 1996 in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey in connection with (I) a November 7,
1995 offering of common stock of MobileMedia Corporation; and
(ii) a November 7, 1995 offering of 9 3/8% senior subordinated
notes of MobileMedia Communications Inc. due in 2007. On November
3, 1997, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
naming certain of MobileMedia Corporation's officers and
directors and the four co-lead underwriters of these offerings,
including LBI. MobileMedia filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection on January 30, 1997, and therefore is not named as a
defendant. The complaint alleges that the underwriters violated
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act. Plaintiffs seek
rescission and unspecified compensatory damages.


Beginning in November, 1998, three class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against in excess of 25 underwriters of IPO securities
including LBI. Plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and
injunctive relief for alleged violations of the antitrust laws
based on the theory that the defendant underwriters fixed and
maintained fees for underwriting certain IPO securities at
supracompetitive levels. Plaintiffs plan to file a Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

LYCOS, INC.: Spector & Roseman Files Complaint in Massachusetts
Spector & Roseman, P.C., commenced a class action lawsuit Monday
in the United States District Court in the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of Lycos, Inc.
(NASDAQ:LCOS), common stock during the period of Jan. 25, 1999  
through Feb. 9, 1999.

The Complaint alleges that Lycos and the Chief Executive Officer
of the Company during the Class Period violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint charges that the defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's commitment to remaining independent notwithstanding the
fact that Lycos was in serious and advanced discussions to merge
with USA Networks Inc. at the time.  Because of the issuance of
these false and misleading statements, the price of Lycos common  
stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

The Complaint alleges that on Feb. 9, 1999, the Company shocked
the market by announcing that it had signed a definitive
agreement to merge with USA's e-commerce and Internet assets and
Ticketmaster Online-Citysearch, Inc. and that post transaction
Lycos shareholders would own a mere 30% of the newly formed  
company. Further, it was reported that Lycos shareholders would
receive 2.25 shares of USA, consideration of $94.50 per Lycose
share which was then trading at $127 per share, plus an option to
buy preferred shares in the newly formed company. As a result of
this announcement, the price of Lycos stock collapsed from a
Class Period high of $127.25 to $87.25 per share.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Asks 8th Circuit to Reconsider Antitrust Case
Northwest Airlines has filed a Rehearing Petition with the 8th
Circuit Court of Appeals asking the Court to re-hear a case
accusing Northwest of antitrust violations.  Last month, the 8th
Circuit reinstated a class action antitrust case filed by a group
of frequent flyers who claim Northwest's takeover of Republic
Airlines was an anti-competitive move that drove up Northwest's
ticket prices.  Northwest spokeswoman Marta Laughlin says the
Company has asked the same three-judge panel that reinstated the
lawsuit to review its decision one more time.  

ORBITAL SCIENCES: Schubert & Reed Files Complaint in Virginia
On March 5, 1999, Schubert & Reed LLP filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of a class of purchasers of Orbital Sciences
Corporation common stock (NYSE: ORB) during the period 4/21/98  
through 2/16/99, inclusive.   The suit names as defendants  
Orbital Sciences Corporation, its Chairman and CEO David
W. Thompson and CFO Jeffrey V. Pirone for violations of the
federal securities laws.

On Tuesday, February 16, 1999, after the close of trading,
Orbital Sciences Corporation announced that it was restating the
first three fiscal quarters of 1998, and that earnings had
decreased during the first three quarters, instead of increasing
as previously reported. The restatement reduces previously  
reported net income by approximately $1,774,000 (or approximately
$0.07 per diluted share) in the first quarter of 1998, by
approximately $1,421,000 (or approximately $0.04 per diluted
share) in the second quarter of 1998, and by approximately
$6,175,000 (or approximately $0.15 per diluted share) in the  
third quarter of 1998.  Total diluted earnings per share for the
nine months ended September 30, 1998 were reduced from $0.62 to
$0.37 per share.  Insiders reaped more than $3 million in insider
trading proceeds during the period now being restated.  On news
of the restatement, ORB shares fell $2.25 to close at $27.375 on
February 17, 1999, losing 7.5% of their value in a single day's  
trading, off 44% from their class period high of $49.125.  The
stock closed March 5, 1999 at $25.50.

SAIPAN WORKERS: "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Gap sweatshops have to go."
Protesters across the country demonstrated Saturday outside  
stores they say sell clothing made in sweatshop conditions,
according to an Associated Press report.  In San Francisco, as
many as 300 activists crowded in front of the Gap flagship store
in the busy downtown shopping district. Police arrested 16 after
they blocked a doorway to the store, said Capt. Dennis Martel.
Several hundred activists marched up Manhattan's Fifth Avenue in
the rain.

"We don't want clothes made in sweatshops," said a sign hoisted
over a sea of umbrellas.

The Gap has been charged with violating U.S. anti-peonage laws
and having its clothes manufactured with indentured labor, mostly
young Asian women working on the U.S. island of Saipan.  Class-
action lawsuits filed in January in California by human rights
groups claim Saipan workers face beatings, forced abortions,
vermin-infested quarters and armed guards all while making
clothing tagged "Made in the USA."

Protester Emma Berkman, a bicycle messenger, says she no longer
buys clothing "unless it says it's union-made. You can't trust
anybody otherwise."

Other anti-Gap protests happened in front of Northern California
stores in Berkeley, Fresno, Santa Monica and Santa Barbara.

In Cambridge, Mass., about 10 Harvard University students spent
an hour in the cold weather handing out leaflets in front of The
Gap and chanting, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Gap sweatshops have to go."

In a statement, Gap company officials said they were "deeply
concerned by the allegations in the lawsuits.  We simply do not,
and will not, tolerate the type of conduct alleged in factories
where we do business."

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Allegheny County Sues Cigarette Makers
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against the
major cigarette makers, seeking to recover its own costs for
treating people with smoking related ailments.  The Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette reports the lawsuit asks for damages the county
incurred for treatments at Kane Hospitals, the county jail, and
in insurance claims of county employees.  The county is already  
challenging the $11.3-billion settlement big tobacco reached with
46 states  inclduing Pennsylvania.  That settlement blocks
other lawsuits.

USDA EMPLOYEES: Afro-American Employees Charge Discrimination
The Department of Agriculture's billion dollar settlement of the
Black Farmers' suit will not buy it peace for long, as a second
class action from within its own ranks raises new questions about  
USDA's conduct toward Black Farmers.

USDA's Farm Service Agency is still embroiled in controversy over
its billion dollar settlement of a suit brought by Black Farmers
challenging USDA discrimination in farm loans.  Now, the agency
is facing new questions about the Farmers in a class action
involving over 300 of its own African American employees, to be
tried at the EEOC beginning April 12, 1999.

"It's not surprising that the Farm Service Agency was
discriminating against the Black Farmers," said class attorney
Joseph D. Gebhardt, "when they have for years systematically
excluded African Americans from policymaking positions in
the upper levels of agency management." Gebhardt has met
obstruction from USDA's attorneys when he questioned white
managers' treatment of the Black Farmers in depositions last

"USDA's managers are being instructed not to answer when I ask
them what, if anything, they did to provide assistance to the
Black Farmers," said Gebhardt, who is asking the EEOC to compel
USDA to answer.

The employees' suit alleges that white Farm Service Agency
managers have systematically denied promotions to African
American employees serving at grades GS-12, GS-13, and GS-14. For
example, the agency promoted a white woman with only a high
school degree over an African American man with a Ph.D. from  
Ohio State University, and assigned another GS-14 African
American employee, Harry Millner, to a position with no duties.  
A white manager admitted he was afraid Millner would oppose
Agency policy, but he could identify no specific policies, and,
at USDA's attorney's instruction, would say nothing about policy
toward the Black Farmers.

VANSTAR CORPORATION: Waiting for Ruling on Amended Complaint
On July 3,  1997,  a trust  claiming  to have  purchased  shares
of the Common Stock filed suit in Superior Court of the State of  
California.  The suit is entitled David T. O'Neal Trust, Dated
4/1/77, v. Vanstar Corporation, et al., Consolidated Case No.
CV767266.  On January 21, 1998, the same plaintiff,  along with
another plaintiff  claiming to have purchased shares of Common
Stock, filed suit  in  the  United  States  District  Court  for  
the  Northern  District  of California, making allegations
virtually identical to those in the earlier suit.

The recent suit is captioned  David T. O'Neal  Trust,  Dated  
4/1/77,  et al. v. Vanstar  Corporation,  et al.,  Case  No.  C-
98-0216  MJJ.  Both  suits  name as defendants the Company,  
certain directors and officers of the Company,  and the Company's
principal  stockholder,  Warburg Pincus Capital Co., L.P., and
certain of its affiliates.  The complaints in both suits
generally allege,  among other things, that the defendants made
false or misleading statements or concealed information regarding
the Company and that the  plaintiffs,  as holders of the Common
Stock, suffered damage as a result.

The  plaintiffs in both suits seek class action  status,
purporting to represent a class of purchasers of Common Stock
between March 11, 1996 and March 14, 1997, and seek damages in an
unspecified amount, together with other relief.  The  complaint  
in the first  suit  purports  to state a cause of  action  under
California law; the complaint in the recent suit purports to
state two causes of action  under the  Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934.  On January 28,  1998,  the California Superior Court
dismissed the plaintiffs'  complaint in the first suit but  
granted the  plaintiffs  leave to amend to cure the  deficiencies  
in their complaint.  The plaintiffs have amended the complaint,
but the court has not yet ruled on the sufficiency of that
amended  complaint.  The Company  believes that the  plaintiffs'  
allegations  in both suits are  without  merit and  intends to
defend the suits vigorously.

On October 8, 1998, Vanstar Corporation and InaCom Corp., entered  
into an Agreement and Plan of  Merger, providing  for InaCom to
acquire the Company through the merger of a wholly-owned
subsidiary of InaCom with and into the Company.


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  * * *