CAR_Public/990311.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 11, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 25

                           Headlines

AGRIBIOTECH, INC.: Hoffman & Edelson File Complaint in New Mexico
AIDS-TAINTED BLOOD: French Officials Acquitted of Charges
AMAZON.COM, INC: Intimate Bookshop Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
AMERICAN CABLE: Subscribers Sue Over Late Fee Charges & Practices
ASA HOLDINGS: Shareholders Attempt to Enjoin Delta Acquisition

BANKBOSTON CORP.: Still on the Hook with Fidelity Acceptance
BOEING CO.: Continues to Defend Shareholder Litigation
BOEING CO.: May 26 Fairness Hearing on Discrimination Settlement
CSX CORPORATION: Tank Car Fire Trials to Begin This Month
DURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Finkelstein Firm Files Suit in California

EASTMAN CHEMICAL: No Classes Yet Certified in Sorbate Litigation
ETAN INDUSTRIES: Collection Agency Found to Violate FDCPA
FRANKLIN SELECT: Discovery Continues in Merger-Related Litigation
GENCOR INDUSTRIES: Schubert & Reed File Complaint in Florida
GENCOR INDUSTRIES: Burt & Pucillo Filed Complaint in Florida

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Defendants' Law Firms on the Defensive
INAMED CORP.: Appeal Period on Implant Litigation Settlement Runs
INTERNET TAX: Suit Filed to Block Internet Tax Commission Meeting
LYCOS, INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in Massachusetts
LYCOS, INC.: Donovan Miller Files Complaint in Massachusetts

MERRILL LYNCH: Status Report Concerning Material Litigation
METRIS COMPANIES: Court Dismisses Five Shareholder Suits
MILESTONE PROPERTIES: Settles Delaware Class Action Litigation
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Rules Eligibility Rules Discriminatory
NYPD: New York City Police & Mayor Sued for Racial Profiling

PATINA OIL: Awaiting Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Dismiss
QUARTERDECK CORP.: Additional Details About Merger Complaint
RIVERWOOD HOLDING: Shareholders Move for Rehearing in 11th Cir.
RIVERWOOD HOLDING: Discovery Underway in Employee PSAR Suit
SCHWEITZER-MAUDUIT: Disclosures Concerning Tobacco Paper Suits

SPYGLASS, INC.: Donovan Miller Filed Complaint in Illinois
STONE CONTAINER: Settles Litigation with Series E Preferreds
TOTAL RENAL: Donovan Miller Files Complaint in California
TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL: Takes $10 Million Charge for Litigation
TUBE TURNS: Louisiana Coker Plan Explosion Litigation Drags On

TWINLAB: Schubert & Reed File Complaint in New York
UNITED PARCEL: Offers $8 Million to Settle Discrimination Suit
WELFARE RECIPIENTS: Colorado Suit Complains About Halted Benefits

                           *********

AGRIBIOTECH, INC.: Hoffman & Edelson File Complaint in New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman & Edelson filed a Class Action lawsuit on March 5,
1999, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico on behalf of  purchasers of ArgiBioTech, Inc.
(Nasdaq:ABTX) securities during the period September 24, 1997
through January 22, 1999.

The Complaint charges AgriBioTech, certain of its officers and
directors, and its auditors KPMGPeat Marwick LLP, with violating
the federal securities laws.  The plaintiff claims that
defendants misrepresented and concealed material facts concerning
the Company's financial status and its efforts and plans to sell
the Company.


AIDS-TAINTED BLOOD: French Officials Acquitted of Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
>From Paris, the Associated Press reports that former French Prime
Minister Laurent Fabius was acquitted of manslaughter in France's
tainted blood scandal.  Former Health Minister Edmond Herve was
convicted for his role in the contamination of seven people who
were transfused with HIV-tainted blood in 1985, when he was
health minister.  Also acquitted was Herve's superior, Social
Affairs Minister Georgina Dufoix.

The ruling by the specially constituted Court of Justice of the
Republic came in a painful, protracted case infused with both
cold politics and raw emotion, the AP said, noting that the Court
was the first since World War II to try ministers for crimes  
allegedly committed in office.

During 10 days of debate, the court, made up of three judges and
12 legislators, was asked to untangle a complex file detailing
the state of medical knowledge about AIDS in the mid-1980s, and
what France was doing to fight the disease.  Fabius, Herve and
Ms. Dufoix were charged in connection with the AIDS deaths of
five people and the contamination of two others during a key
period in 1985.  Charged with manslaughter and "attacking the
physical integrity of others," they risked up to five years in
prison and a maximum fine of $90,000.  Herve, the lowest-ranked
of the defendants, was accused by an investigating commission of
"strangely apathetic behavior," which led to keeping unsterilized
blood products in stock after it was known they could be
contaminated.  Ms. Dufoix and Herve were also accused of a delay
in making available imported -- and costly -- heated blood
products, and of negligence in the screening of blood donors.

The defendants stressed they never knowingly approved the use of  
contaminated blood products, and never put commercial concerns
ahead of health.  "Never did financial considerations block
important decisions," Herve testified. "The uncertainties were
very big at a time when scientific knowledge was hesitant."  Ms.
Dufoix said her ministry was "conscious of a concern, but not of
a sense of alert or urgency" that blood stocks could be
contaminated with HIV.  And Fabius said he "never gave orders to
delay" the American test, and never even was consulted. "How do
you think a prime minister would decide that one test is better
than another?" he asked.

The most emotional testimony came from the victims, the AP
relates.  "You, without doubt, still dream of being president one
day, so you wait for this court to acquit you," Sylvie Rouy, 35,
told Fabius, who has higher political ambitions.  "I don't want
your compassion. I want to know why I was infected," Rouy
testified from her wheelchair.  She was contaminated during an
August 1985 transfusion while giving birth.

State prosecutor Jean-Francois Burgelin called for all charges to
be dropped, saying the affair reflected "an immense breakdown of
French medicine" and wasn't the fault of politicians.

   
AMAZON.COM, INC: Intimate Bookshop Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In August 1998, The Intimate Bookshop and Wallace Kuralt filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against AMAZON.COM, INC., Barnes & Noble,
Borders Group, Inc. and others alleging antitrust, unfair
competition and related claims under the Robinson-Patman Act, the
Clayton Act, the Donnelly Act and certain New York state statutes
and common law. The complaint was thereafter amended to drop the
class action allegations and certain claims. A claim for unfair
competition was added. The plaintiffs requested the following
relief: actual damages of approximately $11.25 million, treble
damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, pre- and
postjudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  Amazon.com
understands that the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal of
this action, with prejudice, on March 4, 1999.


AMERICAN CABLE: Subscribers Sue Over Late Fee Charges & Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On February 17, 1999, in the Circuit Court for the fourteenth
judicial district at Manchester, Coffee County, Tennessee,
AMERICAN CABLE TV INVESTORS 5, LTD., was named in a certified
class action entitled Johnny Clouse v. American Cable TV
Investors 5 Ltd., et al concerning late fee charges and
practices.  The Partnership's Southern Tennessee System charged
late fees to customers who did not pay their cable bills on time.
This late fee case challenges the amount of the late fees and the
practices under which they were imposed.  The Plaintiff raises
claims under state consumer protection statutes, other state
statutes, and the common law. The plaintiff generally alleges
that the late fees charged by the cable system were not
reasonably related to the costs incurred by the cable systems as
a result of the late payment.  The plaintiff seeks to require the
cable system (which the Partnership sold on April 1, 1997) to
reduce its late fees on a prospective basis and to provide
compensation for alleged excessive late fee charges for past
periods.


ASA HOLDINGS: Shareholders Attempt to Enjoin Delta Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 14D9 filed with the SEC this week, ASA Holdings, Inc.,
discloses that, on February 25, 1999, Mala Nebenzahl and Alex
Pappas, on behalf of themselves and other Issuer shareholders,
filed a purported class action complaint against Delta Airlines,
Inc., Delta Air Lines Holdings, Inc., ASA Holdings, Inc., and
their directors.  The complaint seeks to (1) enjoin the offer and
the merger or to rescind these transactions if either is
consummated, (2) unspecified compensatory and recissory damages
and (3) costs and disbursements of the action.

Pursuant to a tender offer, the bidders, led by Delta Air Lines,
Inc., offered to acquire all outstanding common shares of the
Issuer, ASA Holdings, Inc., for $34.00 per share.  


BANKBOSTON CORP.: Still on the Hook with Fidelity Acceptance
------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, BANKBOSTON CORP. sold Fidelity Acceptance Corporation,
its consumer lending subsidiary.  At the time of the sale,
Fidelity Acceptance Corporation and/or certain of Fidelity
Acceptance Corporation's subsidiaries were defendants in class
action and other lawsuits brought in various states by FAC
borrowers.  These lawsuits, which include claims for punitive
damages, often for large dollar amounts, challenge various of
FAC's lending and insurance practices, including, among others,
the placing of collateral protection insurance, calculating the
amount of credit life insurance and the determination of
applicable interest rates.  Pursuant to the terms of the sale of
FAC, BANKBOSTON CORP. indemnified the buyer for various
liabilities, including certain losses arising from such
litigation pending at the time of the sale and for certain claims
that may arise out of the operation of FAC prior to the sale.


BOEING CO.: Continues to Defend Shareholder Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
On October 31, 1997, a federal securities lawsuit was filed
against BOEING CO. in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington in Seattle. The lawsuit names as
defendants the Company and three of its executive officers.
Additional lawsuits of a similar nature have been filed. The
plaintiffs in each lawsuit seek to represent a class of
purchasers of Boeing stock between July 21, 1997, and October 22,
1997, including recipients of Boeing stock in the McDonnell
Douglas merger. July 21, 1997, was the date on which the Company
announced its second quarter results, and October 22, 1997, was
the date on which the Company announced charges to earnings
associated with production problems being experienced on
commercial aircraft programs. The lawsuits generally allege that
the defendants desired to keep the Company's share price as high
as possible in order to ensure that the McDonnell Douglas
shareholders would approve the merger and, in the case of two
of the individual defendants, to benefit directly from the sale
of Boeing stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and treble damages.  The Company believes
that the allegations are without merit and that the outcome of
these lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on its
earnings, cash flow or financial position.


BOEING CO.: May 26 Fairness Hearing on Discrimination Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 6, 1998, sixteen African American employees of The Boeing
Company, previously employed at several distinct units of The
Boeing Company, McDonnell Douglas Corporation and Rockwell
International Corporation, filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington (Washington Class
Action) alleging, on the basis of race, discrimination in
promotions and training. The plaintiffs also allege retaliation
and harassment and seek, among other things, an order certifying
a class of all African American employees who are currently
working or have worked for the three companies during the past
few years. Also, on July 31, 1998, seven African American
employees of the helicopter division of the Military Aircraft and
Missile Systems Group in Philadelphia filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia Class Action) alleging, on the basis of race,
discrimination in compensation, promotions and terminations. The
complaint also alleges retaliation at that division. Plaintiffs
are seeking an order certifying a class of all African American
employees of The Boeing Company.  In September 1998, the Court
denied plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, but
allowed plaintiffs to renew their motion upon completion of class
discovery.

On January 25, 1999, the U.S. District Court in the Western
District of Washington entered an order preliminarily approving a
proposed Consent Decree, which settles both the Washington Class
Action and the Philadelphia Class Action, along with a multi-
plaintiff racial discrimination lawsuit.  The order, inter alia,
conditionally certified a nationwide class of 20,000 current and
former African American Boeing (includes all U.S. subsidiaries
and former McDonnell Douglas Corporation and Rockwell
International) employees.  If approved by the Court, the Company
will pay $15 million allocated in the following manner:

    1) $3.77 million to 39 Named Plaintiffs, with an average of
       $30,000 and not more than $50,000; 31 Individual
       Plaintiffs, with an average of $20,000 and not more than
       $50,000; and 194 specifically identified settlement class
       members, with an average of $10,000 and not more than
       $15,000; all of whom must sign a release to obtain any
       money, with the individual amount reverting to the Company
       if no release is signed;

    2) $3.53 million to the remaining approximately 20,000
       class members, who must file a sworn claim form that will
       be reviewed by an independent claims arbitrator who will
       determine the amount each class member receives on the
       basis of a points formula, and each class member must also
       sign a release for any money received;

    3) $3.65 million to pay for systems changes, training,
       consultants, and notice to class members; and

    4) $3.0 million in fees and costs to Class Counsel in the
       state of Washington for pre-decree litigation work,
       $750,000 for post-decree work including implementation of
       the Consent Decree, $100,000 for expenses related to
       informing class members about the proposed Consent Decree,
       and $200,000 to Philadelphia counsel.

The Company will devise systems changes that will inform hourly
employee class members about the promotion selection process, and
which employee was awarded a certain promotion; provide training
and other programs to assist employees with career development;
employ a consultant to assess these system changes; implement
across the system a revised first-level management selection
process and revised internal complaint process; and implement
enforcement procedures to maintain a harassment-free workplace.

Pursuant to the Court's order, notice to the class members shall
be published and claim forms shall be mailed to class members
prior to the end of February 1999. Class members will have until
April 23, 1999, to file their claim forms, objections, and/or
requests to opt out of the settlement. A hearing is set for
May 26, 1999, to determine the fairness of the proposed Consent
Decree, and if so determined, for the Court to approve the
Consent Decree. The Company believes that the proposed Consent
Decree, if approved, will not have a materially adverse effect on
its earnings, cash flow or financial position.


CSX CORPORATION: Tank Car Fire Trials to Begin This Month
---------------------------------------------------------
In September 1997, a state court jury in New Orleans, Louisiana
returned a $2.5 billion  punitive  damages award  against  CSXT.  
The award was made in a class  action  lawsuit  against  a group
of nine  companies  based  on  personal injuries  alleged  to
have  arisen  from a 1987  fire.  The fire was caused by a
leaking  chemical  tank car parked on CSXT  tracks and  resulted  
in the 36-hour evacuation of a New Orleans neighborhood.  In the
same case, the court awarded a group of 20 plaintiffs  
compensatory damages of approximately $2 million against
the  defendants,  including  CSXT,  to which the jury assigned 15
percent of the responsibility  for the  incident.  CSXT's  
liability  under  that  compensatory damages award is not
material and adequate provision was made for the award in a
prior year.

In October  1997,  the  Louisiana  Supreme  Court set aside the
punitive damages  judgment,  ruling the judgment  should not have
been entered  until all liability  issues were resolved.  In
February 1999, the Louisiana  Supreme Court issued a further
decision,  authorizing and instructing the trial court to enter
individual  punitive  damages  judgments in favor of the 20  
plaintiffs  who had received awards of compensatory  damages, in
amounts representing an appropriate share of the jury's awards.
While the trial court has not yet taken action under this
decision,  the amounts of such punitive damages judgments,  if
any, are not expected to be material.  CSXT  believes  that this  
February 1999 decision will expedite the process of full
appellate  review of the 1997 trial.  The claims of 20  
additional  plaintiffs  for  compensatory  damages are scheduled
to be tried beginning in March 1999.

CSXT is pursuing an aggressive legal strategy.  Management
believes that any adverse outcome will not be material to its
overall results of operations or financial position,  although it
could be material to results of operations in a particular
quarterly accounting period.


DURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Finkelstein Firm Files Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk, a San Diego law firm representing Dura
Pharmaceuticals shareholders, has filed a class action lawsuit
alleging securities violations and insider trading against  the
company and eight of its current and former officers and
directors.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.

The Plaintiffs allege that between March 31, 1997, and Feb. 24,
1998, the Defendants violated numerous provisions of the Federal
securities laws.  This lawsuit covers the broadest time period
and largest class of shareholders to file against Dura.

Alleged violations include making materially false and/or
misleading statements regarding Dura's product sales and the
company's revenue and earnings growth.  Plaintiffs claim that
Dura overstated prospects for several of the company's drugs and
the imminence of FDA approval of its Spiros inhaler.

Many of the Defendants took advantage of undisclosed information
to sell in excess of 390,000 shares of Dura's common stock at
inflated prices, which produced proceeds of more than $16
million. On Feb. 24, 1998, Dura shocked investors by revealing
unexpectedly dismal financial results. Upon the surfacing of the
truth, the price of Dura's stock tumbled 46 percent in one day
to $20.75 per share.  The complaint, filed by Finkelstein &
Krinsk, alleges the Defendant's material misrepresentations and
the resulting artificially inflated  stocks caused financial
damages to purchasers during the violation time period  
indicated.


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: No Classes Yet Certified in Sorbate Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
EASTMAN CHEMICAL CO., along with other companies, has been named
as a defendant in seven antitrust lawsuits brought subsequent to
the Company's plea agreement as putative class actions on behalf
of certain purchasers of sorbates.  In each case, the plaintiffs
allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix the
price of sorbates and that the class members paid more for
sorbates than they would have paid absent the defendants'
conspiracy. Three of the suits were filed in Superior Court for
the State of California under various state antitrust and
consumer protection laws on behalf of classes of indirect
purchasers of sorbates; two of the proceedings are pending in
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, one under federal antitrust laws on behalf of a class
of all direct purchasers of sorbates and one under California's
antitrust and consumer protection laws on behalf of a class
of all indirect purchasers of sorbates; and two cases were filed
in Circuit Courts in the state of Tennessee under the antitrust
and consumer protection laws of various states, including
Tennessee, on behalf of a class of all indirect purchasers of
sorbates in those states. The plaintiffs in each case seek treble
damages of unspecified amounts, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other unspecified relief; in addition, certain of the actions
claim restitution, injunction against alleged illegal conduct,
and other equitable relief. Each proceeding is in preliminary
pretrial motion and discovery stage, and none of the proposed
classes has been certified.

The Company intends vigorously to defend these actions unless
they can be settled on terms acceptable to the parties. These
matters could result in the Company being subject to monetary
damages and expenses. The Company recognized a charge to earnings
in the fourth quarter of 1998 of $8 million for the estimated
costs, including legal fees, related to the pending sorbates
litigation described above. Because of the early stage of these
putative class action lawsuits, however, the ultimate outcome of
these matters cannot presently be determined, and they may result
in greater or lesser liability than that currently provided for
in the Company's financial statements.


ETAN INDUSTRIES: Collection Agency Found to Violate FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------
See Arellano V. Etan Industries, Inc., 1998 WL 911729 (N.D. Ill.
Dec. 23, 1998), a new class action suit against a debt collector
which falsely represented that it was involved in collecting
plaintiffs' debts [in violation of  1692j(a)] and against a  
creditor using an assumed name to masquerade as a debt collector
[in violation  of  1692e(14)].  The core violations involved
collection  correspondence that falsely conveyed the impression
that failure to pay would  result in litigation [in violation of  
1692e(5)]:  "unless you cause payment to  be made ..., we shall
recommend to your creditor  that this matter be referred to an  
attorney, with full authority to take all  appropriate action to
collect this  account."  The court found that the collection
correspondence violated  1692e(5) and granted plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment on this issue.  Courtesy of Stewart Ransom
Miller, Esq., available at srmiller@cyberramp.net by e-mail.


FRANKLIN SELECT: Discovery Continues in Merger-Related Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN SELECT REALTY TRUST tells investors in its latest annual
report that it is currently defending the former directors of
Advantage against a purported class action complaint filed in the
California Superior Court for San Mateo on December 2, 1996 by
two stockholders for themselves and purportedly on behalf of
certain other minority stockholders of Advantage.  Other
defendants to the complaint currently include Franklin Resources,
Inc., and the Company's advisor, Franklin Properties, Inc.  

The complaint alleges that defendants breached fiduciary duties
to plaintiffs and other minority stockholders in connection with
the purchase by Franklin Resources, Inc. in August 1994 of a
46.6% interest in Advantage and in connection with the Merger of
Advantage into the Company in May 1996, which was approved by a
majority of the outstanding shares of each of the three
companies.  Plaintiffs also allege that defendants misstated
certain material facts or omitted to state material facts in
connection with these transactions.  The complaint includes a
variety of additional claims, including claims relating to the
investment of Advantage assets, the suspension of the dividend
reinvestment program, the allocation of merger-related expenses,
revisions to the investment policies of Advantage, and the
restructuring of the contractual relationship with the Advisor.  
Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount and certain
equitable relief.  The defendants deny any wrongdoing in these
matters and intend to vigorously defend the action.  Discovery is
continuing.

On June 3, 1997, Herbert S. Hodge, Jr., on behalf of himself and
certain other shareholders of FREIF, filed an alleged class
action complaint in the California Superior Court for San Mateo
County against the Company, certain of its directors, the
Company's advisor, Franklin Properties, Inc., Franklin Resources,
Inc., and Bear Stearns Co., Inc.  The complaint alleges that
defendants breached fiduciary duties to plaintiff and certain
other shareholders in connection with the merger of FREIF into
Franklin Select Realty Trust in May 1996.  Plaintiff also alleges
that defendants misstated certain material facts or omitted to
state material facts in connection with this transaction.  
Plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The defendants
deny any wrongdoing in these matters and intend to vigorously
defend the action.  Discovery is continuing.


GENCOR INDUSTRIES: Schubert & Reed File Complaint in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
On March 8, 1999, Schubert & Reed LLP filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Gencor Industries, Inc.
common stock (Amex: GX) during the period 2/5/98 through 1/28/99,
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants  Gencor Industries,
Inc., its Chairman and President E.J. Elliott and EVP and  
director John E. Elliott for violations of the federal
securities laws.

On January 28, 1999, Gencor revealed that "accounting
irregularities and other improprieties" at a UK subsidiary would
necessitate the restatement of at least fiscal 1998.  Gencor
estimated that fiscal 1998 earnings per share of $1.52
may  be reduced by as much as $0.35 to $0.50 per share.  Gencor
reported that it  terminated both the Chairman and the Chief
Financial Officer of the UK subsidiary, Gencor ACP Ltd.  From its
January 28, 1999, close of $7.688, the stock fell to a close of
$6 on February 2, 1999, losing approximately 22% of its value as
the market reacted to the news.

On February 22, 1999, the Company stated that the previously
announced accounting irregularities at its British unit would
cause its common stock to be suspended on the American Stock
Exchange until it completed its restatement and re-audit of its
fiscal 1998 financial statements as well as the filing of  
its amended 1998 Form 10-K and fiscal 1999 first quarter 10-Q
report.  Gencor then admitted that the accounting irregularities
could cut fiscal 1998 results more than expected.


GENCOR INDUSTRIES: Burt & Pucillo Filed Complaint in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Burt & Pucillo, LLP announced that on March 8,
1999, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal
securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle  District of Florida on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased the common  stock of Gencor Industries Inc. during
the period  from Nov. 5, 1998 through Jan. 28, 1999.

The defendants named in the complaint are the company, E.J.
Elliott and John E. Elliott.

The Complaint in this action alleges that purchasers of Gencor
common stock during the Class Period were damaged by reason of
the fact that Gencor's revenue and earnings for each quarter of
the 1998 fiscal year were overstated due to accounting
irregularities in Gencor's United Kingdom subsidiary, Gencor  
ACP Ltd. The company has acknowledged that it will have to
restate previously reported results of operations for 1998, and
the company stock has been suspended from trading pending the
restatement.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Defendants' Law Firms on the Defensive
---------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post ran a story this week relating the defensive
posture taken by law firms representing German companies sued by
Holocaust victims in class action suits now pending.  

It provoked the most rancorous debate in memory at the powerhouse
Washington law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, the Post says.   
Firm elders argued that taking the clients would be smart
business and a nod to basic fairness. The companies, they said,
had only nominal links to 50-year-old crimes.  But a group of
partners and associates was appalled. Five decades is not long
enough to wash away the stain of history, they countered, and the
firm was in danger of soiling its name.  In the end, Wilmer,
Cutler decided to represent Siemens AG, Krupp AG and other German
companies accused of exploiting forced laborers during the Nazi
era. But there is lingering anger among some of the firm's rank
and file, and sympathy for an associate who disclosed during the
arguments that his Jewish grandfather had been a forced laborer
at Siemens.  

"It came down to issues of conscience warring against issues of
business," one Wilmer lawyer, who requested anonymity, told the
Post. "And business won."  Firm partners answer that their work
ultimately will lead to a just settlement for the survivors and
the companies.  "We are working with clients and with governments
on ideas to bring a fair resolution," said Roger Witten, Wilmer's
lead attorney in the matter.

Firms that have accepted the German companies as clients say that
during World War II they had no choice but to play by Hitler's
brutal rules, which included using forced laborers provided by
the Nazis.  Legal scholars add that shareholders and employees of
these companies are no more responsible for alleged misdeeds in
the 1940s than U.S. executives are responsible for the cruelties
that befell blacks in slavery-era America.

"The concept behind these claims was available back in the 1950s,
so why are they only being tried now?" asked Geoffrey Hazard, a
law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "Many people
think that the successor companies aren't chargeable and that
there's a thing called the statute of limitations."

Prestigious firms such as Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis and Los
Angeles's O'Melveny & Myers have elected to represent German
corporate clients in the forced labor suits.  

"You need to get past the fact that this is an episode in history
that to this day makes us all petrified and nobody is seeking to
defend, and to realize that you've got businessmen who are
saying, 'I want you to help me deal with this,' " said a partner
at one of the firms, who requested anonymity.

Yet plenty of firms have shunned such work on moral grounds.
Notably, the District's Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn decided
in 1997 after a soul-searching, firm-wide meeting that it would
not represent a European insurer sued for refusing to honor
policies sold to Holocaust victims.

"There were a number of lawyers at all levels who were
uncomfortable, regardless of the scope of the representation or
any payments that would have been made," said Christopher Smith,
Arent Fox's managing partner. "We had no way of knowing what the
facts were at that point, but it was our supposition that some of
the facts about this company were true."

Lawyers have wrestled for centuries with the ethics of
representing controversial clients. Legal thinkers have long said
that lawyers are professionals and as free to defend unsavory
criminals as doctors are to heal the sickest of patients. But
attorneys routinely beg off certain matters, fearing they will
add legitimacy to a client and perhaps tarnish their own
reputations.

Each firm draws its own lines. Wilmer, Cutler, for example,
signed on with companies accused of playing a role in the
Holocaust but has refused to represent cigarette makers.
Retaining Wilmer, Cutler was unquestionably a coup for its
beleaguered German clients. The consummate insider firm, it is
home to dozens of super-connected fixers, including named partner
Lloyd Cutler, an eminence grise and former White House counsel to
presidents Clinton and Carter.

Firm lawyers have spent months shuttling between the State
Department and top officials in Bonn, fashioning the framework
for an out-of-court settlement. Wilmer's goal: to spare its
clients a potentially expensive and embarrassing court fight with
hundreds of thousands of victims of the Nazi regime, most of them
Jews and Poles, many of them former concentration camp prisoners.

Three weeks ago, the firm notched a key victory when the German
government announced it would establish a fund, financed by
German companies, to compensate forced laborers. Though many
sticky issues are unresolved -- including how much money should
go into the fund and who should get paid -- the Wilmer, Cutler
plan, as Berlin newspapers dubbed it, is considered a decisive
step toward a deal that could settle pending litigation.

In the supremely discreet realm of corporate law, publicly
appraising the moral rectitude of a client is simply not done.
And for associates, talking to the media can be a career-limiting
move. But some attorneys at Wilmer, Cutler described the
wrangling set off by the firm's decision to take Siemens, Krupp
and others -- on the condition that they not be identified.

For a firm with $118.5 million in revenue last year, according to
Legal Times, the billable hours generated by the slave labor
issue are hardly essential. But Wilmer's leaders reasoned that if
they helped these companies out of a jam now, they could cement a
lasting and profitable relationship.  There was also concern
about embarrassing and undercutting the Wilmer, Cutler satellite
office in Berlin, among the largest of any U.S. firm. Moreover,
the firm had recently hired Robert Kimmit, the former U.S.
ambassador to Germany, who sits on the boards of both Siemens and
Krupp.  Hiring Kimmit was considered an investment, and these
German clients offered a quick return on Wilmer's money.

Firm elders also said these clients were being railroaded by
plaintiff's lawyers betting that the emotions stirred by the
suits would generate enough negative publicity to force a
lucrative settlement.  Dissenters thought the prospect of big
paydays had clouded the firm's judgment. Even as a purely
financial matter, they said, the firm had blundered. American
corporations might look askance at the work, and it might be
harder to lure new associates.

Some worried that the firm was becoming known as the go-to legal
shop for companies with Holocaust problems. After all, Wilmer,
Cutler played a leading role on behalf of Swiss banks accused in
class-action suits of helping Nazis loot the wealth of Jews,
litigation that ended last year in a $ 1.25 billion settlement.

The issue was resoundingly emotional for Jonathan Meyer, an
associate whose grandfather was forced to work at a Siemens plant
during the war for a pittance. Meyer's grandfather was fortunate:
He managed to escape Germany and lived out his years in
California. A vocal opponent of taking the case, Meyer would not
comment.

For the firm's many Jewish lawyers, the real problem was the
inescapable sense that they were on the wrong side. Wilmer,
Cutler's work for Krupp, for instance, put them at odds with
people such as Rachel Grunebaum, a Romanian-born 75-year-old who
is a plaintiff in one of the class-action suits.

According to plaintiff's lawyer Michael Hausfeld, Wilmer, Culter
has gone well beyond the zealous defense that any client
deserves. The firm has unsuccessfully urged the Clinton
administration to issue a bilateral executive agreement that
would block the lawsuits pending against the companies in U.S.
courts, he said.   Both sides in the dispute have a reason to
push for a quick resolution. If the cases go to trial, they
could take years to litigate. Many victims are old and near
death. The companies, meanwhile, are eager to put an end to a
looming public relations fiasco.  "We're trying to pull everyone
together here," a State Department official said. "Our interest
here is swift justice for the survivors."


INAMED CORP.: Appeal Period on Implant Litigation Settlement Runs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INAMED  Corporation  (OTC  Bulletin Board:  IMDC) reported that
the expiration  date of the statutory 30-day period for filing
appeals of the recent mandatory class settlement of the Company's  
breast implant  litigation passed and no notices of appeal were
filed with the Federal District Court within that period.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will now
be required by June 2, 1999 to fund the $25.5  million  
promissory  note  which was  previously issued to the  court-
supervised  escrow agent on behalf of the plaintiff  class.
The Company has the ability to meet that funding  obligation  
from a combination of both  cash on hand  and the  approximately  
$14  million  of  proceeds  to be received upon the exercise of
its $7.50 warrants.  Those warrants were issued in July 1997 in  
contemplation  of this event and are now  callable by the
Company.  The Company  reserves the right to explore  utilizing  
other equity  and/or debt financing  sources in the public or
private markets in order to meet its funding obligation under the
settlement agreement and to repay or refinance its existing
senior debt.

An  additional  $3 million of funding will be needed by June 2,
1999 to purchase the approximately  426,000 shares of common
stock which were issued last year to the  court-supervised  
escrow  agent  as  part  of  the  consideration  for  the
settlement.  Those  funds will be  provided  directly  by the  
Company's  senior noteholders.  The Company had assigned  its
right to purchase  that stock to its senior  noteholders  in
April 1998,  at the time the  settlement  agreement  was signed.

Richard G. Babbitt, the Company's chairman and chief executive
officer,  stated: "Today marks the  beginning of the final
chapter in  concluding  the  settlement agreement.  We expect to
meet our financing obligations in a timely and complete manner.  
The allocation of the $32 million of cash that will be contained
in the INAMED settlement fund will be determined by the court in
proceedings to be held after INAMED has met its obligations."


INTERNET TAX: Suit Filed to Block Internet Tax Commission Meeting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bond Buyer, Daniel Meisler reporting, relates that the
National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of
Mayors filed a class-action lawsuit in federal district court
Monday to try to keep the Internet tax commission from meeting
until its membership meets the requirements of the law that
created it.

The lawsuit asks the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia to block the commission from meeting "until the
commission is properly constituted," according to court
documents.

The commission was created last October as part of the Internet
Tax Freedom Act, which calls for it to consist of an equal number
of members from the public and private sectors - eight from each.
But after four congressional leaders made their appointments,
there were 10 computer industry representatives and only six
public officials.  The commission also contains three other
members, appointed by the Clinton administration.  NACo and the
mayors' group named the 10 industry officials, which include
James Barksdale, CEO of Netscape, Michael Armstrong, CEO of AT&T,
and Richard Parsons, president of Time Warner Inc., as
defendants.  Barksdale and the president of MCI/Worldcom, John
Sidgemore have been rumored to be voluntarily stepping down from
the commission to make way for state or local officials.  But a
Netscape spokesman denied that, calling it speculation.


LYCOS, INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it is
filing a class action lawsuit in the  United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of  investors
who bought Lycos Inc. (NASDAQ: LCOS) stock  between January 7,
1999 and February 9, 1999.

The lawsuit charges Lycos and several of its top officers with
violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United
States. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's merger
plans. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
assured investors that it was committed to pursuing an
independent  strategy while, in fact, it was in the midst of
negotiations to merge into USA  Networks, Inc. Upon the
announcement of the merger, the Company's stock price  dropped
approximately 26% on extraordinarily heavy trading volume.


LYCOS, INC.: Donovan Miller Files Complaint in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Miller, LLC announces that it commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Lycos Inc. (NASDAQ:
LCOS) common stock at or around the  time the Company issued
statements that it would remain independent and certain  insiders
sold shares into the marketplace.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Lycos and
certain of its  officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)  
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by among other
things, issuing materially false and misleading statements to the
investing public regarding whether Lycos was committed to an
independent strategy when Lycos was in fact engaged in serious
and advanced discussions to merge with USA Networks, Inc.


MERRILL LYNCH: Status Report Concerning Material Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., provides
investors with a summary of material civil actions and
arbitration proceedings in which it is involved, as of March 1,
1999.

                I. Orange County Litigation

In June 1998, Merrill Lynch settled the following two actions in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "District Court") alleging violations of Federal
and California law in connection with its business activities
with the Treasurer-Tax Collector of Orange County, California
("Orange County"): County of Orange, et al. v. Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc., et al. instituted January 12, 1995 (the "Orange
County Action"); and Irvine Ranch Water District v. Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc. instituted December 20, 1996. Under the settlement
terms, ML & Co. undertook to pay $400 million to Orange County,
approximately $17 million to Irvine Ranch Water District, and to
return approximately $20 million of excess collateral to Orange
County. On November 30, 1998, the District Court found that the
settlement of the Orange County Action was in good faith, thereby
barring any potential claims for contribution, indemnity or
similar relief by non-settling parties. Payment by ML & Co. will
be due approximately five business days after May 3, 1999, the
first business day following the expiration of the time for
any party to appeal from this District Court finding of good
faith.

The following actions filed against ML & Co. in connection with
Merrill Lynch's business activities with the Treasurer-Tax
Collector of Orange County remain outstanding:

      (A) DeLeon v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.,
et al., instituted December 13, 1994, was brought against MLPF&S,
an affiliate, and an employee of Merrill Lynch as a purported
class action in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Orange County, on behalf of individuals whose funds were invested
by the Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector, alleging breaches
of fiduciary duties and acts of professional negligence in
connection with Merrill Lynch's business activities with the
Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector. Damages, including
punitive damages, in unspecified amounts are sought. On May 10,
1996, the court stayed this action pending final resolution of
the Orange County Action.

      (B) City of Atascadero, et al. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Inc., et al., instituted September 15, 1995, was
brought in the Superior Court of the State of California, San
Francisco County by 14 California public entities against ML &
Co., and certain of its subsidiaries and employees. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants committed fraud,
deceit, and negligent misrepresentation; conspired to commit
fraud; breached fiduciary duties; aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duty; and violated California Penal Code Section 496
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in
connection with Merrill Lynch's business activities with the
Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector. Damages, including
punitive damages and treble damages, in unspecified amounts are
sought. By decision dated December 7, 1998 and modified on
January 6, 1999, the California Court of Appeal reversed a lower
court dismissal of this action. An action in the District Court
by the same 14 entities making substantially the same allegations
and seeking the same damages has been stayed pending final
resolution of the state court action or until further order of
the District Court.

      (C) Balan v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al., instituted
December 16, 1994, was brought as a purported class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of ML & Co.'s common stock between
March 31, 1994 and December 6, 1994 alleging, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by ML & Co. and two of its
present or former directors and officers in connection with
Merrill Lynch's disclosure with respect to its business
activities with the Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector.
Damages in an unspecified amount are sought.

                     II. NASDAQ Litigation

     (A) In the Matter of Certain Market Making Activities on
Nasdaq, instituted and settled without a hearing or an admission
of or denial of findings on January 11, 1999, was an SEC
administrative action that found that on certain occasions in
1994 traders at MLPF&S improperly coordinated their quotes with
traders at other firms. MLPF&S agreed to pay a fine of $472,500,
to submit some of its procedures for review by an independent
consultant, and to an administrative cease and desist order
prohibiting Merrill Lynch from violating certain provisions of
the securities laws. Twenty-seven other market makers and 51
traders at other firms settled related SEC administrative actions
at the same time.

     (B) In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, a
consolidated class action instituted December 16, 1994 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, was brought against more than 35 market makers, including
MLPF&S, alleging that they engaged in a conspiracy with respect
to the spread between bid and ask prices for certain securities
traded on Nasdaq by, among other things, refusing to quote bid
and ask prices in odd eighths. On November 13, 1998, judgment was
entered granting final approval to a settlement without a hearing
on the merits of the claims or finding of liability; MLPF&S paid
approximately $100 million to settle the action.

              III. Shareholder Derivative Litigation

In each of the following shareholder derivative actions ML & Co.
is named as a nominal defendant because the action purports to be
brought on behalf of ML & Co. and any recovery obtained by
plaintiffs would be for the benefit of ML & Co.:

      (A) Miller v. Schreyer, et al. , a consolidated derivative
action instituted October 11, 1991 in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County, alleges, among other things,
breach of fiduciary duty against certain present or former ML &
Co. directors, and against Transmark USA, Inc. and one of its
principals in connection with securities trading transactions
that occurred at year-end 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1988 between
subsidiaries of ML & Co. and a subsidiary of Transmark USA, Inc.,
Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company, which was later
liquidated. Damages in an unspecified amount are sought. On
January 5, 1999, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, reversed a lower court dismissal of this action.

      (B) Miller v. Peters, et al., a derivative action
instituted October 13, 1998 in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, New York County, alleges, among other things, that 15
present or former ML & Co. directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to prevent ML & Co. from engaging in
excessively risky business transactions with hedge funds. Damages
in an unspecified amount are sought.


METRIS COMPANIES: Court Dismisses Five Shareholder Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Metris Cos. said shareholder lawsuits filed against it in October
were dismissed in U.S. District Court for Minnesota.  The
dismissals with prejudice mean the plaintiffs cannot sue again on
the same issues.  Several lawsuits, seeking class-action status,
alleged that Metris had inflated its stock price with misleading
disclosures.


MILESTONE PROPERTIES: Settles Delaware Class Action Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Properties, Inc. (OTC BB:MPRP/MPRPP) announced that the
Delaware Chancery Court entered order approving the settlement of
a purported class action and derivative lawsuit brought against
the company, certain past and present members of its board of  
directors and executive officers, and Concord Assets Group Inc.,
by a holder of the company's $.78 Convertible Series A Preferred
Stock became final and effective as of the close of business on
Friday, March 5, 1999.

As a result, Preferred Stockholders as of Friday's close (other
than those who properly opted out of the settlement or who were
not eligible to participate in the settlement) are required to
surrender the certificates representing their shares of Preferred
Stock, along with a completed Letter of Transmittal, in order to
receive the $3.00 per share cash settlement consideration.  As of
the  close of business on Friday, March 5, 1999, all shares of
Preferred Stock held  by such persons have been cancelled and
retired and the only right that such persons have with respect to
their shares of Preferred Stock is the right to receive the $3.00
per share settlement consideration.  A form of Letter of  
Transmittal will be sent to each such holder shortly.  In
addition, as a result of the consummation of the settlement, the
actions have been finally dismissed and claims have been released
in accordance with the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Rules Eligibility Rules Discriminatory
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Tribune reports that the use of minimum test scores
to determine the eligibility of college athletes, the foundation
of the NCAA's attempt to raise the academic performance of
athletes, was judged Monday to have violated federal race
discrimination laws.  United States District Court Judge Ronald
L. Buckwalter of Philadelphia ruled that the association
could not continue "operation and implementation of Proposition
16," a revised version of the original Proposition 48 that took
effect in 1986.

"Based on the court's order, Proposition 16 was tossed out," said
Adele Kimmel of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, the group that
filed a national class-action lawsuit. "There is no freshman
eligibility rule now."  

Buckwalter also ruled that the NCAA may be sued under federal
anti-discrimination laws.

Kimmel said that if the NCAA is not granted a stay, the ruling
would force the association to quickly change its rules.  "We
think discriminatory rules have been in effect long enough and
should not be in effect for one more day," she said when reached
at her office in Washington.  If a stay is granted but not
expedited, she said, an NCAA appeal could take a year or longer.

The lawsuit, Cureton vs. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, was filed on behalf of two college students and
track athletes who were graduated from Simon Gratz High School in
Philadelphia.  The recruitment of Tai Kwan Cureton and Leatrice
Shaw was reduced because of their low standardized test scores.
To play as freshmen and receive an athletic scholarship, athletes
were required under Proposition 16 to have a minimum score of 820
(out of 1,600) on the SAT, or a composite score of 17 on the
ACT. The requirements also called for a minimum average in core
courses. The average was calculated on a sliding scale based on
the test score.

Lawyers for Cureton and Shaw had cited an NCAA memorandum last
summer that sought suggestions regarding three potential
alternatives to Proposition 16. Charles Whitcomb of San Jose
State University, chair of the NCAA's Minority Opportunities and
Interests Committee, said when reached at his office that he did
not want to discuss the ruling until after reading the text.


NYPD: New York City Police & Mayor Sued for Racial Profiling
------------------------------------------------------------
Two black youths are filing a class-action lawsuit against
the New York Police Department and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
alleging the youths were  frisked and roughed up by the N-Y-P-D
Street Crimes Unit because of the color of their skin.  The
federal lawsuit is being filed along with the national Congress
for Puerto Rican Rights on behalf of all black and Hispanic males
who are allegedly being stopped and frisked on the basis of
racial profiling.  The suit claims police department figures show
in 1998, over 27,000 people were stopped and frisked by the
Street Crimes Unit, but under 5,000 were arrested.


PATINA OIL: Awaiting Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
In March 1996, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware against Gerrity Oil & Gas Corporation
(acquired by Patina Oil & Gas Corporation in 1996) and each of
its directors, Brickell Partners v. Gerrity, C.A. No. 14888 (Del.
Ch.).  The complaint alleges that the "action is brought (a) to
restrain defendants from consummating the Gerrity Acquisition
which will benefit the holders of Gerrity's common stock at
the expense of the holders of Gerrity's preferred stock and (b)
to obtain a declaration that the terms of the proposed Gerrity
Acquisition constitute a breach of the contractual rights of the
preferred."  The complaint sought, among other things,
certification as a class action on behalf of all holders of
Gerrity's preferred stock, a declaration that the defendants have
committed an abuse of trust and have breached their fiduciary and
contractual duties, an injunction enjoining the Gerrity
Acquisition and money damages.  In April 1996, the defendants
were granted an indefinite extension of time in which to answer
the complaint and no answer had been filed by February 1997.  In
February 1997, the attorney for the plaintiff filed a Status
Report with the court stating "Case has been mooted.  Plaintiff
is preparing an application for counsel fees."  No fee
application was filed.  In November 1997, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.  The amended complaint realleges the substance
of the original complaint and includes an allegation that the
defendants coerced the holders of the Gerrity preferred stock
into exchanging their stock for the 7.125% Preferred Stock of the
Company.  The amended complaint also alleges the defendants
participated in a scheme to eliminate the outstanding Gerrity
preferred by forcing the exchange of those shares for shares of
the Company's preferred in October 1996.  The amended complaint
seeks rescission of the transactions described in the complaint
or money damages if rescission is impractical.  On January 5,
1998, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  
A brief in support of the motion to dismiss was filed in August
1998 and there has been no response from the plaintiffs.  
Defendants believe that the amended complaint is without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against this action.  


QUARTERDECK CORP.: Additional Details About Merger Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Quarterdeck Corp., in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission this week, explains that a complaint was  
filed on February 24, 1999 in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, County of New Castle, by William Skeen, a purported
Quarterdeck stockholder, against Quarterdeck Corporation,
Symantec Corporation, Oak Acquisition  Corporation (a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Symantec) and current  and former  directors
of Quarterdeck.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
breach of  fiduciary duty and unfair dealing in connection with
the planned merger of Oak  with and into Quarterdeck and claims
that when Quarterdeck's directors approved  the merger, they had
a financial conflict of interest as a result of a  September 1998
grant of stock options to them.  The complaint also alleges  
breach of fiduciary duty and unfair dealing by Symantec, and
certain of its  officers who became directors of Quarterdeck, in
connection with certain  conduct by Symantec following the
consummation of Symantec's tender offer for  Quarterdeck's
outstanding common stock, including the agreement by Symantec and  
Quarterdeck to extend the termination date of the non-exclusive
license granted  by Quarterdeck to Symantec to Quarterdeck's
CleanSweep product from January 31,  1999 to March 31, 1999.  

In addition, the complaint alleges that Quarterdeck's  failure to
obtain the approval of its stockholders in connection with its  
initial grant of the CleanSweep license violated a provision of
Delaware law  that requires stockholder approval of a sale, lease
or exchange of all or  substantially all of a corporation's
assets.  Finally, the complaint alleges  that Quarterdeck's
Schedule 14D-9 relating to the tender offer contained  materially
misleading and coercive public disclosures regarding the
likelihood  and impact of the delisting of Quarterdeck's common
stock by Nasdaq.

The  plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger and also seeks damages
in an unspecified  amount and other relief.  The suit was brought
by William Skeen on behalf of  all persons who were stockholders
during the relevant period and seeks  certification of a class
action.  "While Quarterdeck and Symantec believe these  claims
are without merit, there can be no assurances as to the actual
outcome of this matter or its effect on the timing or
consummation of the merger," the Company says.


RIVERWOOD HOLDING: Shareholders Move for Rehearing in 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 6, 1995, Forrest Kelly Clay, a former shareholder of
the Predecessor to RIVERWOOD HOLDING, INC., commenced a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, against RIVERWOOD HOLDING, INC.,
and certain of its officers.  In his complaint, Clay generally
alleged that the Defendants violated the federal securities laws
by disseminating misleading statements and by omissions
concerning the strategic alternatives that the Predecessor was
considering, including its potential sale to a third-party
investor. The complaint also alleged that the Individual
Defendants, through their exercise of stock appreciation rights
("SARs"), violated the federal securities laws by trading in the
Predecessor's securities while in possession of material, non-
public information. The complaint generally sought damages in
an unspecified amount, as well as other relief. On June 2, 1997,
the court granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and
dismissed the action in its entirety. The court based its ruling
on the facts that (i) none of the statements attributable to the
Company concerning its review of the strategic alternatives was
false and (ii) there was no causal relationship between
plaintiff's purchase of Riverwood common stock and the Individual
Defendants' exercise of SARs. On October 14, 1998, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
The Court of Appeals ruled that (i) none of the statements
attributable to the Company concerning its review of strategic
alternatives was false and (ii) the SARs were not securities. On
November 5, 1998, Clay filed a motion seeking rehearing en
banc.  The court has not yet ruled on that motion.


RIVERWOOD HOLDING: Discovery Underway in Employee PSAR Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 1998, William D. Tatum, C. Steven Clark, Thomas W.
Brabston, Sr., and Joe O. Harper, Jr., all former employees of
RIVERWOOD HOLDING, INC., commenced a purported class action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, against
the Company and certain current and former officers of the
Company. In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged generally that the
Company and such officers (1) breached the terms of the contracts
between Plaintiffs and the Predecessor governing Premium Stock
Appreciation Rights ("PSARs") as a result of a suspension
requested on August 23, 1995, (2) breached an implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing in connection with both the
suspension and the lifting of that suspension and (3) engaged in
fraud and negligent misrepresentation in connection with the
lifting of the suspension by (a) failing to tell Plaintiffs that
certain officers of the Predecessor were planning to exercise
PSARs on September 21, 1995 and (b) failing to inform Plaintiffs
of the status of the Predecessor's review of strategic
alternatives as of September 21, 1995. Plaintiffs sought (i) an
order granting class certification, (ii) an award of compensatory
damages, (iii) pre-judgment interest, (iv) punitive damages in an
amount to be determined by the jury and (v) litigation expenses,
including attorneys' fees. The defendants have answered the
complaint. In addition, on October 16, 1998, the defendants moved
to strike the class allegations in the complaint, and, on October
30, 1998, moved to dismiss the complaint. On January 6, 1999, the
court granted the motion to strike the class allegations and
denied the motion to dismiss the complaint. One additional
plaintiff has been added. The parties are now engaged in
discovery.


SCHWEITZER-MAUDUIT: Disclosures Concerning Tobacco Paper Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc. was incorporated in
Delaware in 1995 as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kimberly-Clark
Corporation for the purpose of effectuating the tax-free spin-off
of Kimberly-Clark's U.S., French and Canadian business operations
that manufacture and sell tobacco-related papers and other
specialty paper products.  Pursuant to a 1995 Distribution
Agreement, Kimberly-Clark agreed to distribute in the form of a
dividend to its stockholders all of the common stock of SWM and
on November 30, 1995, each Kimberly-Clark stockholder of record
on November 13, 1995 received one share of SWM common stock for
every ten shares of Kimberly-Clark common stock.  As a result of
the Distribution, SWM became an independent public company.

Under the Distribution Agreement, the Company assumed liability
for and agreed to indemnify Kimberly-Clark from litigation
arising out of the operation of the Businesses, including the
following cases:

     (A) A purported class action, defining a class of plaintiffs
who allegedly sustained injuries as a result of being exposed to
tobacco smoke and respirable asbestos fibers, and three
individual actions have been filed in the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, West Virginia in 1998 against several tobacco
companies, tobacco industry trade associations and consultants,
tobacco wholesalers and cigarette component manufacturers,
including Kimberly-Clark and LTRI. The class representative and
each individual plaintiff, respectively, seek compensatory
damages of $2 to $3 million, punitive damages of $3 million and,
for class members, compensatory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.  Cleo Huffman, Denny L. Parsons, Linda Morris
and Sinette Newkirk, the named plaintiffs in these actions, filed
their respective complaints on February 13, 1998, February 27,
1998, March 13, 1998 and July 22, 1998. The complaints allege
several theories of liability against the defendants including
negligence, product liability, misrepresentation, breach of
warranty, conspiracy and other theories of liability. The Company
has filed motions to dismiss that are currently pending in each
of these cases.

     (B) In September 1998, Luanne Jividen and Jerry Jividen
filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Mason County, West
Virginia against several tobacco companies, industry trade
associations and consultants, tobacco wholesalers and cigarette
component manufacturers, including Kimberly-Clark and LTRI,
seeking equitable relief, $1 million in compensatory damages and
$3 million in punitive damages for mental suffering, physical
injury and loss of consortium allegedly sustained as a result of
Ms. Jividen's contracting breast cancer as a result of her
addiction to smoking Marlboro and other brands of cigarettes.  
The fourteen count complaint sets forth several theories of
liability including willful and negligent misrepresentation,
violations of state consumer protection laws, breach of express
and implied warranties, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, product liability, conspiracy, sale of an unreasonably
dangerous product and accomplice liability.

     (C) In October 1998, Edward J. Sweeney, Stephen R. Micarek
and Lisa A. Figura filed, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and
certain residents of Pennsylvania, a purported class action
against several tobacco companies, industry trade associations
and consultants, tobacco wholesalers and retailers and cigarette
component manufacturers, including Kimberly-Clark, seeking
equitable relief and punitive damages for the class in an
unspecified amount. The class consists of those Pennsylvania
residents who, "commencing before age 18 . . . purchased, smoked
. . . and continue to smoke cigarettes manufactured, marketed and
sold by defendants".  The five count complaint alleges that the
defendants are liable to the plaintiffs under a number of
theories, including product liability, consumer fraud, breach of
special duty, negligence and civil conspiracy. Among other
things, the complaint alleges that nicotine is an addictive
substance, that the tobacco companies, by using reconstituted
tobacco and other additives, are able to control the precise
amount and/or the bioavailability of nicotine in their cigarettes
and that LTRI, formerly a subsidiary of Kimberly-Clark,
specializes in the tobacco reconstitution process and in helping
tobacco companies control the nicotine in their cigarettes. The
defendants have sought to remove the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to state court is pending.

As a component supplier, Schweitzer-Mauduit believes that
Kimberly-Clark has meritorious defenses to each of these cases.
LTRI also has meritorious defenses to each of the cases in which
it has been named as a defendant and will seek to be dismissed
from such actions on the grounds that it is not subject to the
personal jurisdiction of the West Virginia courts and also on the
grounds that it did not sell its products in the United States.
Due to the uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of these cases and is unable to make a
meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss which could
result from an unfavorable outcome of these actions. These cases
will be vigorously defended.

During 1998, Kimberly-Clark was voluntarily dismissed, with
prejudice, from a purported tobacco class action brought by James
E. McCune in 1997 in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia, and, in December 1998, the federal district court in
Utah dismissed Kimberly-Clark, with prejudice, from a tobacco
class action brought by three union health and welfare funds.


SPYGLASS, INC.: Donovan Miller Filed Complaint in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Miller, LLC announced that a class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Spyglass, Inc. (Nasdaq:SPYG) between October 20, 1998 and
January 4, 1999.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Spyglass and
certain of its officers and directors violated Sections  10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by among
other things, issuing materially false and misleading statements
to the investing public regarding the Company's operations and
financial condition.

It alleges that the violations of law caused the stock price of
Spyglass stock to be artificially inflated during the Class
Period, and when defendants finally disclosed that Spyglass'
earnings would be materially impacted because certain contracts
would not be signed, the stock dropped from $22 to $14.50 in  
a single day.  Prior to the announcement, however, certain
officers and directors of the Company sold more than 500,000
shares of their own stock, netting proceeds in excess of $9.1
million.


STONE CONTAINER: Settles Litigation with Series E Preferreds
------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Container Corporation, a subsidiary of Smurfit-Stone
Container Corporation (Nasdaq: SSCC), announced that it has  
reached a settlement of the litigation brought on behalf of the
holders of Series E Preferred Stock of Stone Container
Corporation.  As previously disclosed, the litigation includes a
direct action against Stone by two holders of Series E Preferred
Stock and a class action filed on behalf of all holders of Series
E Preferred Stock against Stone and all of its directors.  These  
actions have been consolidated in Delaware Chancery Court and now
also include  Smurfit-Stone as a defendant.

The settlement, which remains subject to court approval,
provides, among other things, for the appointment of two nominees
of the plaintiffs to the Board of  Directors of Stone Container
Corporation effective as of March 8, 1999.  The  new directors
are David Gale, President of Delta Dividend Group, Inc., and Mark  
Weissman, Manager of Corporate Bond Trading of Mariner Investment
Group, Inc.   Mr. Gale and Mr. Weissman will not serve as
directors of Smurfit-Stone or any  of its subsidiaries other than
Stone.

A majority of the members of the Board of Directors of the Stone
Container Corporation subsidiary will continue to be nominated by
Smurfit-Stone.  The holders of the Series E Preferred Stock will
continue to have the right to elect two directors to Stone's
Board of Directors for as long as the dividends on the Series E
Preferred Stock remain more than six quarters in arrears. Stone
is presently unable to pay dividends on the Series E Preferred
Stock as a result of covenants in the indentures governing
certain of its senior indebtedness.  The first election of
directors by the holders of Series E Preferred Stock will occur
at a meeting of stockholders that has been scheduled for May 17
in Chicago.

It is further expected that each of Mr. Gale and Mr. Weissman
will stand for re-election as the two directors to be elected by
such holders.

Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation was formed on November 18,
1998 by the merger of a subsidiary of Jefferson Smurfit
Corporation and Stone Container Corporation.  As a result of the
transaction, Stone Container Corporation became a subsidiary of
Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation.


TOTAL RENAL: Donovan Miller Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Miller, LLC commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Total
Renal Care Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:TRL) between  February 17, 1998
and February 17, 1999.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, TRC and
certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)  
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by among other
things, issuing materially false and misleading statements to the
investing public regarding the Company's operations and financial
condition.  It alleges that the violations of law caused the
stock price of TRC stock to be artificially inflated during the
Class Period, and when defendants finally disclosed the true
facts about TRC's troubled integration, diminished profitability
and inadequate financial statement disclosures, TRC's stock price
collapsed from a Class Period high of $36 1/8 in June, 1998 to as
low as $8 3/4 per share.


TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL: Takes $10 Million Charge for Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transcrypt International, Inc., in reporting fourth quarter and
year-end 1998 results of operations, indicated that it has made a
special provision of $10.0 million relating to the federal and
state class action lawsuits pending in Nebraska against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers.  

Transcrypt reports revenues of $11.9 million for the quarter
ended December 31, 1998 compared to revenues of $20.6 million for
the quarter ended December 31, 1997, a decrease of 42.4%.  For
the year ended December 31, 1998, revenues were $62.0 million
compared to revenues of $40.4 million for the year ended  
December 31, 1997.  The 53.5% increase in revenues, on a year
over year basis,  was due primarily to revenues generated by the
Company's subsidiary, E. F. Johnson Co., which was acquired on
July 31, 1997.  The loss for the quarter ended December 31, 1998
was $14.7 million, compared to a net  income of $725,000 for the
comparable period in 1997.  The loss for the year  ended December
31, 1998 was $22.3 million compared to a loss  of $10.9 million
for the year ended December 31, 1997.

The fourth quarter loss includes a special provision of $10.0
million relating to the federal and state class action lawsuits
pending in Nebraska against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers. As previously reported, the Company
is in ongoing settlement discussions regarding these lawsuits.
While no settlement agreement has been reached, the $10.0
million special provision is the Company's best estimate of the
amount that would be necessary for the Company to contribute to
settle the class actions.  The Company would anticipate
satisfying any settlement by issuing shares of common stock to
the class members rather than using its cash reserves. Despite
the taking of the special provision, the Company can give no
assurances whether any settlement can be reached, what would be
the terms of any settlement or whether the Company would be
required to contribute more than $10.0 million.


TUBE TURNS: Louisiana Coker Plan Explosion Litigation Drags On
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tube Turns Technologies, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of
SYPRIS SOLUTIONS, INC.) is a co-defendant in two separate
lawsuits filed in 1993 and 1994, one pending in federal court and
one pending in state district court in Louisiana, arising out of
an explosion in a coker plant owned by Exxon Corporation located
in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  The suits are being defended for
Tube Turns by its insurance carrier, and the Company intends to
vigorously defend its case.  

More specifically, according to the complaints, Tube Turns is the
alleged manufacturer of a carbon steel pipe elbow which failed,
causing the explosion which destroyed the coker plant and caused
unspecified damages to surrounding property owners.  One of the
actions was brought by Exxon and claims damages for destruction
of the plant, which Exxon estimates exceed $100 million.  In this
action, Tube Turns is a co-defendant with the fabricator who
built the pipe line in which the elbow was incorporated and with
the general contractor for the plant.  The second action is a
class action suit filed on behalf of the residents living around
the plant and claims damages in an amount as yet undetermined.  
Exxon is a co-defendant with Tube Turns, the contractor and the
fabricator in this action.  In both actions, Tube Turns maintains
that the carbon steel pipe elbow at issue was appropriately
marked as carbon steel and was improperly installed, without the
knowledge of Tube Turns, by the fabricator
and general contractor in a part of the plant requiring a
chromium steel elbow.


TWINLAB: Schubert & Reed File Complaint in New York
---------------------------------------------------
On March 8, 1999, Schubert & Reed LLP filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, on behalf of a class of purchasers of  Twinlab Corporation
common stock (Nasdaq: TWLB) during the period 12/1/98 through
2/24/99, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants  Twinlab
Corporation, its President and CEO Ross Blechman and CFO John
McCusker  for violations of the federal securities laws.

On February 24, 1999, TwinLab Corp. admitted that revenues for
the first three quarters of fiscal 1998, as well as certain
quarters in fiscal 1997, were misstated due to the improper
recognition of revenue during those periods.  It announced the
following revisions for fiscal 1998 and indicated that further  
adjustments would be forthcoming for fiscal 1997 (net income and
per-share figures are pro forma and, for the second and third
quarters, exclude extraordinary charges):  

    Q1: Revenues revised down to $74.7 million from $78.5
        million, earnings revised down to $7.7 million from $8.8  
        million, earnings per share revised down to $0.27 from
        $0.31.

    Q2: Revenues revised down to $83.3 million from $84.3,
        earnings revised down to $8.9 million from $9.2 million.  

    Q3: Revenues revised down to $84.4 million from $90.6
        million, earnings revised down to $8.2 million from $10.2
        million, earnings per share revised down to $0.25 from
        $0.31.  

On news of the restatement, TwinLab stock fell to a close of $7
on February 24, 1999, from its February 23, 1999, close of $9.50,
losing 26.3% of its value in a single day's trading.

This action, the Firm indicates, relates to a more recent time
period than several class actions filed last year concerning
Twinlab, and alleges claims on behalf of a different class of
Twinlab purchasers than the cases filed last year.


UNITED PARCEL: Offers $8 Million to Settle Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Examiner reports that thousands of black United
Parcel Service workers would share more than $8 million as part
of a proposed settlement in a class-action lawsuit.  A federal
judge is scheduled to consider final approval on March 31. The
settlement was reached in U.S. District Court in San Francisco in
February.  The settlement would affect current and former black
employees who worked for the shipping and delivery company in 10
western states, including California, between 1996 and last
month.

The workers claimed they were racially discriminated against by
UPS. As part of the settlement agreement, the company pledged to
enhance promotional and other opportunities for its employees.   
The lawsuit charged that UPS failed to promote blacks from part-
time to full-time positions because of their race. It also
alleged the company failed to give them information about
promotional opportunities or offer them more working hours.

Before the lawsuit was filed, complaints of racial discrimination
and harassment were aired in 1997 at an emotional meeting in
Oakland attended by the NAACP and about 500 employees and union
leaders.  Drivers complained of being relegated to unsafe routes
while white drivers with less seniority were given premier
routes.  Some drivers testified that they paid for bodyguards out
of their own pockets to escort them on some of their routes
because they were fearful of being robbed or attacked.  Employees
also complained of being denied promotions despite good
performance evaluations.  Others said they were subjected to
harassment and racial epithets by management, and that they had
been referred to as "boys" and "monkeys."


WELFARE RECIPIENTS: Colorado Suit Complains About Halted Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A column appearing in The Denver Post makes passing reference to
some prominent Denver lawyers recently filing a class-action
lawsuit against the state and Denver and Adams counties, saying
more than 1,000 people have been dropped from welfare illegally,
without sufficient explanations or notice.  Counties are required
to advise clients in writing what mistakes they have made that
could cost them cash benefits and what rights they have to
appeal.  When people are cut off from welfare unexpectedly, their
very survival is jeopardized, making homelessness, hunger and
other hardships likely.


                           *********

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  * * *