CAR_Public/990315.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 15, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 27

                           Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Will Deny Terazosin HCl Antitrust Suit
ALLIED PILOTS: Fourth Passenger Complaint Filed in Texas
BAUSCH & LOMB: No Appeal from Rewetting Drop Suit Dismissal
DREYFUS AGGRESSIVE: Shareholders Sue over Conflicts on Interest
FRESENIUS NATIONAL: 1995 & 1996 W.R. Grace Shareholder Litigation

GENERAL CIGAR: Florida Suits Stall; May Prevail in California
LIFE TECHNOLOGIES: Injunction re Dexter Merger Denied in Delaware
LOUISIANA STATE: Hospital Sued Over Anti-Abortion Policy
MDC HOLDINGS: Continues to Honor Expansive Soil Warranty Program
PG&E CORP.: Texas Franchise Fee Litigation Effect May be Material

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Plaintiffs' Lawyer Unfazed by RJR Break-Up
TRAVELERS BANK: Customers Sue For Credit Card Rate Bait & Switch

                           *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Will Deny Terazosin HCl Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On December 18, 1998, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. sued Abbott
Laboratories, Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Zenith
Laboratories, Inc., in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida alleging that Abbott's agreements
with Geneva and Zenith regarding terazosin hydrochloride violate
the federal antitrust laws.  The case purports to be a class
action and seeks actual damages, treble damages, civil penalties,
and other relief.  Abbott intends to file a response denying all
substantive allegations.


ALLIED PILOTS: Fourth Passenger Complaint Filed in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Four travelers inconvenienced during last month's pilots' sickout
at American Airlines filed suit yesterday in U.S. District Court
in Dallas against the Allied Pilots Association, which represents
American's 9,300 pilots.  The plaintiffs are seeking at least $50
million in compensatory damages, plus unspecified punitive
damages from the Fort Worth-based union.

The lawsuit is the fourth filed by consumers against the union as
a result of the job action that forced the cancellation of nearly
6,700 American flights Feb. 6-16.  However, it is the first filed
in a federal court.  Two suits seeking class action status -- and
at least $100 million and at least $50 million in damages,
respectively - were filed previously in state district court in
Fort Worth.  Another suit seeking class action status and at
least $80 million in damages, has been filed in a California
state court in San Francisco.

The suit filed yesterday names four plaintiffs, Richard Kaufman
of New York who claims he lost $1,900 in hotel reservation fees
because he could not travel on Feb. 10; New York resident Jack
Marut who claims he lost $2,000 in commissions when he couldn't
travel on Feb. 7; Florida resident Anthony Wainwright, who claims
he lost $5,000 in travel fees; and Jeffrey Krasnoff who claims he
lost $1,600 in travel fees.


BAUSCH & LOMB: No Appeal from Rewetting Drop Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In its 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K, BAUSCH & LOMB, INC.,        
discussed a class action pending before a New York Supreme Court
alleging that the company misled consumers in its marketing and
sale of Sensitive Eyes Rewetting Drops, Boston Rewetting Drops,
Renu Rewetting Drops and Bausch & Lomb Eye Wash. On April 21,
1998, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims.  "It is
not known whether the plaintiffs will appeal this ruling," BAUSCH
& LOMB says in its latest quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed
last week with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


DREYFUS AGGRESSIVE: Shareholders Sue over Conflicts on Interest
---------------------------------------------------------------
The April 1999 edition of Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine
relates that Michael Schonberg, one of a fresh crew of managers
brought in during 1995 to revive Dreyfus's sleepy stock funds,
started with a bang.  In his first eight months on the job, he
piloted Dreyfus Aggressive Growth to a 119% gain--enough to place
it at the top of many lists of aggressive-growth funds.  

Money poured in, Kiplinger's observes; assets had reached $92
million by the end of 1996.  But then returns dropped almost as
fast as they had gone up.  The fund now sits in the bottom 1% of
all funds over the past three years, with an annualized return of
-16.6%. Not surprisingly, it has almost twice the volatility
of Standard & Poor's 500-stock index.

We're not sure just what Schonberg did to sink his fund so
thoroughly because right now lips are buttoned, Kiplinger's
comments.  Last July, Dreyfus placed Schonberg on administrative
leave with pay while the SEC and the New York State attorney
general scrutinize his actions.  Additionally, a class-action
suit by shareholders contends Schonberg loaded the fund with a
few tiny stocks that he already owned in his personal portfolio.  
It maintains he bought the stocks partly "on the basis of  
Schonberg's personal financial interests," a conflict of interest
that would violate SEC rules.


FRESENIUS NATIONAL: 1995 & 1996 W.R. Grace Shareholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1995, nine purported class action lawsuits were brought
against FRESENIUS NATIONAL MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. (prior to
the Merger, when it was Grace), and certain of its then officers
and directors in various federal courts. These lawsuits were
consolidated in a case entitled Murphy, et al. v. W.R. Grace &
Co., et al. No. 95-CV-9003 (JFK) (the "Murphy Action"), which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The first amended class action complaint in this
lawsuit, which purports to be a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased publicly traded securities of
the Company during the period from March 13, 1995 through October
17, 1995, generally allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by concealing information and issuing misleading
public statements and reports concerning NMC's financial position
and business prospects, a proposed spin-off of NMC, and the
matters that are the subject of the OIG Investigation and the
investigation by the federal grand jury in the District of New
Jersey.  The Murphy Action sought unspecified damages, attorneys'
and experts' fees and costs and such other relief as the court
deems proper.

In October 1995, a purported derivative lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Northern Division against the Company (prior to the Merger, when
it was known as Grace), certain of its then directors and its
former President and Chief Executive Officer, alleging, inter
alia, that such individuals breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to properly supervise the activities of NMC in the
conduct of its business (Bennett v. Bolduc, et al. 95-8638-CIV-
MORENO). In December 1995, the plaintiff in this action filed a
new action, based on similar allegations, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Bennett v. Bolduc,
et al. 95-CV-10737 (AGS)) (the "Bennett Action"). The action in
Florida was dismissed in favor of the Bennett Action. A second
action making similar allegations was filed in October 1995 in
New York State Supreme Court, New York County (Bauer v. Bolduc,
et al. 95-125751). This action was stayed in favor of the Bennett
Action, which was consolidated, for discovery purposes only, with
the Murphy Action described above. The complaint in the Bennett
Action sought unspecified damages, attorneys' and experts' fees
and costs and such other relief as the court deems proper.

In February 1996, a purported class action was filed in New York
State Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company (prior
to the Merger, when it was known as Grace) and certain of Grace's
then current and former directors, alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties, principally by failing to
provide internal financial data concerning NMC and by failing to
negotiate with certain other companies that had made proposals
for business combinations involving NMC (Rosman v. W. R. Grace,
et al. 96-102347).  The lawsuit sought injunctive relief ordering
defendants to carry out their fiduciary duties and preventing or
rescinding the Merger or any related transactions with Fresenius
AG, unspecified monetary damages, an award of plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and such other relief as
the court may deem just and proper.

Grace Chemicals indemnified the Company and its affiliates for
any losses related to these lawsuits, which were settled in
January 1998 without the contribution of any payment in
connection with the settlements by the Company or any of its
affiliates.


GENERAL CIGAR: Florida Suits Stall; May Prevail in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Cigar Holdings, Inc., together with a variety of tobacco
product manufacturers and retailers, is named as a defendant in
Florida suits based on tort theories including strict liability,
negligence, fraud and civil conspiracy, with plaintiffs alleging
adverse health effects from the use of such tobacco products.

     (A) RAYMOND NICHOLAS AND JUDITH L. NICHOLAS V. PHILIP MORRIS
INCORPORATED, ET AL., Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court, Broward
County, Florida. This action was filed on February 3, 1997 and
served on February 4, 1997. The Complaint names the Company
together with several other tobacco product manufacturers and a
retailer. Plaintiffs allege personal injuries and loss of
consortium based on strict liability, negligence and civil
conspiracy theories. The Company is not included in the list of
alleged coconspirators in the civil conspiracy count. The court
denied defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint. A second
amended complaint was served on June 29, 1998, and the Company
filed an answer denying the allegations contained therein.
Discovery has been proceeding. Plaintiff's counsel, however, has
recently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record which
has not yet been decided.

     (B) IN RE CONSOLIDATED TOBACCO CASES V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON
TOBACCO CORPORATION, ET AL., Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Duval
County, Florida. Two complaints, which name the Company
among other defendants, were filed in late August 1996; each
contains allegations of strict liability, negligence and civil
conspiracy. The Company is not named in the complaints as a co-
conspirator. As of December 31, 1998, the Company had not been
served with either complaint.

     (C) FLORENCE WALTERS, ET AL. V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO
CORPORATION, ET AL., Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Duval County,
Florida. This class action complaint was filed in late August
1996 and specifically lists 291 class members. The Company has
been named together with the other defendants in this case but
has not been served with a complaint. The underlying claims
include strict liability, negligence and civil conspiracy claims
under which the Company is absent from the list of alleged
conspirators.

On July 28, 1998, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
V. GENERAL CIGAR CO., INC. ET AL. was filed in Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Francisco against
the Company and nine other manufacturers of cigars and pipe
tobacco. The plaintiffs in the action, the San Jose City Attorney
on behalf of the People of California and Lexington Law Group,
allege that the defendants violated California Proposition 65 and
the California Unfair Competition Act by (a) selling products
that expose California non-smokers to environmental tobacco smoke
(resulting in exposure without warning 'to chemicals known to the
State of California to cause cancer and/or reproductive
toxicity'), and (b) thereby engaging in fraudulent and unfair
business practices. Plaintiffs claim uncalculated penalties under
Proposition 65 and seek disgorgement of an unspecified amount of
revenues obtained through allegedly wrongful sales. On October 5,
1998, the defendants filed a demurrer based on res judicata and
collateral estoppel and the court overruled the demurrer. The
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and is
vigorously defending the action. A similar action was filed in
Los Angeles where the court sustained the demurrer. These two
decisions will be appealed and the actions may be consolidated.


LIFE TECHNOLOGIES: Injunction re Dexter Merger Denied in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>From July 8 to July 10, 1998, several lawsuits purporting to be
brought as class actions on behalf of public stockholders were
filed against LIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Dexter Corporation and the
Company's directors (with whom the Company has indemnification
agreements) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  
In September 1998 these lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action, titled In re Life Technologies, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation (Consolidated Civil Action No. 16513).  

On November 6, 1998, an Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion for
expedited proceedings were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.  The amended consolidated complaint alleges,
among other things, that Dexter and the defendant directors of
the Company who are affiliated with Dexter or are officers of the
Company have breached their respective fiduciary duties to the
Company's public stockholders.  The amended consolidated
complaint seeks to enjoin defendants, preliminarily and
permanently, from consummating a tender offer by Dexter, to
require Dexter to supplement its Offer to Purchase and to recover
monetary damages and fees and expenses of litigation.  

On November 9, 1998, the Delaware Chancery Court scheduled a
hearing to be held on November 24, 1998, with respect to the
motion for preliminary injunction filed on November 6, 1998.  At
the November 24, 1998 hearing, the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction.


LOUISIANA STATE: Hospital Sued Over Anti-Abortion Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
A reproductive rights organization filed a federal suit claiming
that a Louisiana hospital's policy to not perform an abortion
unless the woman has a greater than 50% chance of dying from the
pregnancy is unconstitutional, reports USA Today.  The class-
action suit names Michelle Lee, 27, as the primary plaintiff.
Lee, who suffers from cardiomyopathy, a life-threatening heart
condition, had to travel 250 miles to a Texas hospital last
October after the Louisiana State University Medical Center
refused her an abortion. Lee had been told by her doctors that
another pregnancy could kill her.  But physicians at the
Louisiana hospital determined that Lee had a less than 50% chance
of dying from the pregnancy and thus did not meet the hospital's
threshold for an abortion.  The Center For Reproductive Law and
Policy say the hospital's policy in effect "condemns women to
die."


MDC HOLDINGS: Continues to Honor Expansive Soil Warranty Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
During 1994 and 1995, class action litigation was filed against
several subsidiaries of MDC HOLDINGS, INC., alleging claims
relating to the construction of homes on lots with expansive
soils.  On November 26, 1996 the settlement of the Expansive
Soils Cases became final.  As a result, the Company recorded
additional warranty reserves. The impact in the consolidated
statements of income of these additional warranty reserves
was offset by indemnity payments received from insurance and
deposited directly into a qualified settlement fund. The
settlement provided for the creation of a warranty program for
eligible owners of homes constructed by the Company's Colorado
homebuilding subsidiaries and closed between June 1986 and June
1996.  Management believes the settlement will not have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows of the Company.


PG&E CORP.: Texas Franchise Fee Litigation Effect May be Material
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 31, 1997, PG&E Corporation acquired Valero Energy
Corporation (Valero), now known as PG&E Gas Transmission, Texas
Corporation or PG&E GTT. PG&E GTT succeeded to the eight cases
described below which were pending at the time of the acquisition
against Valero and its affiliates (collectively referred to as
the "Texas Franchise Fees Litigation"). These actions were
brought by various cities in Texas arising out of several Texas
statutes and city ordinances involving the following:

   (a) what rights, if any, Texas cities may have to require
       companies engaged in the gathering, production,
       distribution, transmission, and/or sale of natural gas
       (gas business) to obtain consent from, and pay fees to,  
       the cities within which such activities are being
       conducted,

   (b) what form any such consent, if required, must take,

   (c) what constitutes "use" of city property, and

   (d) what types of charges, if any, a Texas city properly can
       assess against gas pipeline and marketing companies for
       use of that city's property.

These seven cases pending against Valero entities at the time of
the acquisition are:

   (1) City of Edinburg v. Rio Grande Valley Gas Co. (RGVG),
       Valero Energy Corporation (now known as PG&E GTT), Valero
       Transmission Company (now known as PG&E Texas Pipeline
       Company), Valero Natural Gas Company (now known as PG&E
       Texas Natural Gas Company), Reata Industrial Gas Company
       (now known as PG&E Energy Trading Holdings Corporation),  
       Valero Transmission, L.P. (now known as PG&E Texas
       Pipeline, L.P.), and Reata Industrial Gas, L.P. (now
       known as PG&E Reata Energy, L.P.), Southern Union Gas Co.,
       and Mercado Gas Services, Inc., filed August 31, 1995, in
       the 92nd State District Court, Hidalgo County, Texas;

   (2) Cities of San Benito, Primera, and Port Isabel v.
       RGG, Valero Energy Corporation (now known as PG&E GTT),
       Southern Union Company, et al., filed December 31, 1996,
       in the 107th State District Court, Cameron County, Texas;
  
   (3) City of Mercedes v. Reata Industrial Gas L.P. (now
       known as PG&E Reata Energy, L.P.), and Reata Industrial
       Gas Company (now known as PG&E Energy Trading Holdings
       Corporation), filed April 16, 1997, in the 92nd State
       District Court in Hidalgo County, Texas;

   (4) Cities of Alton and Dana v. Rio Grande Valley Gas Co.,
       Valero Energy Corporation (now known as PG&E GTT), Valero
       Transmission Company (now known as PG&E Texas Pipeline
       Company), Valero Natural Gas Company (now known as PG&E
       Texas Natural Gas Company), Reata Industrial Gas Company
       (now known as PG&E Energy Trading Holdings Corporation),
       Valero Transmission, L.P. (now known as PG&E Texas
       Pipeline, L.P.), and Reata Industrial Gas, L.P. (now known
       as PG&E Reata Energy, L.P.), Southern Union Gas Co., and
       Mercado Gas Services, Inc., filed July 18, 1996, in the
       92nd State District Court, Hidalgo County, Texas;

   (5) City of La Joya v. Rio Grande Valley Gas Company, Valero
       Energy Corporation (now known as PG&E GTT), Southern Union
       Company, et al., filed December 27, 1996, in the 92nd
       State District Court, Hidalgo County, Texas;

   (6) City of San Juan, City of La Villa, City of Penitas, City
       of Edcouch, and City of Palmview v. Rio Grande Valley Gas
       Company, Valero Energy Corporation (now known as PG&E
       GTT), Southern Union Company, et al., filed December 27,
       1996, in the 93rd State District Court, Hidalgo County,
       Texas; and

   (7) City of Weslaco v. Valero Natural Gas Company (now known
       as PG&E Texas Natural Gas Company), Reata Industrial Gas
       Company (now known as PG&E Energy Trading Holdings
       Corporation) and Reata Industrial Gas, L.P. (now known as
       PG&E Reata Energy L.P.) filed April 17, 1997, in the 92nd
       State District Court, Hidalgo County, Texas.

The trial in the City of Edinburg case began on June 15, 1998. On
August 14, 1998, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the City
of Edinburg, and awarded damages in the approximate aggregate
amount of $9.8 million, plus attorneys' fees of approximately
$3.5 million, against PG&E GTT, Southern Union Gas Company and
various affiliates of PG&E GTT. The jury refused to award
punitive damages against the PG&E GTT defendants. On December 1,
1998, based on the jury verdict, the court entered a judgment in
the City's favor, and awarded damages of $5.3 million, attorneys'
fees of up to $3.5 million (to the extent that the City is
successful on appeal), prejudgment interest of $1.6 million
and post-judgment interest at the rate of 10 percent per year,
compounded annually, from December 1, 1998. The court found that
various PG&E GTT and Southern Union defendants were jointly and
severally liable for $3.3 million of the damages, prejudgment
interest in the amount of $1.1 million, and all the attorneys'
fees. Certain PG&E GTT subsidiaries were found solely liable
for $1.4 million of the damages and prejudgment interest of
$440,000. The court did not clearly indicate the extent to which
the PG&E GTT defendants could be found liable for the remaining
damages. The judgment also decreed that (1) certain pipelines
owned by PG&E GTT subsidiaries encroached on the City's property
without the City's consent and (2) based on certain jury
findings, PG&E GTT was vicariously liable for certain conduct of
the local distribution company, RGVG, from October 1, 1985, to
September 30, 1993 (the date Valero, PG&E GTT's predecessor, sold
RGVG to Southern Union). The PG&E GTT defendants are appealing
the judgment.

On November 4, 1997, the lawsuit filed in Cameron County, Texas,
by the cities of San Benito, Primera, and Port Isabel was amended
to name as defendants PG&E GTT and all of its subsidiaries
(excluding its Canadian gas trading and power trading company),
PG&E Gas Transmission Teco, Inc. and its subsidiaries, and PG&E
Energy Trading Corporation (now known as PG&E Energy Trading--Gas
Corporation), and to dismiss the Southern Union defendants. In
connection with the certification of a class in this case, the
court ordered notice to be sent to all potential class members
and setting an opt-out deadline of December 31, 1997. Notices
were mailed to approximately 159 Texas cities. Fewer than 20
cities opted out by the deadline. Some of the cities opting out
include Austin, Brownsville, Houston, Pharr, and San Antonio.
Defendants' motion to transfer venue of this case to Bexar
County, Texas, is currently pending.

The factual allegations and claims asserted in the lawsuit filed
by the city of La Joya, and in the lawsuit filed by the cities of
San Juan, Lavilla, Penitas, Edcouch, and Palmview, are similar to
the claims made in the lawsuit filed by the cities of San Benito,
Primera, and Port Isabel. Defendants' motion to transfer venue of
both cases to Bexar County, Texas, also is currently pending.

In July 1996, the lawsuits brought by the cities of Alton and
Dana were originally brought as intervening actions in the City
of Edinburg case, but were severed from the Edinburg lawsuit. The
claims asserted by the cities of Alton and Dana are substantially
similar to the Edinburg litigation claims.  Damages are not
quantified. Defendants' motion to transfer venue of both cases
to Bexar County, Texas, also is currently pending.

On September 4, 1997, the City of Mercedes amended its petition
to include class action claims and requested to be named as class
representative for a statewide class consisting of all Texas
municipal corporations, municipalities, towns, and villages,
excluding the cities of Edinburg and Weslaco (both of which filed
separate actions), in which any of the defendants have sold or
supplied gas, or used public rights-of-way to transport gas. The
City of Mercedes has requested a damage award, but has not
specified an amount. On November 26, 1997, defendants' motion to
recuse the presiding judge was granted. Plaintiffs' request for
class certification is still pending. If a class is certified,
defendants anticipate that they will challenge such
certification. Defendants' motion to transfer venue to Bexar
County, Texas, also is still pending.

The causes of action alleged in the case brought by the city of
Weslaco are identical to those alleged in the City of Mercedes
case. Defendants' motion to transfer venue to Bexar County,
Texas, is currently pending. Defendants also have filed a motion
to disqualify or recuse the presiding judge (the same judge that
was recused in the Mercedes case) which is also pending.

In addition to the seven cases described above, a lawsuit was
filed on April 3, 1996, in the 92nd State District Court, Hidalgo
County, Texas, by the City of Pharr against Southern Union
Company, et al., and RGVG. On June 24, 1996, the court certified
the case as a class action and named Pharr as the class
representative for the class consisting of those Texas cities,
excluding Edinburg and McAllen, that have, or had natural gas
franchises with RGVG. The Pharr class was certified as to two
claims: breach of contract and declaratory relief dealing with
the rights, status, and legal relationship between plaintiff, the
class members, and the local distribution company regarding
payment of franchise fees and use of granted easements.
Plaintiffs' original petition also sought injunctive relief, but
the class order does not include injunctive relief. Plaintiffs
seek actual damages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, costs,
and pre- and post-judgment interest, but have not specified any
amounts. The court records show that a pleading was allegedly
filed on December 12, 1997, but not docketed until mid-February
1998, that purports to add as defendants the same 29 PG&E
Corporation entities that are parties in the San Benito class
action. These PG&E Corporation entities have not been served in
this litigation. On December 30, 1997, in affirming the
Pharr class certification, the appellate court specifically found
that the PG&E Corporation-related entities were not parties to
the class action.

PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. indicate in
regulatory filings with the SEC last week that it believes the
ultimate outcome of the Texas Franchise Fee Litigation could have
a material adverse impact on their financial position or results
of operation.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Plaintiffs' Lawyer Unfazed by RJR Break-Up
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Coale, a Washington lawyer pushing a class-action lawsuit
against several tobacco companies, isn't concerned about how RJR
Nabisco is broken up.  "It wouldn't get them off the hook" for
any judgment, he told USA Today Friday.


TRAVELERS BANK: Customers Sue For Credit Card Rate Bait & Switch
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit accuses Citigroup Inc.'s Travelers Bank subsidiaries of
luring thousands of customers into paying higher-than-promised  
interest rates on their Visa credit cards.  The suit filed last
week in Delaware Superior Court says Travelers Bank & Trust FSB
and the Travelers Bank USA  offered customers a 6.9 percent
interest rate for six months on debts transferred onto their
Platinum Visa cards, but charged them 15.4 percent on the
balances, according to a Bloomberg News report.  The suit, which
seeks class-action status, asks for unspecified damages and a
rate cut.

                           *********

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  * * *