CAR_Public/990317.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 17, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 29

                           Headlines

ADVANCED MICRO: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
ADVANCED MICRO: Berger & Montague Files Complaint in California
AMERICA WEST: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in Arizona
AMERICA WEST: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in Arizona
BON-TON STORES: Decries Nine West Shoe Antitrust Litigation

DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Plaintiffs Seek Nationwide Class Certification
DATASTREAM SYSTEMS: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in South Carolina
LUCIENT TECHNOLOGIES & AT&T: Y2K Defect Class Action Suit Filed
LYCOS, INC.: Finkelstein Thompson Files Suit in Massachusetts
NORTH FACE: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in [California]

NORTH FACE: Scott & Scott Files Complaint in Colorado
NORTH FACE: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Colorado
NORTH FACE: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in Colorado
NORTH FACE: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in Colorado
NORTH FACE: NASDAQ Halts Trading

OLD GUARD: Summary Judgment Granted in Policyholder Suit
PEDIATRIC SERVICES: Schoengold & Sporn Files Complaint in Georgia
SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Weiss & Yourman Files Suit in California
SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in California

STAFFMARK, INC.: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in Arkansas


                           *********

ADVANCED MICRO: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. (NYSE: AMD) between October 6, 1998 and March 8,
1999.

The complaint charges AMD and its Chairman and CEO, William
Sanders, III with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
public statements about AMD's operations and prospects, including
the purported success of its flagship K6 microprocessor.

In January 1999, AMD disclosed for the first time that its newest
K6 chip was experiencing production and design problems, which
had resulted in significant yield and production problems during
late 1998. However, defendant Sanders again assured investors
that AMD's problems were "behind us now" and that AMD was on
track to post strong performance in the first quarter of 1999.

On March 8, 1999, AMD shocked investors, admitting that the
production problems which defendants assured investors had been
resolved had in fact adversely affected K6 production throughout
January and February of 1999, and that AMD would suffer a
"significant loss" for 1Q99. This revelation caused the price of
AMD shares to drop to approximately $17 per share, almost 50%
below its Class Period high.


ADVANCED MICRO: Berger & Montague Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur S. Feldman filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (NYSE: AMD) and Chief
Executive Officer, Jeffrey Sanders. The case is captioned Feldman
v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., C.A. No. C-99-1133MMC. The
lawsuit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of AMD securities
between November 9, 1998 and March 8, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint asserts that defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The
lawsuit alleges that defendants' material misrepresentations and
omissions caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially
inflated levels during the Class Period. In summary, the
Complaint states that during the Class Period defendants made
materially false and misleading statements about the demand for
AMD's ability to produce high speed K6 microprocessors that could
compete with industry giant Intel's Pentium II chips. Defendants
failed to disclose that they had serious design flaws and
production problems that severely restricted the number of 350+
MHz K6 chips that they could produce. The inability to produce a
sufficient volume of high speed chips caused AMD to have to sell
its chips at lower prices, severely depressing its earnings. Even
when defendants publicly disclosed during the Class Period
production problems with the high speed K6 microprocessors, they
claimed that the "production glitch" was behind them and that
they could increase production in the first quarter of 1999.
These statements were false and misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis because defendants knew that the design and
production problems were continuing and that AMD could not
produce the high speed chips in the announced amounts.
Defendants' announcement on March 8, 1999 that it would fall
short of its shipment goals and suffer a significant loss for the
first quarter, was laying off 300 employees and would take
charges in the first quarter and second quarters of 1999 shocked
the market, causing the price for AMD's stock to plummet from a
high of $32 during the Class Period to $16 following the
announcement.


AMERICA WEST: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a Class Action against
AMERICA WEST HOLDINGS CORP. (NYSE: AWA) and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona. The suit is brought on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or acquired Class B Common
Stock of America West between November 19, 1997 and September 3,
1998 inclusive.

The complaint charges America West and certain of its officers,
directors and its controlling shareholders with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false statements
about America West's supposed competitive advantages due to its
exceptionally low operating costs, industry leading aircraft
utilization rates, cost-savings outsourced aircraft maintenance
procedures, improving financial results, record earnings per
share ("EPS") and prospects for continued EPS growth. As a
result, the defendants artificially inflated America West's stock
to a Class Period and all-time high of $31-5/16 on April 21,
l998. This enabled America West's insiders to sell 2.4 million
shares of their publicly traded America West stock, 97% of the
publicly traded stock they owned, in just 90 days, for $67.8
million in proceeds. In late June 1998, when it became public
that America West was under increased surveillance by the Federal
Aviation Administration ("FAA"), America West assured investors
this was "routine" and the FAA had discovered no "significant
maintenance or operational problems." However, on September 3,
1998, America West suddenly revealed that, due to major
operational disruptions resulting from serious maintenance
problems, its 3rdQ and 4thQ '98 EPS would be well below levels
previously forecast and that America West had to incur millions
of dollars in additional costs to purchase more spare planes and
spare parts, to build nine additional "overnight" maintenance
facilities and hire hundreds of additional aircraft mechanics,
even offering to rehire the 375 aircraft mechanics America West
had fired as part of an attempt to lower its operating costs.
America West's stock declined by 31% from $20-5/16 on September
2, 1998 to $14, on volume of almost 2.6 million shares, the
largest one-day stock price decline on the largest one-day
trading volume in America West's history.


AMERICA WEST: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in Arizona
------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine announced that it commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly
traded Class B common stock of America West Holdings Corp. (NYSE:
AWA) between November 19, 1997 and September 3, 1998, inclusive.

The complaint charges America West and certain of its officers,
directors and its controlling shareholders with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false statements about
America West's supposed competitive advantages due to its  
exceptionally low operating costs, industry- leading aircraft
utilization rates, cost-savings outsourced aircraft maintenance
procedures, improving financial results, record earnings per
share ("EPS") and prospects for continued EPS growth. As a
result, the defendants artificially inflated America West's stock
to a Class Period and all-time high of $31-5/16 on April 21,
1998. This enabled America West's insiders to sell 2.4 million
shares of their publicly traded America West stock, 97% of the
publicly traded stock they owned, in just 90 days, for $67.8
million in proceeds. In late June 1998, when it became public
that America West was under increased surveillance by the Federal
Aviation Administration ("FAA"), America West assured investors
this was "routine" and the FAA had discovered no "significant
maintenance or operational problems." However, on September 3,
1998, America West suddenly revealed that, due to major
operational disruptions resulting from serious maintenance
problems, its 3rdQ and 4thQ 98 EPS would be well below levels
previously forecast and that America West had to incur millions
of dollars in additional costs to purchase more spare planes and
spare parts, to build nine additional "overnight" maintenance
facilities and hire hundreds of additional aircraft mechanics,
even offering to rehire the 375 aircraft mechanics America West
had fired as part of an attempt to lower its operating costs.
America West's stock declined by 31% from $20-5/16 on September
2, 1998 to $14, on volume of almost 2.6 million shares, the
largest one-day stock price decline on the largest one-day
trading volume in America West's history.


BON-TON STORES: Decries Nine West Shoe Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. (Nasdaq: BONT) said in a statement last
week that it has been named together with other department stores
and Nine West in an antitrust class action alleging that it
engaged in conduct violative of the antitrust laws relating to
the sale of shoes manufactured by Nine West.  The class action
seeks unspecified damages against all defendants. The Company
intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Plaintiffs Seek Nationwide Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in Crawley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. have filed
their post trial petition with the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, in which they request the Court to expand
the case from a Pennsylvania class to include the entire nation.
In papers filed by Joseph C. Kohn and Martin J. D'Urso of the
firm of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., and Isaac H. Green, Jr., of the
firm of Adrian Moody, P.C., the Plaintiffs also requested the
Court to triple the $59 million compensatory damage award under
the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law, and order
DaimlerChrysler to pay the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

On February 18, 1999, after a three week trial, the jury found
that air bags in Chrysler vehicles manufactured between 1988 and
1991 were defective because they caused serious hand, wrist
and arm burns when 500-600 degree gases were vented from holes
located where drivers most frequently hold their hands. The jury
also found that Chrysler committed fraud and violated three
provisions of the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law by
concealing the dangerous defect in the air bags even after its
own study had confirmed an unacceptable burn risk.

The verdict was the largest ever in an air bag case, and one of
the largest jury verdicts in a consumer class action in the
country.

The Plaintiffs had originally requested the Court to certify the
case on behalf of all vehicles in the United States. In a ruling
in 1994, the Court limited the class to Pennsylvania drivers
only. "The jury found that Chrysler's air bag was defective and
that Chrysler lied to consumers about its product. There is no
reason why the citizens of other states should not receive the
protection and benefits of the jury's findings. Chrysler had the
opportunity to fully and fairly defend itself and it lost. It
would be an unnecessary burden on the judicial system to have to
relitigate this issue in 50 states," said Joseph C. Kohn, counsel
for the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs also have requested the Court to triple the damage
award under the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law. "The jury
found by clear and convincing evidence that Chrysler committed
fraud. Tripling the award will send a clear message to the
DaimlerChrysler executives from Detroit to Berlin that injuring
and misleading consumers will not be tolerated," said Martin
J. D'Urso, co-counsel for Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs cited a
recent appellate decision in which the Pennsylvania Superior
Court instructed that, when fraud had been found, a failure to
award treble damages would do "violence to the intent and
purpose" of the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law. The
Plaintiffs also noted that DaimlerChrysler has recently paid one
of its Co-Chairmen, Robert Eaton, salary and stock options for
1998 worth almost $70 million. "Chrysler's claims that the jury
award was excessive ring terribly hollow in light of such an
astronomical payment. If there is a compensation system that has
run amuck, it's one that would pay one chief executive more
than 82,000 defrauded consumers. Yet, absent trebling, that's
precisely what would happen here," said Kohn.

Under Pennsylvania procedure, the trial court will rule on the
post trial motions of the parties before any appeals can be
taken.


DATASTREAM SYSTEMS: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. today announced that a
class action has been filed in United States District Court,
District of South Carolina on behalf of all purchasers of
Datastream Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: DSTM) common stock during the
period April 1, 1998 to October 20, 1998.  The complaint charges
that Datastream and certain of its officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws, alleging that defendants
improperly inflated earnings from operations by utilizing
accounting treatments not in conformity with generally accepted
accounting practices. As a result, the complaint alleges that the
price of Datastream common stock was artificially inflated during
the Class Period and when Datastream surprised investors by
issuing a press release on October 20, 1998 announcing
disappointing earnings for the third quarter of 1998, Datastream
stock collapsed $4-1/8 or 29%, to $10 per share.


LUCIENT TECHNOLOGIES & AT&T: Y2K Defect Class Action Suit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Beatie and Osborn LLP has commenced a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all individuals or entities who
purchased, leased, or acquired in any other way
telecommunications equipment sold by Lucent Technologies, Inc.
and AT&T Corp. which are not Year 2000 compliant (see attached
list). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Lucent
and AT&T violated consumer protection laws and breached
warranties. It seeks damages or repair or replacement with
systems that do not have the defect.

Though Lucent and AT&T have known about the Year 2000 problem
since the 1980's, they have continued to market non Y2K compliant
products and have not disclosed the defect to their customers.
Most customers never knew until recently that their equipment had
the problem.

Lucent and AT&T have told customers that (1) failure to correct
the Y2K problem will result in telephone system shut-downs and
corrupted data after December 31, 1999; and (2) the Y2K problem
can be corrected, in some cases for $8,000 or more per system.

Lucent and AT&T knew the equipment was defective. In some cases
they gave the purchaser or lessee a document saying in large
letters that the telecommunications system, which was acquired
by the customer and which had the defect, had "a powerful new
platform that will carry your business beyond the year 2000 with
state-of-the-art memory technology." They shirk their
responsibility to correct the Y2K problem by recently filing
court papers which seek to dismiss the lawsuit because the
proposed class representative has not yet spent money to upgrade
its messaging system, i.e., it has not yet suffered damage.
Similar actions involving non Y2K compliant software have been
dismissed because the proposed class representatives had not
already spent money for repairs. Would an automobile manufacturer
refuse to retrofit a defective auto part because a customer had
not yet been killed?

The following voice messaging and other telecommunications
products sold by Lucent and AT&T are listed by them on their web
site as Y2K non-compliant:
  
    Advanced Multimedia Communication Products
         Internet Telephony Gateway (ITG)
         Multimedia Call Exchange (MMCX)(R1.x)
  
    Call Accounting Products
         93B CSMDR (all)
         94A LSU (all)
         CAS and CAS+ (all)
         CAS Hospitality (all)
         CAS Terminal (pre-2.0)
         CDRP-3B2, CDRU-3B2, CDRU-PC (all)
         Cost Allocator (V1 and V2)
         Integrated Solutions CAS (V1.1)
         Integrated Solutions CAS (V1.0)
         Merlin Legend Reporter (pre-V1.1)
         Telemanagement Series (TMS)(1.0)
  
    Call Management Products
         CentreVu CMS (R3V4 and earlier)
         CMS (R2 on 3B2, R3V1-R3V4)
         Home Agent (R4)
         Merlin Legend Enhanced Service Center
         Merlin Legend CMS (all)
  
    Computer Telephone Integration Products
         ISDN Gateway on 3B2 (all)
  
    Integrated Solution Products
         Integrated Solution II Platform (all)
         Integrated Solution III Platform (all releases on
         Master Controller II)
         Integrated Solution III Platform (Master
         Controller II+, Master Controller III, Map 5)
  
    Large Messaging Products
         AUDIX Voice Power (2.1.1 and 3.0, MCIII, Olivetti)
         AUDIX Voice Power (R2.1.1 and R3.0 on MAP5 IDE)
         AUDIX Voice Power (all other platforms and releases)
         Definity AUDIX (prior to 3.1)
         FAX Attendant (all)
         Integrated Solutions AUDIX Voice Power, FAX
         Attendant, Lodging
         INTUITY AUDIX (R3.3, R3.3 IP18/International, R3.2,R2.0)
         INTUITY IMG (all)
         R1 AUDIX Large (all)
         R1 AUDIX Small (Pre-R1V8:2)
  
    Small Messaging Products
         3B2 Message Server (all)
         Classic Mail (all)
         Merlin Mail (R3.0)
         Merlin Mail (R1 and R2)
         Partner Mail (R1.9 and earlier)
  
         Switching Systems
         DEFINITY G3rV1-G3rV3(all issues)
         DIMENSION (600, 600SN, 2000 -- all feature packages)
         HORIZON CMS (all)
         System 25 (prior to R3V4)
  
         System Management Products
         CSM (all)
         Integrated Solutions Merlin Legend System
         Programming (all)
         Manager III
         Manager IV (all)
         Monitor I (all)
         OneVision DEFINITY G3 Fault Management (1.4 and prior)
         Terranova ECS (pre-R6.0)
         Trouble Tracker (R7.0)
         VMAAP (all)
  
         Video Conferencing Systems
         ESM (prior to R4.1.11)
  
         Voice Response
         INTUITY CONVERSANT (V5.O)
         CONVERSANT VIS INTRO (V3.1.1)
         CONVERSANT VIS (V4.0, V4.0i)
         CONVERSANT VIS (V3.1.1, V3.0)
         CONVERSANT VIS (V2.1)
         Inbound Call Director (all)
  
    Wireless Systems
         DEFINITY Wireless Personal Communications Manager
         (R1.0, R1.1)


LYCOS, INC.: Finkelstein Thompson Files Suit in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran hereby gives notice that a Class
Action Complaint was filed today in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who purchased the common stock of
Lycos, Inc. (Nasdaq: LCOS) between January 21, 1999 and February
9, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint names Lycos and CEO Robert Davis as defendants,
alleging that these parties violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule lOb-5 promulgated
thereunder, by originating a series of materially misleading
statements and omissions concerning the Company's intentions to
remain an "independent" entity. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants
repeatedly misrepresented that Lycos would remain an independent
company and would not enter into a merger transaction.

On February 9, 1999, Lycos announced that it was entering into a
merger transaction with USA Networks, Inc. In response to this
announcement, Lycos share prices plummeted, falling from a
February 8, 1999 close of $127.25 to a February 9, 1999 close of
$94.25.


NORTH FACE: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in [California]
----------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of The North Face, Inc. (Nasdaq: TNFI) securities
between April 25, 1997 and March 4, 1999 for violations of
federal securities laws. Defendants include The North Face and
certain of its officers and directors. The Complaint charges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5) by, among other things:
issuing false misleading statements regarding The North Face's
financial condition as well as its present and future business
prospects.


NORTH FACE: Scott & Scott Files Complaint in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------
Scott & Scott, LLC, announces that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of The North Face Inc. (Nasdaq:
TNFI) common stock between April 25, 1997 and March 4, 1999.

The complaint charges North Face and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants falsely reported North Face's financial results and
overstated its sales growth causing the Company's stock price to
trade at as high as $29. Ultimately, on March 5, 1999, North
Face was forced to announce that its full year 1998 results were
"delayed" and that, contrary to its repeated assertions during
the Class Period that its financials were properly stated,
adjustments to its 1997 results might be necessary. On this news,
North Face's stock price dropped to as low as $10-7/8.


NORTH FACE: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP commenced a Class
Action suit in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado, on behalf of all purchasers of The North Face Inc.
(Nasdaq: TNFI) common stock between April 25, 1997 and March 11,
1999, inclusive.

The Complaint charges North Face and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws.   Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding North Face's
1997 and 1998 financial results.  On March 12, 1999, North Face
announced that, following the completion of an investigation into
its accounting practices, it will restate its 1997 financial
statements and 1998 interim financial statements.


NORTH FACE: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The North Face Inc.
(Nasdaq: TNFI) in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.  The lawsuit was filed by the law firm of
Wolf Popper LLP on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired North Face securities in the open market during the
period April 25, 1997 through March 4, 1999.

The Complaint charges that defendants violated the U.S.
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and by omitting material facts required to be
disclosed so as to make the statements issued not materially
false and misleading throughout the Class Period.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
falsely reported North Face's financial results and overstated
its sales growth causing North Face's securities to trade at
inflated prices.

On March 11, 1999, North Face announced that it is likely to
restate its financials for the fourth quarter of 1997 and the
first quarter of 1998, and that it's Audit Committee was hiring
independent accountants to assist its outside counsel with the
investigation.


NORTH FACE: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
The North Face, Inc. between April 27, 1997 and March 5, 1999.
Defendants are North Face and certain of the Company's top
executive officers.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class
Period, defendants falsely reported North Face's financial
results and overstated its sales growth, causing North Face's
common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. On March
11, 1999, North Face announced that it will likely restate its
financial results for fiscal 1997 and the first quarter of fiscal
1998 following a review of its accounting procedures.


NORTH FACE: NASDAQ Halts Trading
--------------------------------
The Nasdaq halted trading of shares of The North Face Inc. last
week as shareholder lawsuits mounted against the Carbondale,
Colorado-based upscale outdoor sporting goods manufacturer.  
Groups of shareholders around the country filed five separate
class-action  suits against North Face following the company's
announcement that it is auditing its accounting procedure and
expects to restate its financial reports for 1997 and 1998.

The complaints allege North Face executives reported false
financial results and exaggerated sales increases, which led to
inflated stock prices.  The Nasdaq has requested additional
information from North Face, said spokesman Mike Shokouhi in
Washington, D.C. He declined to be more specific in an interview
with the Rocky Mountain News.  The holdup could last anywhere
from a day to a couple of months, he said.

"I can't say how long it will be halted," Shokouhi told the RMN.
"It depends on how long it takes the company to respond, how long
it takes our analysts to go through the information, how detailed
the information is."  The Nasdaq request came after North Face
last week tabled an offer to buy out shareholders at $17 a share,
or $212.5 million.  The manufacturer's chief executive officer,
James Fifield, made the offer with Leonard Green & Partners,
a merchant banking firm that also is a majority owner of Denver-
based Gart Sports Inc.

Fifield, who had been a member of North Face's board, became
chief executive last spring and moved the company from its San
Leandro, Calif., headquarters to Carbondale in July, the RMN
recalls.  North Face officials surprised the investment community
last Friday by reporting the company was experiencing unexpected
delays in preparing audited financial statements related to the
offer.  On Thursday, officials announced the board of directors
has set up an audit committee to evaluate its accounting
procedures during the fourth quarter of 1997 and the first
quarter of 1998.  

"We're looking at it ourselves, but I can't give out any more
information at this time," said spokeswoman Ashley Devery.

Devery, who said the audit and the trading halt are not related
to the lawsuits, also declined to comment on the shareholders'
claims.

The halt in trading was not only expected, it also strengthens  
shareholders' claims, said Michael Schwartz of Wolf Popper, a New
York law firm representing three shareholders.

"It was the icing on the cake," he said.

North Face went public in 1996 and ended the year with a net
income of $5.6 million.  Net income rose 96 percent to $11.1
million in 1997. And last year's net income was up 24 percent to
$13.8 million.  The suit accuses North Face of overshipping goods
to retailers and recording the additional merchandise as sales.

"It's called stuffing the channels, and then recognizing it as
revenues," Schwartz said.


OLD GUARD: Summary Judgment Granted in Policyholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Old Guard Insurance Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Old
Guard Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: OGGI), announced today that the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
ruled on Old Guard's motion for summary judgment in a class
action law suit brought by four Old Guard policyholders. In an
opinion issued on March 5, 1999, Judge Clifford Scott Green
granted the motion for summary judgment as to the federal
constitutional claims and retained jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims.

The suit, which was initiated in February 1997, challenges the
constitutionality of the Pennsylvania statute under which three
of the Old Guard insurance companies converted from mutual
insurance companies to stock insurance companies in February
1997. The statute authorizes mutual insurance companies to
convert to stock companies by providing subscription rights to
purchase stock to their policyholders.

In his Memorandum addressing the motion for summary judgment,
Judge Green noted that regarding federal constitutional claims
the "state action" doctrine requires the plaintiffs to show that
the defendants "may be considered state actors or that they acted
under color of state law ...."  Judge Green found that the
plaintiffs were unable to show that the defendants were state
actors, nor were the plaintiffs able to show a "sufficiently
close nexus between the state and the challenged action" to
uphold the federal constitutional claims.

Commenting on the rulings, Old Guard President David E. Hosler
stated, "This decision should be heralded as a victory for mutual
insurance companies and a very positive ruling for the entire
insurance industry. While the state law claims remain to be
decided, the granting of the motion for summary judgment
regarding the federal constitutional claims validates the
constitutionality of the Pennsylvania conversion statute and is a
very positive step that paves the way for other mutual insurers
to convert and raise capital through a subscription rights
offering."

Hosler continued, "Old Guard continues to be confident that our
position with regard to all of the remaining claims will
ultimately be upheld. In deciding to convert the three insurance
companies, our Board of Directors considered the best interest of
the companies as well as all of their stakeholders --
policyholders, employees, and the community. We followed a
legally enacted statute that provided a way for the companies to
raise capital, making the companies stronger and more able to pay
the claims of their policyholders."


PEDIATRIC SERVICES: Schoengold & Sporn Files Complaint in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 11, 1999, a lawsuit was filed in the Federal District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Pediatric
Services of America, Inc. (Nasdaq:PSAI), John D. Sansone
(President, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
Pediatric) and Stephen M. Mengert (Pediatric's Chief Financial
Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary) on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Pediatric during the period December 23, 1997
through and including July 29, 1998.

The securities class action complaint charges the defendants with
violations of the federal securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder), by among other things, misrepresenting and/or
omitting material information concerning Pediatric's accounts
receivable, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Pediatric shares during the Class Period. Specifically, far from
having record revenue and earnings during the Class Period and
strong internal controls for monitoring accounts receivable, the
Company on or about July 29, 1998 admitted that it would be
forced to dramatically increase reserves for accounts receivable
primarily due to potentially higher uncollectible receivables.


SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Safeskin Corporation (Nasdaq: SFSK) common stock during the
period October 29, 1998 to March 11, 1999.

The complaint charges Safeskin and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that, among other things, Safeskin and
certain of its officers and directors knowingly or recklessly
overstated Safeskin's results of operations, net income and gross
profit margin for the third and fourth quarters of fiscal year
1998 and misled the investing public as to the Company's
opportunities for fiscal 1999.

During the Class Period, defendants assured investors that the
Company's growth was due to the fact that the Company's prior
problems manufacturing sufficient products to meet their
customer's needs were alleviated, and that its customers could
purchase as much product as they needed.  In fact, defendants
knew or were reckless in failing to know that Safeskin was
selling its customers more products than they needed or wanted by
offering extended and favorable payment terms, actions which
defendants repeatedly publicly denied.  As a result of such
conduct, defendants knew that they could not continue to report
record earnings and income in future quarters.  On March 11,
1999, after the market closed, defendants announced that revenues
for its first quarter ending March 31, 1999 were expected to be
$28 million below what defendants led the market to believe they
were expecting, and that the Company was reducing its sales and
earnings expectations in light of higher than estimated
distributor inventory levels.  Moreover, the Company announced
that Safeskin estimated that sales for the year would be lower
by approximately an additional $25 million.

During the Class Period, Safeskin shares traded as high as $25-
15/16 per share. On the last trading day before the March 11,
1999 announcement, the price of Safeskin shares closed at $15-1/4
per share. After the announcement, the price of Safeskin common
stock fell by approximately 37% to a trade as low as $9-5/8 per
share.


SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Weiss & Yourman Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman has filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern
District of California, Case No. 99-CV-457, on behalf of
purchasers of Safeskin Corp. (Nasdaq: SFSK) securities between
January 12, 1999 through March 11, 1999 for violations of federal
securities laws.

Defendants include Safeskin and its president, Richard Jaffe. The
Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5) by,
among other things, issuing false misleading statements regarding
Safeskin's financial condition as well as its business prospects,
specifically projections for the first quarter of fiscal 1999.


SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safeskin
Corporation (Nasdaq: SFSK) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California.  The lawsuit was filed
by the law firm of Wolf Popper LLP on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Softskin securities in the open
market during the period October 29, 1998 through March 11, 1999.

The Complaint charges that defendants violated the U.S.
Securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and by omitting material facts required to be  
disclosed so as to make the statements issued not materially
false and misleading throughout the Class Period.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
knowingly or recklessly overstated Softskin's results of
operations and net income for the third and fourth quarters of
fiscal year 1998 and misled the investing public as to the
Company's opportunities for fiscal 1999, by "stuffing the
channel," i.e., selling to its distributors more product than
they wanted or could reasonably sell and thereby giving the false
appearance that the Company's business was continuing to grow at
record levels.


STAFFMARK, INC.: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. announced that a class
action has been filed in United States District Court, Eastern
District of Arkansas, on behalf of all purchasers of StaffMark
Inc. (Nasdaq: STAF) common stock during the period October 8,
1998 through March 2, 1999.  The complaint, which was filed by
attorney Steven E. Cauley, alleges that StaffMark and certain of
its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws
by issuing false statements about StaffMark's business which
caused its stock price to trade at artificially inflated prices.

For example, the Complaint filed by Steven E. Cauley alleges
that, on February 24, 1999, all levels of senior management of
StaffMark stated that they were "confident about operations" and
that, while December 98 and early January 99 business had been
slow, StaffMark's business was ramping up "as fast or faster than
expected." However, the Complaint filed by Steven E. Cauley
alleges that, just five days later, StaffMark revealed that its
revenues from its key Intellimark division had shown 0% growth in
January and 4-5% growth in February, both well under budget, and
that as a result, StaffMark's earnings for the first quarter of
1999 and Year 1999 would fall dramatically below expectations.

The Complaint filed by Steven E. Cauley further alleges that
these disclosures caused StaffMark common stock to collapse in
price and that -- just one month prior to these revelations --
StaffMark's largest shareholder sold 250,000 StaffMark shares for
$4 million. The Complaint filed by Steven E. Cauley also alleges
that, just three months before StaffMark collapsed in price,
StaffMark used $140 million worth of its artificially inflated
stock as a currency to acquire Robert Walters plc, a European
business.  At the same time, according to the Complaint filed by
Steven E. Cauley, StaffMark's CEO Clete Brewer had stated that
StaffMark was "undervalued."




                           *********

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  * * *