CAR_Public/990322.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 22, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 32

                           Headlines

ADVANCED MICRO: Stull Stull Files Complaint in California
ADVANCED MICRO: Spector & Roseman File Complaint in California
ALCOA, INC.: Intends to Appeal Texas Asbestos Jury Verdicts
ALUMAX, INC.: Delaware Shareholder Suit in Post-Merger Limbo
AMERICA WEST: Schatz & Nobel Files Complaint in Arizona

AMERICAN FAMILY: Settles Deceptive Insurance Sales Practice Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Sup.Ct. Opines About Witness Coaching
AVIATION DISTRIBUTORS: Class Action Settlement Receives Approval
BMC SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway File Complaint in Texas
CENDANT CORP.: Settles Litigation Suit with PRIDE Securityholders

CENTRAL & SOUTH: April 5 Deadline for Cities to Participate
CHS ELECTRONICS: Schatz & Nobel Files Complaint in Florida
CHS ELECTRONICS: Reviewing Shareholder Complaints with Skepticism
EEX CORP.: Files Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
ENTERGY CORP.: Jefferson County & Calcasieu Parish Settlements

FLEMING COMPANIES: Investors' Suits Dismissed Without Prejudice
FLEMING COMPANIES: D&O Insurers Appeal Anti-Allocation Ruling
FLEMING COMPANIES: May Assume Control of Derivative Litigation
FLEMING COMPANIES: Discloses Filing of Customer Overcharge Suits
HALLWOOD ENERGY: April 30 Fairness Hearing in Colorado

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: More Austrian Firms Charged with Wrongdoing
LASER TECHNOLOGY: Berman DeValerio File Complaint in Colorado
LYCOS, INC.: Weinstein Kitchenoff Files Suit in Massachusetts
LYCOS, INC.: Johnson Firm Files Complaint in Massachusetts
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Upgrade Patch & Cash Pool Settles Y2K Lawsuit

METAL RECOVERY: Signs Settlement Agreement in Malvy Litigation
MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED: Pursues Claims Against Furnace Suppliers
MONY GROUP: Prevails in Life Insurance Sales Practices Appeal
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Discloses Suit by MidCon ESOP Beneficiaries
ORBITAL SCIENCES: Lowey Dannenberg Files Complaint in Virginia

ORBITAL SCIENCES: Miller Faucher Files Complaint in Virginia
PEDIATRIC SERVICES: Responds to Shareholder Class Action Suits
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Bernstein Litowitz Files Complaint in Florida
RITE-AID CORP.: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
RITE-AID CORP.: Gross Firm Files Complaint in Pennsylvania

SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Spector & Roseman File Suit in California
SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Files Suit in California
SAFESKIN CORPROATION: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in California
SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Stull Stull Files Complaint in California
SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Lowey Dannenberg Files Suit in California

SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Responds to Shareholders' Complaints
SBC COMMUNICATIONS: Inside Telephone Wiring Cases Settled
SHELL OIL: Still Fighting with Polybutylene Co-Defendants
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Jury Rejects Ohio Unions' Claims
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Washington Union Trial Presses Forward

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Louisiana AG Dismisses Claims Against Fleming
TORCHMARK CORP.: Status Report Concerning Policyholder Litigation
TORCHMARK CORP.: Trial Date Requested in Royalty Litigation
TORCHMARK CORP.: Ready to Begin Appeal of Discrimination Verdict
TWINLAB CORP.: Stull Stull Files Complaint in New York

UNITED FOODS: Shareholder Complaint Filed to Halt Tender Offer
USA TALKS.COM: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in California


                           *********

ADVANCED MICRO: Stull Stull Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California by Stull, Stull & Brody on
behalf of purchasers of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (NYSE: AMD)
common stock between November 9, 1998 and March 8, 1999.

AMD supplies integrated circuits for the global personal and
networked computer and communications markets. AMD has three
fabrication facilities in Austin, Texas, including the state-of-
the-art FAB 25 facility which manufactures and produces the AMD-
K6 processors on 0.25-micron, five-layer metal process
technology.  The defendants include AMD 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 AMD's financial condition as well
as its present and future business prospects.


ADVANCED MICRO: Spector & Roseman File Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spector & Roseman, P.C. announced 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 alleges that AMD and its Chairman and CEO, William
Sanders, III, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint charges that during the Class
Period, defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading public statements about AMD's operations and earnings,
including the purported success of its flagship K6
microprocessor.  Because of the issuance of these false and
misleading statements, the price of AMD's publically traded
securities were artificially inflated during the class  
period.

The complaint alleges that 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.  In response to this
announcement, defendant Sanders 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 the market by announcing 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 the first quarter of 1999. This revelation
caused the price of AMD shares to plummet to approximately $17
per share, almost 50% below its Class Period high.


ALCOA, INC.: Intends to Appeal Texas Asbestos Jury Verdicts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa, Inc., along with various asbestos manufacturers,
distributors and other businesses, is a defendant in numerous
individual lawsuits filed in the State of Texas on behalf of
persons claiming injury as a result of occupational exposure to
asbestos at various Alcoa facilities.  In two of these cases,
jury verdicts were returned against the Company, Alcoa advises
investors in its latest annual report.  These vervicts will be
appealed, Alcoa says.


ALUMAX, INC.: Delaware Shareholder Suit in Post-Merger Limbo
------------------------------------------------------------
Following the March 9, 1998 announcement of the proposed
acquisition of Alumax, Inc., by Alcoa, Inc., and AMX Acquisition
Corporation, five putative class actions on behalf of
stockholders of Alumax were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against Alumax and certain of Alumax's directors.  Four
of these actions also named Alcoa as a defendant.  

The plaintiffs in those actions alleged, among other things, that
the director defendants agreed to a buyout of Alumax at an
inadequate price, that they failed to provide Alumax's
stockholders with all necessary information about the value of
Alumax, that they failed to make an informed decision as no
market check of Alumax's value was obtained and the acquisition
is structured to ensure that stockholders will tender their
shares and is coercive.  In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that
the Schedules 14D-1 and 14D-9 filed by Alcoa, AMX Acquisition
Corporation and Alumax, respectively, failed to disclose certain
information necessary for Alumax's stockholders to make an
informed decision regarding the offer and the other transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement.  

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the acquisition or to rescind it in the
event that it is consummated and to cause Alumax to implement a
"full and fair" auction for Alumax.  Plaintiffs also seek
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
disbursements, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief
as the Delaware Court of Chancery may deem appropriate.  

In July 1998, Alcoa acquired all of the outstanding shares of
Alumax for approximately $3.8 billion, consisting of cash of
approximately $1.5 billion, stock of approximately $1.3 billion
and assumed debt of approximately $1 billion.  Alumax operated
over 70 plants and other manufacturing facilities in 22 states,
Canada, Western Europe and Mexico.

The matter is still pending, but there have been no developments
since the close of the tender offer and merger in mid-1998.


AMERICA WEST: Schatz & Nobel Files Complaint in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed by Schatz & Nobel, P.C. in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of all purchasers of common stock of America West Holdings
Corp. (NYSE: AWA) from November 19, 1997 to September 3, 1998,
inclusive.  

The Complaint charges that, during the Class Period, America West
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, knowingly or recklessly making misrepresentations about
America West's  business, financial condition, earnings, and the
prospects for future earnings growth.  The Complaint alleges that
the Company issued false statements about its 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 and prospects for continued
EPS growth. As a result, the Defendants artificially inflated the
price of the Company's common stock during the Class Period to an
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. However,
on September 3, 1998, when America West revealed that its
expenses would dramatically increase and earnings decrease due to
major operational disruptions resulting from the serious
maintenance problems it had concealed, America West's stock
declined by 31%.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Settles Deceptive Insurance Sales Practice Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin State Journal reports that American Family Life
Insurance Co. agreed Tuesday to pay $77 million to settle two
class-action lawsuits accusing the insurer of deceptive sales  
practices.   The settlement could affect owners and previous
owners of 534,000 traditional and universal life insurance
policies sold between 1982 and 1996 by American Family Life.

In the settlement, the Journal says, American Family Life and its
parent company, American Family Mutual Insurance Co., denied any
wrongdoing. The company said it agreed to the settlement to avoid
costly litigation.   

The lawsuits stemmed from the sale of so-called "disappearing
premium" or "vanishing premium" life insurance policies, the
Journal relates.  The policies were sold to consumers using the
concept that dividends accumulating under the policy eventually
could be used to pay the policy's premiums.  The policies were
sold when interest rates ranged well into the double digits. The
prime rate, the rate banks offer to their best customers, soared
to more than 20 percent, for instance. Savers could get
certificates of deposit paying up to 16.5 percent.  But as
interest rates declined in the 1990s, policy dividends did not
accumulate as rapidly as policyholders expected. Some
policyholders claimed sales illustrations misled them.

"The issue in these lawsuits is whether policyholders clearly
understood that when their dividends went down, additional out-
of- pocket premium payments would be required," James F.
Eldridge, American Family executive vice president, said in a
statement.  American Family said it believes the policy
illustrations clearly disclosed that changing economic conditions
could affect future premium payments.

The lawsuit was brought in Waukesha County Circuit Court. The
court must still approve the settlement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Sup.Ct. Opines About Witness Coaching
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court voted Wednesday to allow civil trial jury
instructions to include statements of proven witness coaching by
plaintiffs' lawyers.  The ruling stems from a Butler County,
Ohio, class-action asbestos case with more than 800 plaintiffs,
in which defendants' lawyers alleged witnesses were case
defendants are manufacturers, suppliers, installers and
distributors of asbestos products.


AVIATION DISTRIBUTORS: Class Action Settlement Receives Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Distributors Inc. (OTC BB:ADIN), a defendant in three
class action lawsuits filed in October 1997, Thursday announced
that the Federal Court granted final approval of the Stipulation
of Settlement and the settlement agreement.

The complaints were filed seeking damages for alleged violations
of the Federal Securities laws. All claims were dismissed against
the defendants.

Terms of the settlement include a total cash consideration of
$740,000 plus a total of 210,000 shares of ADI common stock. ADI
is issuing 80,000 shares and the founder and former CEO of ADI is
contributing 130,000 shares.

Saleem Naber, president and chief executive officer, stated: "We
are pleased to have reached a reasonable and satisfactory
settlement. The final approval eliminates a significant amount of
legal costs and management time related to the class action
lawsuits that have been devoted to achieving the settlement.  The
company will now be able to concentrate more of its management
and  financial resources on business development, sales and
increasing ADI's value."

ADI is one of the world's 10 largest aircraft part redistributors
and inventory management service providers to major commercial
airlines worldwide, with agents in the United States, the United
Kingdom, Europe, Australia, India, the Orient, the Middle East,
Indonesia and South America.


BMC SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway File Complaint in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of BMC
Software, Inc. (Nasdaq:BMCS) from April 16, 1998 through February
25, 1999, inclusive.  

The complaint charges BMC Software and certain of its officers
and directors with issuing false and misleading financial
statements that failed to use proper accounting methods.


CENDANT CORP.: Settles Litigation Suit with PRIDE Securityholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cendant Corp. a leading franchiser of hotels, real estate and car
rentals, said it settled a class-action shareholders' suit with
investors who held a complex security know as PRIDES, according
to a report circulated by Reuters.  PRIDES, or preferred
redeemable increased dividend equity securities, Reuters
explains, is Merrill Lynch's term for preferred shares that are
mandated for conversion into common stock at maturity.  With
PRIDES, investors accept limited capital gains in exchange for a
higher dividend.

Cendant and the lead counsel for the PRIDES' holders had
announced a preliminary agreement in January.  The class-action
suit was among more than 50 lawsuits filed after accounting
irregularities surfaced at the company April 15.  The suits were
condensed into two, one involving a limited number of PRIDES'
holders and and the other encompassing the rest.  Reuters reports
that Cendant said the finalized non-cash settlement is not
expected to impact 1999 earnings per share unless its common
stock price makes a significant jump.  Under the deal, Cendant
said it will not change its previously reported after-tax charge
of about $228 million recorded in the fourth quarter of 1998.  
The deal calls for Cendant to distribute roughly 19 million more
common shares when the mandatory purchase associated with the
PRIDES occurs in February 2001.  This represents about 2 percent
more shares than are currently outstanding.  Cendant has also
agreed to file a shelf registration statement for an additional
15 million PRIDES, which could be issued by it at any time for
cash.


CENTRAL & SOUTH: April 5 Deadline for Cities to Participate
-----------------------------------------------------------
In May 1996, the City of San Juan, Texas filed a purported class
action in Hidalgo County, Texas District Court on behalf of all
cities served by CPL (owned by CENTRAL & SOUTH WEST CORP.) based
upon CPL's alleged  underpayment  of municipal  franchise  fees.
The plaintiffs' petition asserts various contract and tort claims
against CPL as well as certain audit rights. The suit seeks
unspecified  damages and attorneys' fees. CPL filed a
counterclaim for any overpayment of franchise fees it may have
made as well as its attorneys' fees. CPL also filed a motion to
transfer venue to Nueces County, Texas, and a plea to the
jurisdiction and pleas in abatement  asserting that the Texas  
Commission  has primary  jurisdiction  over the  claims.  In May
1996 and December 1996,  respectively,  the Cities of Pharr,
Texas and San Benito,  Texas filed individual suits making claims
virtually identical to those claimed by the City of San Juan. In
January,  1997, CPL filed an original petition at the Texas
Commission  requesting  the Texas  Commission to declare its  
jurisdiction  over CPL's collection and payment of municipal
franchise fees.

In April 1997, the Texas Commission issued a declaratory order in
which it declined  to assert  jurisdiction  over the claims of
the City of San Juan.  CPL appealed the Texas Commission's  
decision to the Travis County, Texas District Court, which
affirmed the Texas  Commission  ruling on February 19, 1999.
After the Texas Commission's order, the Hidalgo County District
Court overruled CPL's plea to the jurisdiction and plea in
abatement. In July 1997, the Hidalgo County District  Court  
entered an order certifying the case as a class action.  CPL
appealed this order to the Corpus  Christi Court of Appeals.  In
February  1998, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's order certifying the class.  CPL appealed the
Corpus Christi Court of Appeals ruling to the Texas Supreme  
Court, which declined to hear the case.  In August 1998,  the
Hidalgo County District Court ordered the case to mediation and  
suspended all proceedings pending the completion of the
mediation.  The mediation was completed in December, 1998, but
the case was not resolved.

On January 5, 1999, a class notice was mailed to each of the CPL
cities; the cities have until April 5, 1999, to decide whether or
not to participate in the lawsuit as a class member.


CHS ELECTRONICS: Schatz & Nobel Files Complaint in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed by Schatz & Nobel, P.C. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District Of Florida
on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of CHS Electronics
Inc. (NYSE:HS) from February 27, 1997 to March 10, 1999,
inclusive.  

The Complaint charges that, during the Class Period, CHS and
certain of its officers and directors (collectively, the
"Defendants") violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, knowingly or
recklessly making misrepresentations about the Company's
financial condition, business and earnings. The Complaint alleges
that (i) Defendants' financial statements were based, in large
measure, upon forged documents and false customer orders; (ii)
throughout the Class Period, Defendants had inaccurately
described the amount of its vendor rebates; (iii) throughout the  
Class Period, Defendants had improperly kept certain assets
(primarily accounts receivable) off its balance sheet; (iv)
throughout the Class Period, as a result of the foregoing, CHS's
assets and earnings were materially overstated; and (v) as a
result of the foregoing, CHS was performing far worse than  
publicly represented and its operating performance measures
(particularly its accounts receivable/turnover ratio) were
materially overstated.  The Complaint further alleges that by
making these material misrepresentations, the Defendants
artificially inflated the price of the Company's common stock
during the Class Period. However, when this information was
disclosed on February 24, 1999, the price of CHS collapsed, and
currently trades far below its Class Period highs.


CHS ELECTRONICS: Reviewing Shareholder Complaints with Skepticism
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHS Electronics, Inc. (NYSE: HS), a leading international
distributor of microcomputer products, today announced that a  
class action complaint has been filed alleging that the Company
and two of its  officers violated federal securities laws in
connection with financial reporting and disclosure during the
period February 27, 1997 through March 10, 1999.  The suit
purports to be on behalf of those who purchased CHS Electronics
common stock during that time frame.

Claudio Osorio, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, commented,
"The Company, in coordination with its legal counsel, is in the
process of carefully reviewing the allegations of the complaint.  
However, we believe that the claims are without merit and we
intend to vigorously defend the suit."

Miami-based CHS Electronics, ranked number 320 on the latest
Fortune 500 list of the largest U.S.-based industrial
corporations is a leading international distributor of
microcomputers, peripherals, and software to approximately  
150,000 resellers in 46 countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia,
the Middle East and Africa.  Unlike other computer wholesalers,
CHS Electronics distributes a limited product line for a limited
number of leading computer manufacturers and does so only outside
the United States.  The Company believes that its "focused
distribution" enables it to respond more quickly to customers,
provide better service, and reduce inventory and working capital  
requirements. CHS believes it is the largest microcomputer
distributor in Europe and Latin America.  Information regarding
CHS Electronics can be found at http://www.chse.comon the  
Company's website.


EEX CORP.: Files Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 3, 1998, EEX Corp., several of its current and/or
former officers and directors, Texas Utilities Company and TUC's
Chief Executive Officer were named in a class action lawsuit
filed in the Northern District of Texas that was designated as
Gracy Fund L.P. v. EEX Corporation, et al.  The Gracy Fund
complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against various defendants.

Additionally, on August 3, 1998, EEX, several of its current
and/or former officers and directors, and two additional
companies (ENSERCH Corporation and DeGolyer & MacNaughton) were
named in a class action lawsuit filed in the Southern District of
Texas that was designated as Stan C. Thorne v. EEX Corp.,
et al.  The Thorne complaint alleged violations of the 34 Act and
common law-based negligent misrepresentations and fraud claims.

On October 5, 1998, the Thorne defendants filed a motion to
transfer the Thorne action to the Northern District of Texas. On
November 20, 1998, the Thorne action was transferred to the
Northern District of Texas and consolidated with the Gracy Fund
action.

On January 22, 1999, plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint in the consolidated Gracy Fund action against EEX,
several of its current and/or former officers and directors and
another company, ENSERCH Corporation.  The Consolidated Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the 33 Act
and violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the 34 Act
against various defendants.  The Consolidated Complaint alleges
the Sections 10(b), 15 and 20(a) claims on behalf of a class
of plaintiffs who acquired EEX's stock pursuant to an October
1996 Registration Statement and Proxy/Prospectus.

Plaintiffs allege that during the class period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material facts, regarding the value and volume of EEX's
proved reserves from its East Texas operations. According to
plaintiffs, these purported misrepresentations artificially
inflated the price of EEX's common stock throughout the class
period, induced the EEX Subclass to approve the merger that spun
EEX off from ENSERCH and induced the EEX Subclass to acquire
stock pursuant to the Registration Statement and Proxy/Prospectus
issued regarding this merger.

EEX says it intends to contest this action vigorously, and filed
a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on March 8, 1999.
All discovery is stayed pending the determination of the motion
to dismiss.


ENTERGY CORP.: Jefferson County & Calcasieu Parish Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several lawsuits have been filed on behalf of plaintiffs in state
and federal courts in Jefferson and Orange Counties, Texas.  
These suits seek relief from Entergy Gulf States as well as
numerous other defendants for damages caused to the plaintiffs or
others by the alleged exposure to hazardous waste and asbestos on
the defendants' premises.  The plaintiffs in some of these suits
are also suing Entergy Gulf States and all other defendants on a
conspiracy claim.  There are also asbestos-related lawsuits filed
in the District Court of Calcasieu Parish in Lake Charles,
Louisiana, naming numerous defendants including Entergy Gulf
States.  The suits allege that each plaintiff contracted an
asbestos-related disease from exposure to asbestos insulation
products on the premises of the defendants.  Plaintiffs have  
filed  lawsuits  in Louisiana in state courts in  East  Baton  
Rouge, Iberville, and Ascension Parishes.  These suits seek
relief from Entergy Gulf States and numerous other defendants for  
damages caused to the plaintiffs or others by alleged exposure to
hazardous waste and asbestos on the  defendants' premises.  It is
not known how many of the plaintiffs in any of the foregoing  
cases actually worked on Entergy Gulf States' premises.   
Settlements with the Jefferson County plaintiffs and  with  the
Calcasieu Parish plaintiffs are in the process of being
consummated.  Entergy Gulf States' share of the settlements of  
these cases is not material, in the aggregate, to its financial  
position or results of operations.


FLEMING COMPANIES: Investors' Suits Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, Fleming Companies, Inc., and certain of its present and
former officers and directors (Robert E. Stauth, R. Randolph
Devening, Harry L. Winn, Kevin J. Twomey and Donald N. Eyler)
were named as defendants in nine purported class action suits
filed by certain stockholders (Kenneth Steiner, Lawrence B.
Hollin, Ronald T. Goldstein, General Telcom Money Purchase Plan &
Trust, Bright Trading, Inc., City of Philadelphia, Gerald Pindus,
Charles Hinton and Lawrence M. Wells, among others) and one
purported class action suit filed by a noteholder (Robert Mark),
each in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma (Mr. Devening was not named in the noteholder case).

In 1997, the court consolidated the stockholder cases as City of
Philadelphia, et al. v. Fleming Companies, Inc., et al. (the
noteholder case was also consolidated, but only for pre-trial
purposes).  During 1998 the noteholder case was dismissed and
during 1999 the consolidated case was also dismissed, each
without prejudice.  The court has given the plaintiffs the
opportunity to restate their claims.

The complaint filed in the consolidated cases asserts liability
for the company's alleged failure to properly account for and
disclose the contingent liability created by the David's
litigation and by the company's alleged "deceptive business
practices." The plaintiffs claim that these alleged practices led
to the David's litigation and to other material contingent
liabilities, caused the company to change its manner of doing
business at great cost and loss of profit, and materially
inflated the trading price of the company's common stock. The
company denies each of these allegations.


FLEMING COMPANIES: D&O Insurers Appeal Anti-Allocation Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, Fleming Companies, Inc., won a declaratory judgment in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
against certain of its insurance carriers regarding policies
issued to Fleming for the benefit of its officers and directors
("D&O policies"). On motion for summary judgment, the court ruled
that the company's exposure, if any, under the class action suits
is covered by D&O policies written by the insurance carriers
(aggregating $60 million in coverage) and that the "larger
settlement rule" will be applicable to the case. According to the
trial court, under the larger settlement rule a D&O insurer is
liable for the entire amount of coverage available under a
policy even if there is some overlap in the liability created by
the insured individuals and the uninsured corporation.  If a
corporation's liability is increased by uninsured parties beyond
that of the insured individuals, then that portion of the
liability is the sole obligation of the corporation.  The
court also held that allocation is not available to the insurance
carriers as an affirmative defense.   The insurance carriers have
appealed.


FLEMING COMPANIES: May Assume Control of Derivative Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
In October 1996, certain present and former officers and
directors (Robert E. Stauth, Harry L. Winn, Jr., Kevin J.
Twomey, Archie R. Dykes, Carol B. Hallett, Edward C. Joullian
III, John A. McMillan, Guy A. Osborn, Howard H. Leach, R.D.
Harrison (subsequently dismissed), Lawrence M. Jones, R. Randolph
Devening, Donald N. Eyler, E. Dean Werries and James E. Stuard)
of Fleming Companies, Inc., were named as defendants in a
purported shareholder's derivative suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Cauley, et al. v.
Stauth, et al.). Plaintiffs' complaint contains allegations that
the defendant breached their respective fiduciary duties to the
company and were variably responsible for causing the company to

     (i) become "involved with" Premium Sales Corporation and its
         illegal course of business resulting in a $20 million
         settlement paid by Fleming;

    (ii) "systematically misrepresent and overstate" the cost of
         company products, resulting in litigation by David's
         Supermarkets (which was settled by the company for $20
         million), and others, and ultimately leading to the
         class action suits discussed above; and

   (iii) fail to meet its disclosure obligations under the law
         resulting in the class action lawsuits and increased
         borrowing costs, loss of customers and loss of market
         value.

In another purported shareholder derivative action filed in
October 1996 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma (Rosenberg v. Stauth, et al.), the plaintiff sued the
same and additional present and former officers and directors (E.
Stephen Davis, Thomas L. Zaricki, Gerald G. Austin and Glenn E.
Mealman). In this case, the plaintiff alleged the defendants
caused the company to:

     (i) violate certain sale agreements with David's
         Supermarkets resulting in the David's litigation,

    (ii) fail to disclose to the investing public the risks
         associated with the David's litigation,

   (iii) violate certain sale agreements with Megafoods (a former
         customer) in a manner similar to that alleged by David's
         Supermarkets, and

    (iv) defraud persons who invested in the Premium-related
         entities resulting in litigation.

Plaintiffs sought damages from the defendants on behalf of
Fleming in excess of $50,000, forfeiture by the defendants of
their salaries and other compensation for the period in which
they allegedly breached their fiduciary duties, retention of all
monies held by the company as deferred compensation or otherwise
on behalf of the defendants as a constructive trust for the
benefit of the company, and attorney's fees and costs.  On
September 30, 1997, both derivative suits were dismissed, without
prejudice, for failure to make demand on the company's Board of
Directors prior to instigating the litigation. With the leave of
the court, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October 1998.
On November 4, 1998, a special committee of Fleming's Board of
Directors filed a motion to intervene in the case and requested
ninety days within which to elect to assume control of the case.
The motion is currently pending.


FLEMING COMPANIES: Discloses Filing of Customer Overcharge Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest annual report, Fleming Companies, Inc., discloses
that, in 1998, the company and one of its associates were named
in a suit filed in the United States District for the District of
Utah by three current and former customers of the company
(Storehouse Markets, Inc., et al. v. Fleming Companies, Inc., et
al.). The plaintiffs' allege product overcharges, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent nondisclosure and concealment,
breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing
and RICO violations and seek declaration of class action status
and recovery of actual, punitive and treble damages.  Damages,
Fleming says, have not been quantified.


HALLWOOD ENERGY: April 30 Fairness Hearing in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of J. James Carriero, Esq., advised persons  
who were owners of record of Hallwood Energy Corporation ("HEC")
stock (who were paid by the Hallwood Group, Inc. in  connection
with the tender offer dated October 15, 1996 of the Hallwood
Group, Inc. and ensuing merger of HEC into the  Hallwood  
Group, Inc. or who filed for appraisal) that, pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, dated
March 2, 1999, the Court has certified a class for purposes of a
proposed settlement of the above-captioned action.

Mr. Carriero further advised that a hearing will be held on April
30, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Walker D. Miller at
the United States Courthouse, District of Colorado, 1929 Stout
Street, Denver, Colorado 80294. The purpose of this hearing is to
determine whether the proposed settlement of the Consolidated
Class Action against defendants, Hallwood Energy Corporation,
the  Hallwood Group Incorporated, Anthony J. Gumbiner, William L.
Guzzetti, Brian .  Troup, Hans-Peter Holinger, Rex A. Sebastian
and Nathan C. Collins (collectively, the "Defendants"), should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate, whether
the application by counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Class Action for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement  
of expenses should be approved, and whether the Consolidated
Class Action should be dismissed with prejudice.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: More Austrian Firms Charged with Wrongdoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
>From Vienna, Austria, Reuters reports that U.S. Holocaust lawyer
Edward Fagan has listed three Austrian banks and one company he
planned to take to court for their alleged roles in World War
Two, citing Austrian news agency APA as its source.  APA
reportedly quoted Fagan as saying at the end of a visit to Vienna
that he would file unspecified class action suits against three
savings banks -- Erste Bank, Raiffeisen Zentralbank Oesterreich
and state-owned P.S.K. -- as soon as he returned to New York.

He would also take legal action against Lenzing on grounds the
viscose manufacturer allegedly profited from slave labour during
the war, when Austria was part of Nazi Germany.  APA quoted Fagan
as saying he wanted to hold settlement talks with the three
savings banks along the lines of the negotiations that have taken
place between Holocaust lawyers and Bank Austria, Austria's
largest bank.

"We want to bring in all these Austrian banks so that we can put
an end to this," Fagan was quoted as saying.


LASER TECHNOLOGY: Berman DeValerio File Complaint in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laser Technology Inc. (Amex: LSR) was charged with issuing false
and misleading financial statements in a shareholder class action
filed by Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on March 17, 1999.  
The case, which alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, was filed on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Laser
Technology from January 25, 1996 through and including December
23, 1998, and who suffered losses on their investments.

According to the complaint, on December 23, 1998, trading in
Laser Technology common stock was halted pending the release of
news by the company. On that day, Laser Technology issued a press
release announcing that the Company's independent auditors had
withdrawn its opinions on the Company's financial statements for
the fiscal years ended September 30, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and
1997 and resigned because: (1) the Company did not have internal
controls in place to ensure accurate financial reporting; and (2)
the auditors could not rely on management's representations.  The
Company's press release further indicated that the auditors'
resignation had taken place amid a previously undisclosed
investigation by the Board of Directors of Laser Technology into  
the Company's accounting systems and procedures.  Laser
Technology also indicated that an interim Chief Financial Officer
had been appointed pending the conclusion of the investigation
and further, that the three outside directors who were members of
the Company's Special Audit Committee had resigned from their
positions as a result of disagreements with management.  The
press release also stated that the reporting of Laser
Technology's year end results for fiscal year1998 would be
delayed.


LYCOS, INC.: Weinstein Kitchenoff Files Suit in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato & Goldman Ltd. announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of Lycos, Inc.
OPTIONS INVESTORS, between January 8, 1999, and February 9, 1999.

The lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  It charges Lycos and
its President and Chief Executive Officer, Robert J. Davis, with
violating the federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or
failing to disclose material information about the Company's
ongoing negotiations with USA Networks, Inc.  It alleges that at
the same time that Lycos was in negotiations with USA Networks to
be acquired, Mr. Davis repeatedly stated that Lycos intended to
remain an independent company.  When Lycos revealed that it would
be acquired by USA Networks, its stock price plunged 31% in
reaction to the acquisition, and investors who purchased call  
options, or who sold put options were damaged thereby.


LYCOS, INC.: Johnson Firm Files Complaint in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Dennis J. Johnson has filed a Class Action
Lawsuit in the United States District Court for Massachusetts on
behalf of all purchasers of Lycos, Inc. (Nasdaq: LCOS) securities
between January 8, 1999 and February 9, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Lycos and its chief executive officer with
violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges
that defendants issued a series false statements which
represented that Lycos was committed to a strategy of remaining
an independent entity when, in fact, Lycos was in advanced
discussions with USA Networks, Inc. ("USA") to merge with Lycos
which would result in shareholders of Lycos constituting no more
than 30 percent of the equity holders in the newly-formed entity.
When Lycos announced that it had agreed to a transaction with
USA, the price of Lycos dropped 25% on extremely heavy trading
volume.


MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Upgrade Patch & Cash Pool Settles Y2K Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of the Year 2000 class action lawsuit filed against
Medical Manager Corporation was formally approved by Magistrate
Judge Joel Rosen of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey at a settlement hearing held on March 15,
1999.  The Magistrate Judge also certified a Settlement Class,
which includes all persons or entities who purchased or obtained
Versions 7 and 8 of The Medical Manager software, or private
label versions of such software, and purchased an upgrade from
such software to Version 9 on or before December 16, 1998.
Plaintiffs are represented by the  firms of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP and Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose &
Podolsky.

Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company will provide
Version 8.l2, an upgraded version of its Version 8.11 software,
containing a "Y2K patch."  Medical Manager has represented, to
the best of its knowledge, that Version 8.12 will operate in the
same manner as Version 8.11, but will recognize and process dates
after December 31, 1999 and generate a four-digit year field for  
purposes of paper and electronic billing to Medicare and other
insurance carriers. Version 8.12 will be licensed, without a
license fee, to Version 7 and 8 users who participate in the
Settlement. In addition, the Settlement also provides that
participating users of Versions 7 or 8, who purchased a Version
9  upgrade on or before December 16, 1998, will have the option
to obtain one of four add-on modules from the Company -- worth at
least $1,000 each -- without a  license fee, or elect to share in
a cash settlement fund of approximately $600,000.

"This Settlement provides significant benefits to the members of
the Settlement Class," said Jeffrey A. Klafter, a partner with
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. "Every user of Version
7 or 8 can continue to use the software after the end of this
century without having to pay the substantial costs involved in
purchasing Version 9. Users who already upgraded to Version 9
will receive partial compensation from the Company. These
benefits are estimated to exceed $46 million."

"We are delighted with this Settlement," said Harris Pogust, a
partner at Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose & Podolsky.
"Physicians can now concentrate on providing the highest quality
health care to their patients instead of fighting off companies
which are attempting to profit from the imminent coming of the  
Year 2000."

The Medical Manager is an integrated physicians' practice
management system encompassing patient care, clinical, financial
and management applications.  The software is used by solo
practitioners, management service organizations, physicians'
practice management organizations, managed care organizations and  
other providers of health care services. The complaint alleged
that Medical Manager violated various state consumer protection
or unfair trade practice laws and breached implied and express
warranties by marketing non-Year 2000 compliant versions of The
Medical Manager and by failing to remedy this alleged defect
without charge.


METAL RECOVERY: Signs Settlement Agreement in Malvy Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Recovery Technologies Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: MRTI) has
signed a settlement agreement of the Class Action Lawsuit
relating to its discontinued Malvy operations, the main terms and
conditions of which are in accordance with those previously
reported in the Company's September 1998 Form 10Q.  The Company
will provide details of the settlement agreement under Form 8-K
shortly.

Court approval of the settlement is expected to be granted in
July 1999.  Chairman Michael Lucas stated, "I am pleased that
this matter is now, subject only to court approval, behind us.  
It has been expensive and time consuming and has constantly had a
negative impact on our share price.  With the uncertainty removed
and the expected start of production in May in East Chicago for
the MITL joint venture I am optimistic for the future."  


MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED: Pursues Claims Against Furnace Suppliers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In July 1998, the Wayne County Michigan Circuit Court approved a
settlement of two class action lawsuits in relation to a
discontinued energy conservation program.  There were 46,000
class members.  The notice of settlement was sent in June 1998 to
the class members.  Terms of the settlement included capped
co-payments for the repair of chimney damages or the installation
of a chimney liner and a reduced price for a carbon monoxide
detector purchased from MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS CO.  The
request for reimbursement period ended on October 9, 1998, at
which time only 30 class members participated in the settlement.
Claims totaling $3,105 were paid out in November 1998.  MichCon
is continuing its lawsuit against certain of the manufacturers,
contractors and installers of the plaintiffs' furnaces.


MONY GROUP: Prevails in Life Insurance Sales Practices Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The MONY Group Inc. (NYSE: MNY) announced that its principal
subsidiary, MONY Life Insurance Company, won the New York State
Supreme Court appeal of a class-action sales-practices lawsuit.

On March 18, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the
State of New York unanimously affirmed the 1997 Supreme Court
dismissal of Goshen vs. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New
York (now named MONY Life Insurance Company).  The case involved
the "vanishing premium" concept in the sale of life insurance
policies in the 1980s and early 1990s.

"This lawsuit truly had no merit, because strong ethical
practices are embedded in the culture of this organization. The
appeals court has confirmed the judge's decision that MONY did
not act fraudulently nor engage in deceptive sales practices,"
said Michael I. Roth, chairman and CEO of The MONY Group Inc.  
"The appeals court upheld a decision in our favor that recognized
the significant training of agents and employees to act ethically
in the sale of life insurance policies."

The MONY Group Inc. (NYSE: MNY) is the holding company for the
member companies of The MONY Group, which provide financial
protection and asset accumulation products and services. Its
principal subsidiary, MONY Life Insurance Company, founded in
1842 as The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, issued the
first mutual life insurance policy in the United States in  
1843.


OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Discloses Suit by MidCon ESOP Beneficiaries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest annual report filed with the Securities & Exchange
Commission, OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP. discloses without further
detail that, in December 1998, David Croucher and others filed a
purported class action suit in the Federal District Court in
Houston, Texas on behalf of persons claiming to have been
beneficiaries of the MidCon Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).  
The plaintiffs allege that each of the U.S. Trust Company of
California (the ESOP Trustee) and the MidCon ESOP Administrative
Committee breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs by
failing to properly value the securities held by the ESOP, and
allege that Occidental actively participated in such conduct.  
The plaintiffs claim that, as a result of this alleged breach,
the ESOP participants are entitled to an additional aggregate
distribution of at least $200 million and that Occidental has
been unjustly enriched and is liable for failing to make that
distribution.


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Lowey Dannenberg Files Complaint in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C., has filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, on behalf of a class of purchasers of
Orbital Sciences Corporation common stock (NYSE: ORB) during the  
period April 21, 1998 through February 16, 1999, inclusive.  The
suit charges defendants Orbital Sciences Corporation, its
Chairman and CEO David W. Thompson and CFO Jeffrey V. Pirone,
with issuing false and misleading financial statements in
violation of the federal securities laws, which inflated the
market price of Orbital shares during the Class Period.

On February 16, 1999, after the close of trading, Orbital
announced that it was restating the first three fiscal quarters
of 1998, and that earnings had decreased during the first three
quarters, instead of increasing as previously reported. The
restatement reduces previously reported net income by
approximately $1,774,000 in the first quarter of 1998, by
approximately $1,421,000 in the second quarter of 1998, and by
approximately $6,175,000 in the third quarter of 1998. Total
diluted earnings per share for the nine months ended September
30, 1998 were reduced by more than 40% from $0.62 to $0.37 per
share. Meanwhile, insiders reaped more than $3 million in trading
proceeds during the period being restated downward.


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Miller Faucher Files Complaint in Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Faucher Cafferty and Wexler LLP, pursuant to Section
21(D)(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, hereby
gives notice that it today filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Orbital Sciences
Corporation's common stock during the period of April 21, 1998
through February 16, 1999, to recover damages caused by
defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The suit
names as defendants Orbital Sciences Corporation, its Chairman
and CEO David W. Thompson and CFO Jeffrey V. Pirone.

The complaint alleges that on Tuesday, February 16, 1999, after
the close of trading, Orbital Sciences Corporation announced that
it was restating the first three fiscal quarters of 1998, and
that earnings had decreased during the first three quarters of
its fiscal year, instead of increasing as it had previously  
reported. Orbital's restatement reduced previously reported net
income by  approximately $1,774,000 (or approximately $0.07 per
diluted share) in the first quarter of 1998, by approximately
$1,421,000 (or approximately $0.04 per diluted share) in the
second quarter of 1998, and by approximately $6,175,000 (or
approximately $0.15 per diluted share) in the third quarter of
1998. Total  diluted earnings per share for the nine months ended
September 30, 1998 were  reduced from $0.62 to $0.37 per share.
Insiders reaped more than $3 million in  insider trading proceeds
during the period now being restated.

On the news of its restatement, Orbital shares fell $2.25 to
close at $27.375 on February 17, 1999, losing 7.5% of their value
in a single day's trading -- off 44% from their class period high
of $49.125. On March 5, 1999, Orbital stock closed at $25.50.


PEDIATRIC SERVICES: Responds to Shareholder Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pediatric Services of America, Inc. (NASDAQ:PSAI) acknowledged
that it has recently learned that on March 11, 1999, a purported
shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint alleges that PSAI violated the federal securities
laws by, among other things, misrepresenting and/or omitting
material information concerning PSAI's accounts receivable in its
reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission during
the period from the quarter ended September 30, 1997 through the
quarter ended September 30, 1998.  The complaint was filed by a  
single shareholder, the Arnold Nelson Mahler and Roberta Jo
Mahler Family Trust, purportedly on behalf of all shareholders
who purchased shares of PSAI stock during the period from
December 23, 1997 through July 29, 1998.

Joseph D. Sansone, Chairman, President and CEO of PSAI, stated
that "we have reviewed the complaint and believe the claims are
unfounded and the lawsuit is without merit.  This lawsuit
represents the very type of shareholder strike suits, instigated
by class action plaintiff's lawyers, that Congress has recognized
as abusive. PSAI will vigorously defend itself against this
litigation."


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Bernstein Litowitz Files Complaint in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jacksonville Police And Fire Pension Fund filed a class
action lawsuit on Wednesday,  March 17, 1999, against Pediatrix
Medical Group, Inc. (NYSE: PDX), and certain  of its officers and
directors, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, according to plaintiff's attorney Bernstein  
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

The Fund expects to seek a lead plaintiff role in the class
action, which it filed on behalf of itself and all persons who
purchased Pediatrix common stock between April 28, 1998 and
February 12, 1999 inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material
misrepresentations concerning the reported financial results of
Pediatrix. Among other things, the complaint alleges that
Pediatrix overstated its reported revenues and earnings
throughout the Class Period, in violation of generally accepted
accounting principles, by recognizing revenue from accounts
receivable that were not collectible. On February 12, 1999, the
Company announced for the first time that the release of its 1998
financial results would be delayed due to issues detected by its
outside auditors relating to the Company's accounts receivable.
Pediatrix also revealed that it would be likely to restate its
previously reported results, due to its improper capitalization
of certain costs that should have been expensed during the Class
Period. On the date of this announcement, Pediatrix common stock
lost nearly 50% of its value, falling from $53.625 to $28 per
share.


RITE-AID CORP.: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Class Action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all  purchasers of Rite Aid Corp. (NYSE: RAD) common
stock between December 14, 1998 and March 11, 1999, inclusive, by
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP.

The Complaint charges RAD and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of federal securities laws.  Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding RAD's
financial condition and results of operations by concealing  
expenses related to its store expansion program and the
institution of its new distribution facility.


RITE-AID CORP.: Gross Firm Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. announced that, on March
19, 1999, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Rite Aid Corp. ("RAD") from  December 14, 1998 through
and including March 12, 1999.

The Complaint charges RAD (NYSE:RAD) and certain of its officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that defendants RAD
and Martin Grass issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
throughout the Class Period in the Company's public filing and
public statements.


SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Spector & Roseman File Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spector & Roseman P.C. announced that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Safeskin Corp.
(Nasdaq:SFSK) between Feb. 18, 1998 through March 11, 1999.

The complaint alleges that Safeskin, which manufactures and
distributes disposable latex and synthetic medical examination
gloves and disposable powder-free examination gloves, and certain
of its officers and directors, violated provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint charges that  
during the Class Period, in an effort to increase the price of
Safeskin's stock, defendants issued a series of materially false
and misleading public statements about Safeskin's ability to show
topline growth due to the strength of its product and its
competitive advantages once its supply constraints were
rectified.  Moreover, defendants represented that the Company was
well positioned to benefit from an increase in the examination
glove market due to its strong efficiencies and favorable
reputation among users of its product.  When concerns arose about
possible overcapacity and Safeskin's possible over shipping of
products to distributers, defendants denied the existence of any
of these problems and stated that sales were strong. As a result
of the issuance of these false and misleading statements, the
price of common stock was artificially inflated during the class
period.

Ultimately, Safeskin shocked the market by announcing that its
first quarter 1999 earnings would be well below previous
forecasts of $.27 per share, with earnings of only $.01 per
share. This revelation caused the price of Safeskin shares to
collapse from a Class Period high of $46-3/16 to as low as $8 per  
share.


SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Files Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California against the Safeskin Corporation
(Nasdaq: SFSK) for the period of October 28, 1998 through March
11, 1999, on behalf of purchasers and sellers of options on the
common stock of Safeskin and on behalf of purchasers of Safeskin
common stock.

The Complaint charges that Safeskin and certain of its officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, inter alia, materially misleading
investors by disseminating materially false and misleading
information to the investing public which materially
misrepresented Safeskin's revenues and profits and the Company's
operations.

Specifically the Complaint alleges that shortly after the market
had closed on March 11, 1999, the Company formally announced that
it would report "lower than expected sales and earnings for the
first quarter and full year 1999" because the Company was
"delivering product into our distribution channels" which
resulted in "more inventory in the system" than the distributors
could sell.  In sum, Safeskin had been "stuffing" its
distribution channels with product during the third and fourth
quarters of fiscal 1998, which inflated the Company's revenues
and misrepresented the robustness of its operations.

The market reaction to the news was disastrous.  During the Class
Period, the price of Safeskin common stock traded as high as
$34.41 per share. Safeskin common stock closed at $15.25 on March
11, 1999, before the Company announced that it had been channel
stuffing.  The next day, Safeskin common stock plummeted $6.28
per share to close at $8.97 per share -- a loss of approximately
41%, on a volume in excess of 24.7 million shares traded -- 22  
times the three-month daily average.


SAFESKIN CORPROATION: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Class Action has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of Safeskin Corporation (Nasdaq: SFSK) securities during the
period October 28, 1998 through March 11, 1999, by Abbey, Gardy &
Squitieri, LLP.

The Complaint charges Safeskin and certain of its officers and
directors with violating the federal securities laws.  The
plaintiff claims that defendants misrepresented and concealed
material facts concerning the Company's business and its
financial results and that certain officers sold Safeskin common
stock while failing to disclose material adverse information
about the Company and its financial results.


SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Stull Stull Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody has filed a class action lawsuit in the
Southern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of
Safeskin Corp. (NASDAQ:SFSK)  securities 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: Lowey Dannenberg Files Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C., announced that it
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of Safeskin Corporation (NASDAQ:SFSK) common stock from October
29, 1998 through March 11, 1999.

The complaint charges Safeskin and certain of its officers with
violations of the federal securities laws which inflated the
market price of Safeskin stock.  The complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants issued a series of false and
misleading statements that overstated Safeskin's income, gross  
margins and future prospects. Defendants further represented that
the Company's growth was due to Safeskin's increased production
after having solved its manufacturing problems and that this
increased production was needed to meet increasing customer
demands. 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.


SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Responds to Shareholders' Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------
Safeskin Corporation (Nasdaq: SFSK), said that several lawsuits
have been filed against the Company and certain of its directors
and officers since the Company's announcement last week that  
sales and earnings would be below analysts' expectations for the
first quarter and full year 1999.  The lawsuits seek to be
certified by the court as class actions and purport to cover
different periods of time.  The Company believes that the
allegations in the complaints it has received are without merit
and  stated that it would defend these lawsuits vigorously.

Safeskin Corporation is a leading manufacturer of high quality
disposable latex and synthetic medical examination gloves for the
United States market and believes that it is the world's leading
manufacturer of high quality disposable powder-free examination
gloves. The Company produces gloves at its manufacturing
facilities in Southeast Asia using proprietary formulations and  
processes.


SBC COMMUNICATIONS: Inside Telephone Wiring Cases Settled
---------------------------------------------------------
Six putative class actions in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and
Kansas that involved the provision by SWBell of maintenance and
trouble diagnosis services relating to telephone inside wire
located on customer premises were settled during 1998.  These
actions alleged that SWBell's sales practices in connection with
these services violated antitrust, fraud and/or deceptive trade
practices statutes.  The trial court has approved the settlement,
and SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., indicates in its latest annual
report that this settlement is not expected to materially affect
its financial results.


SHELL OIL: Still Fighting with Polybutylene Co-Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------
Since 1984, Shell Oil Co. has been named as a defendant in
numerous product liability cases, including class actions,
involving the failure of residential plumbing systems constructed
with polybutylene plastic pipe.  The Company has also been sued
regarding failures in polybutylene pipe connecting users with
utility water lines and polybutylene pipe used in municipal water
distribution systems.  The polybutylene pipe was manufactured
primarily by United States Brass Corporation and Vanguard
Plastics, Inc. using polybutylene resin supplied by the
Company to fabricate the pipe and initially, in the case of
residential plumbing systems, polyacetal resin supplied by E.I.
DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) and Hoechst Celanese
Corporation (Hoechst Celanese) to fabricate the pipe fittings.
The plaintiffs in the litigation claim property damages and, in
some cases, fraud and intentional misrepresentation seeking
punitive damages.  The Company's position is, and most of the
judgments to date have confirmed that, most of the leaks in
residential plumbing systems have occurred due to the failure of
the polyacetal insert fittings.  Polyacetal is no longer used to
manufacture insert fittings for these systems and during 1996,
the Company announced it would no longer sell polybutylene resin
for use in the domestic pipe market.  

Shell reminds investors in its latest annual report that it,
DuPont & Hoechst Celanese have agreed on a mechanism to fund the
payment of most of the residential plumbing claims in the United
States as the result of two class action settlements.  The class
action settlement provides for the creation of an entity to
receive and handle claims and for a $950 million fund to pay such
claims, which claims may be filed until 2009, depending on
various factors.  

If the settlement funds are exhausted, Shell notes, additional
funds may be provided by the defendants or claimants who have not
received their full benefits under the class action settlement
may seek their remedy in a new court proceeding at that time.
Additionally, a small percentage of defendants have opted out of
the class action settlement and some have asserted their claims
outside such settlement.  Significant issues remain to be
resolved as to how costs will be shared among the defendants. One
fittings co-defendant has agreed to fund 10% of all acetal
fitting costs related to the class action settlement; the Company
and the other fittings co-defendant have agreed to arbitrate to
determine how the remaining acetal fittings portion of the cost
of the class action settlement will be shared between them.
Additionally, in matters outside the residential plumbing
claims and the class action settlement, claims continue to be
filed involving alleged problems with polybutylene pipe used in
municipal water distribution systems.  The Company will continue
to defend these matters vigorously but it cannot currently
predict when or how polybutylene related matters will finally
be resolved.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Jury Rejects Ohio Unions' Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey T. Ottenbacher, providing gavel-to-gavel coverage from
U.S. District Court in Akron, Ohio, for United Press
International, reports that a federal jury has found the nation's
tobacco companies innocent in a $2 billion, class-action lawsuit
filed by more than 100 Ohio union health and benefit funds -- the
first case of its kind in the nation.

The unions -- seeking to recover the costs of treating smoking-
related illnesses -- had accused the companies of concealing
evidence, suppressing development of safer cigarettes and
obstructing justice.

The Akron U.S. District Court jury returned its verdict after
deliberating about 15 hours following a two-week trial.  ourt
officials initially predicted the entire trial would take up to
three months, including two penalty phases, had the jury found
any of the companies guilty.  

The lead lawyer for the six tobacco companies, Robert Weber,
said: "I'm gratified to see Ohioans use common sense and reject
the madness going in the legal system. It's time to stop whipping
the tobacco companies.  One way to dissuade such cases is to win
and we just scored a 10-strike."  Weber congratulated the jurors
for not being swayed by emotionalism.  "The tobacco companies
have a good story to tell and a legal product for generations and
generations, for people to choose to use or not use."  
Continuing, "This jury's verdict -- along with the 10 cases that
were previously dismissed -- should send a strong and unambiguous
signal to these and other plaintiffs' lawyers.  This one-two
knockout punch should put an end, once and for all, to these
types of contrived lawsuits which only serve to waste the court's
time and the taxpayers' money," Weber added.

Union attorney Patrick Coughlin said: "I think what troubled (the
jurors) the most was that people have known for a long time that
cigarettes are bad for you."  Coughlin said he also believed the
jury rejected the idea that the health care funds relied on
information from the tobacco companies to make their health  
care decisions.

"We are delighted with the court's ruling," Gregory Little, a
lawyer for Philip Morris, told the Associated Press.  "This jury
sent a clear message reaffirming the health risks of smoking have
been well-known for decades, and that cigarette companies have
not withheld material information regarding health effects from
the public."

"We have maintained all along that these cases, many brought by
the same plaintiffs' lawyers, are based on tortured legal
theories and built on a selective and contorted view of the
facts.  They are contrived to enrich the plaintiffs' lawyers --
the union workers themselves would have received no money," Weber
said.  "For the plaintiffs' lawyers to claim that Ohio's working
men and women were unable to make personal and informed choices
about smoking because of tobacco advertising, or to understand
the well-known health risks of smoking, is both patronizing and
insulting.  It's preposterous to think that those who manage
union health care funds were somehow insulated from all the
scientific, public and common knowledge of the health risks of
smoking.  In fact, for more than three decades every pack of
cigarettes sold in the United States has carried health warning
mandated by Congress," Weber continued.

The defendants were Philip Morris Inc.; the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co. , the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., the British American
Tobacco Co. Ltd., the Lorillard Tobacco Co., and the American
Tobacco Co.  The named plaintiffs in the case were Iron Workers
Local Union No. 17 Insurance Fund, IBEW Local No. 38 Health and
Welfare Fund; Ohio Laborers District Council - Ohio Contractors'
Association Insurance Fund, Dealers-Unions Insurance Fund,  Local
47 Welfare Fund No. 1, and the Toledo Electrical Welfare Fund.
The union fund claims, seeking $670 million in compensatory
damages, were brought under federal and state RICO laws and civil
conspiracy statutes.  At the conclusion of the plaintiffs'
evidence, U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin dismissed the federal
RICO claim, leaving only two of the complaint's original 18
claims.  The jury had to determine for each company whether it
had committed mail or wire fraud, tampered with evidence or
obstructed justice.  The jurors also had to determine for each of
the plaintiffs whether each company had violated the Ohio Corrupt
Activities Act, had committed a civil conspiracy or conspired to  
violate the Ohio Corrupt Activities Act.

Around the country, several similar cases have been thrown out
before reaching trial, with judges saying the unions have no
legal standing unless they file separate lawsuits on behalf of
every smoker.  This was the first case of its kind to go to
trial.  A streaming video by the Tobacco Companies discussing the
case is available at http://www.newstream.com/99-109.shtmlvia  
the Internet.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Washington Union Trial Presses Forward
----------------------------------------------------------
Late Thursday afternoon, Federal Judge William L. Dwyer of the
Western District of Washington denied the tobacco industry's
motion to stay the proceedings in a class action lawsuit brought
on behalf of health and welfare trust funds.  His decision came
in the  wake of a defense verdict in a similar case in Akron,
Ohio.  The lawsuit is set to begin trial on September 7, 1999.

"Despite yesterday's Ohio jury verdict, we are not deterred.  
Health and welfare trust fund cases continue to move forward.  
The overwhelming evidence of corrupt activity by the tobacco
industry will not go away; these cases will not go away.

"We plan to vigorously pursue claims on behalf of the other
health funds, both in this case and across the country.  We feel
confident that other juries will properly hold the tobacco
industry accountable for its actions," stated Michael E. Withey
of Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Withey, counsel for the Plaintiffs.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Louisiana AG Dismisses Claims Against Fleming
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In August 1996, Richard E. Ieyoub, Attorney General of the State
of Louisiana, brought an action in the 14th Judicial District
Court of Louisiana against The American Tobacco Company and
numerous defendants including Fleming Companies, Inc. The suit
sought recovery of state health-care and related expenditures
allegedly caused by tobacco products.  Pending final court
approval, the the case was settled (without liability to Fleming)
and releases delivered.

Separately, notices of suit or intention to sue have been filed
by 27 individuals in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, and by 3 individuals in the Court of Common Pleas of
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania; one individual brought suit in the
Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee; one individual brought
suit in the Tenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Natchitoches, Louisiana; and one individual brought suit in the
38th Judicial District Court, Cameron Parish, Louisiana.  Each
case named as co-defendants at least one major manufacturer of
tobacco products and Fleming Companies, Inc., or a current or
former company subsidiary, among others.  With respect to each
case, the company is being indemnified and defended by a
substantial third-party co-defendant.  Pursuant to a tolling
agreement among the parties, all of the cases which were already
pending in Pennsylvania (save two) were dismissed in 1998 without
prejudice and may be refiled at a later date.


TORCHMARK CORP.: Status Report Concerning Policyholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest annual report, TORCHMARK CORP. advises investors
about the status of lawsuits brought by disgruntled
policyholders:

     (A) Liberty has been subject to 76 individual cancer
policy lawsuits pending in Alabama and Mississippi, which were
stayed or otherwise held in abeyance pending final resolution of
Robertson v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company (Case No.
CV-92-021). Liberty filed motions to dismiss these lawsuits based
upon the U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued in Robertson in March
1997. Only two of these individual cancer policy lawsuits remain,
the other such suits having been dismissed.

     (B) Torchmark, its insurance subsidiaries Globe and
United American, and certain Torchmark officers were named as
defendants in purported class action litigation filed in the
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (Moore v. Torchmark
Corporation, Case No. CJ-94-2784-65, subsequently amended and
restyled Tabor v. Torchmark Corporation). This suit claims
damages on behalf of individual health policyholders who are
alleged to have been induced to terminate such policies and to
purchase Medicare Supplement and/or other insurance coverages. On
February 6, 1998, the defendants renewed their motion to dismiss
the class claims for failure to prosecute. The District Court, in
an order dated April 2, 1998, allowed bifurcation of Tabor into
Medicare Supplement policy claims and non-Medicare Supplement
policy claims. The non-Medicare Supplement claims were stayed
pending disposition of a related case involving the same
plaintiffs filed in Mississippi while discovery was allowed to
proceed on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of Medicare
Supplement policyholders' claims.

     (C) On August 25, 1995, a purported class action was filed
against Torchmark, Globe, United American and certain officers of
these companies in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on behalf of all former agents of
Globe (Smith v. Torchmark Corporation, Case No. :95-3304-CV-
S-4). This action alleges that the defendants breached
independent agent contracts with the plaintiffs by treating them
as captive agents and engaged in a pattern of racketeering
activity wrongfully denying income and renewal commissions to the
agents, restricting insurance sales, mandating the purchase of
worthless leads, terminating agents without cause and inducing
the execution of independent agent contracts based on
misrepresentations of fact. Monetary damages in an unspecified
amount are sought. A plaintiff class was certified by the
District Court on February 26, 1996, although the certification
does not go to the merit of the allegations in the complaint. On
December 31, 1996, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
Smith to allege violations of various provisions of the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Extensive
discovery was then conducted. In October 1998, defendants filed a
motion to decertify the presently defined class in Smith.

     (D) Torchmark, its subsidiaries United American and Globe
and certain individual corporate officers are parties to
purported class action litigation filed in April, 1996 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Crichlow v. Torchmark Corporation, Case No. 4:96-CV-0086-HLM)
involving certain hospital and surgical insurance policies issued
by Globe and United American. In September 1997, the U.S.
District Court entered an order granting summary judgment against
the plaintiffs on certain issues and denying national class
certification, although indicating that plaintiffs could move for
the certification of a state class of Georgia policyholders.
Discovery then proceeded on the remaining claims for breach of
contract and the duty of good faith arising from closure of the
block of business and certain post-claim matters as well as fraud
and conspiracy relating to pricing and delay in implementing rate
increases. On June 17, 1998, the U.S. District Court entered an
order which denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a Georgia
policyholders class, denied reconsideration of the previously
entered motion for summary judgment on certain issues, denied
reconsideration of the denial of national certification of a
class of policyholders and severed and transferred claims of  
Mississippi policyholders to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi (Greco v. Torchmark Corporation,
Case No. 1:98CV196-D-D). The U.S. District Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment on all remaining issues
in Crichlow on February 4, 1999. Plaintiffs in Greco have moved
to certify a class of persons purchasing Globe hospital and  
surgical insurance policies in Mississippi. On February 1, 1999,
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in Greco.

     (E) Liberty was a party to 53 individual cases filed in
Chambers County, Alabama involving allegations that an interest-
sensitive life insurance policy would become paid-up or self-
sustaining after a specified number of years. Only one of these
cases remains pending with all others having been settled and
dismissed by the Chambers County Circuit Court.

     (F) Lawson v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company (Case
No. CV-96-01119), is a case filed in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, where the plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of interest-sensitive life insurance
policyholders, including those allegedly induced to exchange life
insurance policies or where the existing policy's cash value was
allegedly depleted, in litigation alleging fraud, negligence
and breach of contract in the sale or exchange of interest-
sensitive policies by Liberty. Torchmark was subsequently added
as a defendant. In May 1996, the Circuit Court entered an order
conditionally certifying a plaintiffs class, which was
subsequently redefined in March 1997.  The Circuit Court's order
allowed the parties to challenge the conditional certification
based upon subsequent discovery in the case. In March 1998, the
defendants challenged the conditional certification and a hearing
on final certification was held in October 1998. On February 9,
1999, the Circuit Court entered an order decertifying the
conditional class and denying all petitions to certify a class in
Lawson.

     (G) In 1978, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama entered a final judgment in Battle
v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, et al (Case No. CV-
70-H-752-S), class action litigation involving Liberty, a class
composed of all owners of funeral homes in Alabama and a class
composed of all insureds (Alabama residents only) under burial or
vault policies issued, assumed or reinsured by Liberty. The final
judgment fixed the rights and obligations of Liberty and the
funeral directors authorized to handle Liberty burial and vault
policies as well as reforming the benefits available to the
policyholders under the policies. Although class actions are
inherently subject to subsequent collateral attack by absent
class members, the Battle decree remains in effect to date. A
motion filed in February 1990 to challenge the final judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) was rejected by both
the District Court in 1991 and the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals in 1992 and a Writ of Certiorari was denied by the
U.S. Supreme Court in 1993.

     (H) In November 1993, an attorney (purporting to represent
the funeral director class) filed a petition in the District
Court seeking "alternative relief" under the final judgment. This
petition was voluntarily withdrawn on November 8, 1995 by
petitioners. On February 23, 1996, Liberty filed a petition with
the District Court requesting that it order certain contract
funeral directors to comply with their obligations under the
Final Judgment in Battle and their funeral service contracts. A
petition was filed on April 8, 1996 on behalf of a group of
funeral directors seeking to modify the 1978 decree in Battle in
light of changed economic circumstances. All parties made
extensive submissions to the District Court and a hearing on the
opposing petitions was held by the District Court on February 9,
1999.


TORCHMARK CORP.: Trial Date Requested in Royalty Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Purported class action litigation was filed on January 2, 1996
against Torchmark, Torch Energy Advisors Incorporated, and
certain Torch Energy subsidiaries and affiliated limited
partnerships in the Circuit Court of Pickens County, Alabama
(Pearson v. Torchmark Corporation, Case No. CV-95-140). Plaintiff
alleges improper payment of royalties and overriding royalties
on coalbed methane gas produced and sold from wells in Robinson's
Bend Coal Degasification Field, seeks certification of a class
and claims unspecified compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of such class. On April 11, 1996, Torchmark's motion to
change venue was granted and the case has been transferred to the
Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. Torchmark's
motion to dismiss remains pending while discovery is proceeding.
On February 10, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a request for a class
certification hearing and to set a trial date for the Pearson
case.


TORCHMARK CORP.: Ready to Begin Appeal of Discrimination Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
In July 1998, a jury in U.S. District Court in the Middle
District of Florida recommended an aggregate total verdict
amounting to $21.6 million against Liberty in Hipp v. Liberty
National Life Insurance Company (Case No. 95-1332-CIV-T-17A).
This case, originally filed in 1995 in the Florida state court
system, is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, alleging age discrimination by Liberty in violation of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Florida Civil
Rights Act. The plaintiffs, ten present or former Liberty
district managers, sought damages for lost wages, loss of future
earnings, lost health and retirement benefits and lost raises and
expenses. Three of these plaintiffs, Florida residents,
also sought compensatory and punitive damages allowable under
Florida law. On November 20, 1998, the District Court remitted
the $10 million punitive damage portion of the jury verdict to
$0, thus reducing the total verdict to $11 million (including an
advisory verdict of $3.2 million in front pay awards). Additional
revised front pay submissions were made by the plaintiffs to the
District Court in December 1998 and Liberty responded thereto in
January 1999.  Liberty is awaiting the entry of a final judgment
in the Hipp case and thereafter will pursue all available post
trial and appellate relief.


TWINLAB CORP.: Stull Stull Files Complaint in New York
------------------------------------------------------
On March 17, 1999, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District  
of New York against Twinlab Corp. (NASDAQ:TWLB) and certain of
its officers and directors by Stull, Stull & Brody on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Twinlab at artificially inflated prices between April 28,
1998, and February 24, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws through a series of false and misleading
statments. As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, prices of Twinlab's common stock were artificially
inflated during the Class Period, such that persons who purchased  
or otherwise acquired Twinlab's common stock during the Class
Period were damaged by overpaying for their common stock.


UNITED FOODS: Shareholder Complaint Filed to Halt Tender Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Foods, Inc. (AMEX:UFDA)(AMEX:UFDB) today announced that a
complaint was filed against the Company and its directors by a
stockholder of the Company in a Delaware Chancery Court.  The
complaint seeks class action status and requests injunctive  and
other relief with respect to a pending proposal by the Company's
Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer, James I. Tankersley, his
wife and their children to acquire the remaining shares of the
Company's common stock that are not owned by them for $3.00 per
share in cash.  

The Company and the other defendants assert their belief that the
complaint is without merit.


USA TALKS.COM: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit on March 18, 1999, in the United States District Court
for the Southern of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock issued by USA Talks.com, Inc.
(OTCBB:USAT), during the period Nov. 24, 1998 through Jan. 29,
1999.

The complaint charges USAT and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint alleges that Defendants caused the Company's stock
price to rise from approximately $5.75 per share to a Class
Period high of approximately $53.25 per share by misrepresenting
USA Talks' publicly reported network installation and technology.
On Jan. 29, 1999, the SEC halted trading in the Company's common
stock "citing questions about the accuracy of information
released to the public by the Company."  Ten days later, trading
in USAT stock resumed, with the price of the stock falling  
dramatically.


                           *********

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  * * *