CAR_Public/990325.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 25, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 35

                           Headlines

BESICORP GROUP: Trinko Firm Charges Proxy Statement is Misleading
CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Massachusetts Suit
CENDANT CORP.: CEO's Bonus Cut Nearly in Half Last Year
CHS ELECTRONICS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Complaint in Florida
CHS ELECTRONICS: Lowey Dannenberg Files Complaint in Florida

CHS ELECTRONICS: Burt & Pucillo Files Complaint in Florida
CHS ELECTRONICS: Shepherd & Geller File Complaint in Florida
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Bernstein Liebhard Files Complain in Texas
EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS: Resolves Stock Warrant Class Action Suits
GENCOR INDUSTRIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Florida

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: French Banks To Return WWII Assets
MOTOROLA, INC.: High Court Declines Cell Phone Radiation Appeal
MUTUAL LIFE: MONY Group Unit Targeted in SEC Probe
NORTH FACE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in Colorado
PARTY CITY: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in New Jersey

PARTY CITY: Stull Stull Files Complaint in [New Jersey]
PARTY CITY: Berman DeValerio Files Complaint in New Jersey
PARTY CITY: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in New Jersey
PAYDAY LOANS: Edelman & Combs Sues 17 High-Interest Lenders
PSS WORLD: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in Florida

PSS WORLD: Burt & Pucillo File Complaint in Florida
SAFESKIN CORP.: Berman DeValerio File Complaint in California
SAFESKIN CORP.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Complaint in California
SUBARU: Dealers Levy Racketeering & Extortion Charges
TRIARC COMPANIES: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in New York

                           *********

BESICORP GROUP: Trinko Firm Charges Proxy Statement is Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP announced that it filed
Civil Action No. 99-1638, captioned James Lichtenberg and John
Bansbach, on behalf of himself and all others  similarly
situated, Plaintiffs --against-- Besicorp Group Inc., BGI
Acquisition LLC, BGI Acquisition  Corp., Michael F. Zinn, Melanie
Norden, Michael J. Daley, Gerald A. Habib, Richard E. Rosen,
Steven I. Eisenberg, and Martin E. Enowitz, Defendants Within the
past 20 days, a putative class action was filed asserting:

(1) claims  under the federal securities laws, Sections 14(a)
     and 20(a) of the Securities  and Exchange Act of 1934, 15
     U.S.C. Sections 78n(a), 78(t), and Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R.
     Section 240.14a-9) in connection with the issuance of a
     materially misleading proxy statement in connection with the
     solicitation of the  shareholders of Besicorp Group Inc.
     ("Besicorp") to vote to approve the Plan of  Merger ("Merger
     Plan") by and among Besicorp, BGI Acquisition Corp., and BGI  
     Acquisition LLC, dated March 2, 1999; as well as

(2) common law violations  arising from certain defendants'
     breach of fiduciary duties, and the aiding and  abetting of
     such breach of fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Proxy disseminated by Besicorp and
the Director  Defendants is false and materially misleading
because it fails to adequately  disclose all available material
information regarding the effect of the Merger  Plan upon two
pending derivative actions against defendants Zinn, Habib, Rosen  
and Daley, as well as against three former directors of the
company, Harold  Harris and defendants Steven Eisenberg and
Martin Enowitz.

While the Proxy  disclosed that consummation of the Plan of
Merger may result in the termination  of the derivative actions,
the Proxy fails to disclose, inter alia, that the  transaction
was intentionally structured to accomplish the improper and  
premature termination of these suits by depriving the derivative
plaintiffs of  standing to continue those actions. Further, the
Proxy fails to disclose that successful resolution of these  
actions could result in the cancellation of 1.2 million shares of
Besicorp  common stock which certain defendants improperly issued
to themselves and are  the subject of one of the derivative
suits. Thus, more than $44.5 million of the merger consideration,
which would otherwise have been improperly paid to  certain
defendants in the derivative actions, would be available to be
paid,  instead, to the public shareholders (who hold 44 percent
of the company's  outstanding stock) if that action is
successfully adjudicated.

In addition,  more than $1 million in legal fees and expenses are
at issue in the other suit,  which would be paid to a spin-off
company, Besicorp Ltd., upon a successful  adjudication. On March
18, 1999, United States District Judge William C. Conner issued a  
preliminary injunction directing that the company's interests in
the derivative  actions be assigned to Besicorp, Ltd., prior to
the consummation of the Merger  in order to maintain the status
quo. In addition, the Court directed that the  merger
consideration to be received for the common stock at issue in the  
derivative action be maintained within the reach of the U.S.
Courts so such  proceeds would be available to satisfy any
judgement which might be rendered in  the derivative suit.


CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Massachusetts Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler  Freeman & Herz LLP announced that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the  United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all  persons who
purchased common stock issued by Cambridge Technology Partners,  
Inc. (NASDAQ: CATP) at artificially inflated  prices during the
period November 25, 1998 through March 18, 1999.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws  (Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934) by  misrepresenting or failing to disclose
material information about Cambridge's  results of operations,
financial condition and the failure of its  reorganization plan
which resulted in continued slow sales in its first fiscal  
quarter.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and
omissions, the  price of Cambridge's stock was artificially
inflated during the Class Period.  At the end of the Class
Period, the Company announced that its reorganization  plan was
not having the impact on the Company's problems in its 1998 First  
Quarter that defendants had led the market to believe and that as
a result its  sales were still well down. Meanwhile defendants
took advantage of the stock's  artificially inflated price to
sell significant amounts of their own holdings  for proceeds of
over $3,139,000. A substantial amount of defendants' insider  
selling took place only one month before defendants' announcement
of March 18,  1999 regarding the failure of the Company's
reorganization plan.


CENDANT CORP.: CEO's Bonus Cut Nearly in Half Last Year
-------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Henry Silverman, chairman and chief
executive  officer of Cendant Corp., was paid a bonus of $1.21
million for 1998, a little  more than half of what he received
the previous year, a regulatory filing  showed.     

In a proxy filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission last
Friday,  the franchising and marketing firm said it paid
Silverman a salary of $1.61  million, up from $1.58 million a
year ago.     

This year, Silverman's annual base salary will rise to $2.9
million  reflecting his overall importance to the company and his
assumption of the  roles of chairman and CEO, it said.     In
1997, Silverman received a bonus of $2.37 million, Cendant said,
adding  that Silverman recommended a 50 percent cut in his 1998
bonus. It did not  elaborate.     

The company, which franchises brands such as Avis Rent-A-Car,
Ramada and  Howard Johnson Hotels, reported a net loss in the
fourth quarter from  continuing operations of $302 million
compared with a loss of $181 million a  year before.  Cendent,
formed from the December 1997 merger of CUC International Inc.
and  HFS Inc., said last April it had discovered potential
accounting irregularities  at CUC -- later found to be $700
million in widespread fraud and errors dating  back to 1995.     
Parsippany, N.J.-based Cendant faced a string of lawsuits
stemming from the  accounting irregularities at CUC.

At one time more than 70 shareholder suits  were filed, but many
of those were consolidated into at least one class action  suit.     
The company last January filed a lawsuit against CUC's auditors
Ernst &  Young LLP. to recover damages arising from the class
action suits. In the  complaint Cendent accused the auditors of
not detecting false statements.     

In 1998, Cendant granted Silverman stock options covering 17.2
million  shares that will vest at 25 percent per year starting
October 1999 through  2002, the company said.  Of the total 17.2
million shares, 4,806,200 shares have a strike price of $9.8125
and expire on Jan 22, 2006.  Another 3,798,260 shares have a
strike price of $9.8125 and expire on April 30, 2007; 1,007,940
shares have a strike price of $20 and expire on April 30, 2007;
and 7,596,520 shares have a strike price of $20 with an
expiration of Dec. 17, 2007.  In 1997, Cendant granted Silverman
stock options covering 19.3 million  shares. However, the options
granted in 1996, 1997 and the first half of 1998  were canceled
and reissued in 1998, the company said.  Silverman has 8.5
million stock options, or 33 percent, revoked as part of  a stock
option restructuring plan announced last September.


CHS ELECTRONICS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Complaint in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein  Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announced that, on
March 23, 1999, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of CHS Electronics, Inc.
(NYSE:HS), from June 19, 1998 through March 19, 1999, inclusive.  

The complaint charges CHS, and certain of its officers and
directors, with  violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  as well as SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint  alleges
that, during the Class Period, CHS issued materially false and  
misleading financial statements which inflated the Company's
financial results  through the improper recognition of income in
violation of generally accepted  accounting principles.


CHS ELECTRONICS: Lowey Dannenberg Files Complaint in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C., on March 24, 1999,
filed a class action in the  United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, on behalf of  purchasers of CHS
Electronics, Inc. common stock (NYSE: HS) during the period  June
19, 1998 through March 22, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants CHS Electronics, Inc., and its
senior  management, CEO Claudio Osorio and CFO Craig S. Toll,
with issuing false and  misleading financial statements in
violation of the federal securities laws,  which inflated the
market price of CHS shares during the Class Period.  

On March 23, 1999, CHS announced that it was restating its
financial results  for the second and third quarters of 1998, and
that previously disclosed  preliminary results for fourth-quarter
and year-end 1998 were materially  overstated. Specifically, the
restatement resulted from the overstatement of  vendor rebates
for the second, third and fourth quarters of 1998, which  
inflated reported earnings for those periods. The market price of
CHS stock  traded as high as $20 per share during the Class
Period. Following the  announcement of the downward restatement
of financial results, CHS closed at  under $4.00 per share.  


CHS ELECTRONICS: Burt & Pucillo Files Complaint in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Burt & Pucillo, LLP announced yesterday that, on
March 23, 1999, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
federal securities laws was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern  District of Florida, Miami Division, by a
shareholder against CHS Electronics  Corp. (NYSE:HS).  The action
is brought on behalf of a class of  persons who purchased the
common stock of the Company during the period from  June 19, 1998
through March 19, 1999.

The Complaint in this action alleges that purchasers of the
Company's common  stock during the Class Period were damaged by
reason of the fact that the  Company's revenue and earnings were
materially overstated. Specifically, during  the second, third
and fourth quarters of 1998, the Company's vendor rebates  were
overstated. The complaint further alleges that preliminary fourth
quarter  earnings were overstated by 50%, when, in fact, the
Company earned $13 million  in the quarter rather than the $262
million previously reported.


CHS ELECTRONICS: Shepherd & Geller File Complaint in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd & Geller, LLC, yesterday announced that a class action
has been filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of Florida, on behalf of all purchasers of CHS Electronics Corp.
(NYSE:HS) common stock during the period  February 27, 1997
through March 10, 1999.

The complaint charges that CHS Electronics and certain of its
officers and  directors violated the federal securities laws by
submitting false financial  statements and false earnings. The
complaint alleges that:

  a) defendants' financial statements were based, in large
     measure, upon forged documents and  false customer orders;

  b) throughout the Class Period, defendants had  inaccurately
     described the amount of its vendor rebates;

  c) throughout the  Class Period, defendants had improperly kept
     certain assets (primarily accounts  receivable) off its
     balance sheet;

  d) throughout the Class Period, as a result  of the foregoing,
     CHS's assets and earnings were materially overstated; and

  e) 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.

When certain of this  information was disclosed on February 24,
1999, the price of CHS collapsed, and  currently trades far below
its Class Period highs.  


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Bernstein Liebhard Files Complain in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced by Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Compaq  Computer Corporation (NYSE: CPQ), between
January  27, 1999 and February 25,1999, inclusive, in the United  
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  

The lawsuit alleges  violations of the federal securities laws
and names as defendants the Company  and certain of its officers
and/or directors. The complaint charges Compaq and certain of its
officers and directors with  violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated  thereunder.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false  
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
throughout the  Class Period in the Company's public filings and
public statements. As a result of these misrepresentations and
omissions, the price of Compaq's  common stock was artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period.


EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS: Resolves Stock Warrant Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Employee Solutions, Inc., (Nasdaq: ESOL)  announced today that
the United States District Court, Southern District of New  York
recently granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and
dismissed a  claim filed by Ladenburg Thalmann & Company in May
1997. As discussed in the Company's 1997 10-K, the plaintiffs
sought damages of at  least $2.5 million alleging breach of
contract under certain stock warrants.  Ladenberg is a broker-
dealer/investment bank with offices in New York City. The Company
also recently received final court approval for the settlement of  
the securities class action lawsuit.  

Employee Solutions had announced in  November 1998 that it had
entered into an agreement -- subject to court  approval --
providing that the claims against the Company and all other  
defendants would be dismissed with prejudice without presumption
or admission  of any liability or wrongdoing.  The final
settlement calls for payment to the  plaintiffs of $13.8 million
in cash and $1.2 million in Employee Solutions  Common Stock.  
The Company's directors and officers' insurance carriers will  
pay a substantial majority of both the cash portion of the
settlement and  litigation-related expenses.

"These results are indicative of our continued commitment to be
very aggressive in resolving disputes in favor of the Company,"
said Quentin P. Smith, Jr.,  chairman, president and chief
executive officer of Employee Solutions, Inc.


GENCOR INDUSTRIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
complaint against Gencor  Industries Inc. (Amex: GX) and certain
of its officers and directors for issuing materially false and/or
misleading statements about the Company's financial results on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during  the
period February 5, 1998 through January 28, 1999 in  the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  

The  Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by causing
Gencor to report inflated earnings  for fiscal 1998. Indeed, the
Company reported that its "fiscal 1998 earnings  per share of
$1.52 may be reduced by as much as $0.35 to $0.50 per share" due  
to "accounting irregularities and other improprieties." As a
result of the  issuance of these false results, the price of
Gencor common stock was  artificially inflated throughout the
Class Period.


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: French Banks To Return WWII Assets
-----------------------------------------------------
>From Paris, the Associated Press reports that French banks
unveiled measures Wednesday to make sure that bank  accounts
seized from Jews during World War II would be returned to their
heirs  or used to create a Holocaust education center.    

The measures marked the first major initiative from the French
Banking  Association, which has long been accused of benefiting
from the unclaimed  accounts.  More than 100 French banks and
financial institutions collaborated with the  pro-Nazi Vichy
regime, which governed France from 1940-44.  The regime passed a
series of laws banning Jews from many professions and  from
owning businesses and property.    

"The banks . . . were among the cogs in the terrible machine of
confiscation  of Jewish assets in France," the banking
association said in a statement, Reuters reports.  "They  
therefore bear the duty of reparation towards the victims of
these (anti-Jewish) laws."    

French banks have been under growing pressure after being sued
last year by  a group of Holocaust survivors living in the United
States, seeking to recover  their families' assets.  The banks
named in the class action suit are: Credit Lyonnais, Banque  
Paribas; the French subsidiary of Barclay's Bank; Societe
Generale; Banque  National de Paris; Credit Commerical de France;
Credit Agricole; Banque  Francaise du Commerce Exterieur, and
Banque Worms Capital Corp.  In December, Barclay's Bank created a
fund for the repayment of assets that  were held in its French
subsidiary during World War II and not recovered by the  rightful
owners after the war.    

The announcement also came amid growing concern among many French
Jews that  the state-appointed panel of experts studying the
systematic looting of Jewish  property during the war isn't
moving fast enough.  In the statement, the banks said $55.5
million in assets was confiscated and  frozen by French banks,
but that most was returned after the war.  The banks said they
would turn over the remaining assets, including cash and  stock
certificates, to rightful owners or heirs. The French banks did
not  specify how much they still held.  If there are no heirs,
the money will be put into a special fund to create a  Holocaust
education center in Paris.  The banks said they also would
publish a complete list of wartime account holders who were
regarded as Jews under the Vichy laws.            


MOTOROLA, INC.: High Court Declines Cell Phone Radiation Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Times reports that, without comment or
explanation, the United States Supreme Court freed Motorola Inc.
from having to defend against a class-action lawsuit charging
that the second-largest U.S. maker of cellular phones deceived
customers about radiation exposure.  The High Court's rejection
of an appeal by cell phone user Frank J. Schiffner of Illinois
left standing a decision that shelters wireless phone companies
from traditional state law claims.  


MUTUAL LIFE: MONY Group Unit Targeted in SEC Probe
--------------------------------------------------
Accountant UK relates in this week's edition that The Mutual Life
Insurance Co of New York, a unit of MONY Group, has been  added
to the growing list of companies facing an accounting probe by
the  Securities and Exchange Commission.    

In the insurance industry, a high cash surplus demonstrates that
an insurer  is strong financially. Besides assuring greater
compensation for executives, it  can secure a high financial
rating from Wall Street, which can be used to lure  new
policyholders. The SEC wants to know if Mutual Life allegedly
manipulated  its surplus to help its financial position.    

The SEC investigation was prompted by a former MONY manager, who
alerted the  SEC in 1998 to allegations contained in a 1995
policyholder class-action  lawsuit. The suit, dismissed in 1997,
related to the marketing of 'vanishing- premium' policies.    
Purchasers of the policies alleged in their suit that they were
misled by  MONY salesmen who said that their premiums could be
eliminated because of  interest accumulated on the cash value of
the policies.    

In its probe, AUK relates, the SEC is examining Mutual Life's
past financial statements  as well as registration statements
filed as part of MONY's initial public  offering. Before it began
trading on the New York Stock Exchange last November,  MONY filed
financial reports with the SEC covering offerings of annuities
and  other products, as well as its money-management activities
as a financial  adviser.   

The SEC is also using information contained in the class-action
lawsuit as  well as information from state insurance-department
audits of MONY. A routine  New York state audit in the mid-1990s
found some regulatory violations.  The state ordered $87 million
in write-downs of foreclosed properties and a  $55 million
reversal of sales commissions. The latest state audit found no  
problems.    A MONY spokesman, Charles Wasilewski, said the
concerns under investigation  by the SEC are "without merit" and
pointed out that they "were included in a  class-action lawsuit
that was dismissed".


NORTH FACE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announced that it filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of investors who bought The
North  Face, Inc. (Nasdaq: TNFI) stock between April  25, 1997
and March 4, 1999.

The lawsuit charges North Face and several of its top officers
with violations  of the securities laws and regulations of the
United States. The complaint  alleges that during the Class
Period defendants falsely reported the Company's  financial
results and overstated its sales growth causing the Company's
stock  price to trade at an artificially high price of $29.  On
March 5, 1999 the  Company announced that its audited 1998
results would be delayed and that its  1997 results might need to
be restated.  On the release of this news the  Company's stock
price dropped to as low as $10.


PARTY CITY: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action  lawsuit has been filed against Party City
Corporation (Nasdaq: PCTY) in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.  The  lawsuit was filed by the
law firm Wolf Popper LLP on behalf of persons who  purchased or
otherwise acquired Party City securities in the open market
during  the period February 26, 1998 through March 18, 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.


PARTY CITY: Stull Stull Files Complaint in [New Jersey]
-------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of purchasers  of Party City Corporation (NASDAQ:PCTY) securities
between October 22, 1998 to  March 19, 1999 for violations of
federal securities laws. Defendants include  Party City 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 and  misleading
statements regarding Party City's financial and business
conditions.


PARTY CITY: Berman DeValerio Files Complaint in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
Party City Corporation (Nasdaq: PCTY) was  charged with violating
the federal securities laws in a class action filed in  the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
March 23, 1999, by Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP.

The case was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased  the common stock of PCTY during the period February
26, 1998 through and  including March 18, 1999 (the "Class
Period") and who suffered losses on their  investments. The
action charges that PCTY and certain of its officers issued
materially  false and misleading statements during the Class
Period.  In particular, it is  charged that PCTY materially
misrepresented its financial condition and  compliance with its
loan covenants. During the class period, it is alleged that  
certain of the defendants sold their PCTY common stock with
inside information  for proceeds of more than $1.5 million.  On
March 18, 1999 PCTY announced that  its year-end 1998 audit would
be delayed due and that the company was "in  default of certain
reporting covenants" on its secured credit facility.  Upon  the
revelation of this news, PCTY's stock plummeted 45% in a single
day,  falling from $7 5/16 per share to $4 per share on March 19,
1999.


PARTY CITY: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a  Class Action lawsuit
against PARTY CITY CORPORATION (Nasdaq: PCTY) and certain of its
officers and directors in the  United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.  The suit is  brought on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise  acquired the
common stock of Party City between July 9, 1998 and March 18,  
1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Party City and certain officers and
directors with  violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934  and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges that defendants  issued a
series of false statements and failed to disclose material facts  
throughout the Class Period concerning, among others, the
Company's financial  condition and compliance with certain loan
covenants.  Because of the issuance  of a series of false and
misleading statements, the price of Party City common  stock was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.  Prior to the  
disclosure of the adverse facts, certain insiders and directors
sold 98,000  shares of Party City common stock to the
unsuspecting investing public at  artificially inflated prices,
over $1.5 million in proceeds was realized as a  result of these
sales.


PAYDAY LOANS: Edelman & Combs Sues 17 High-Interest Lenders
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago law firm of Edelman & Combs,  which concentrates in
representation of consumers against lenders, car dealers,  debt
collectors, and other businesses, has filed more class action
lawsuits in  the federal district court in Chicago against high-
interest "payday loan,"  "title loan," and similar
establishments.  The total number sued is now 17. The list of
high-interest lenders sued, and the annual percentage rates
charged  by each, are:     

     * American Loan Company                      521%     
     * Americash                                  365%     
     * Campus Cash Systems                        469%     
     * Cash Store                                 521%     
     * Chartwell Financial                        427%     
     * Check Into Cash                            573%     
     * Fast Cash Advance                          365%-456%     
     * GFG Loan Company                           365%     
     * Illinois Title Lenders                     216%     
     * Instant Cash Advance (One Iron Ventures)   486%-912%     
     * Nationwide Budget Finance                  521%     
     * Paycheck Advance Express, Inc.             456%-521%     
     * Payday Check Advance, Inc., d/b/a       
          Payday Express                          521%     
     * Payday Loan Corp. of Illinois              101%     
     * Payday Loan Store of Illinois, Inc.        695%     
     * Payday Today Loans LLC                     521%     
     * Short Term Loans                           260%-342%     

"Payday loans" are short term, very high interest rate loans.  
The loans are typically two weeks in duration and carry annual
percentage rates of  200% to over 1800%.  At the end of the two
week term, the customer has the  option of continuing the loan
for an additional period by paying the interest.   The loans are
typically "rolled over" on multiple occasions.

Generally, companies which make "payday loans" do not advertise
the annual  percentage rates.  Instead, they advertise that the
loans cost $x per $100. The  consumer does not see the annual
percentage rate until he or she is presented  with the check.
"Payday loans" are generally made to consumers facing financial
emergencies.   Once a consumer obtains a "payday loan," he or she
will often be unable to pay  it off except from the proceeds of
additional "payday loans." Often, the  "payday loan" store is the
last stop prior to bankruptcy court.

The lawsuits generally allege violation of the Truth in Lending
Act or  Electronic Funds Transfer Act.  In some cases, they
allege that the interest  rates are so exorbitant that the loans
are unconscionable and violation of laws  regulating wage
assignments and collection practices. Some of the lawsuits name  
individual owners of the payday loan establishments and lawyers
who try to  enforce the loans. Payday Today Loans and Short Term
Loans have already agreed to settlements.


PSS WORLD: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a Class Action against PSS
World Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq:  PSSI) and certain of its officers
and directors in the United States District  Court for the Middle
District of Florida. The suit is brought on behalf of all  
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of PSS  between June 16, 1998 and March 10, 1999,
inclusive.

The complaint charges PSS and certain of its officers and
directors with  violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1924.  The complaint alleges  that, among other things, the
defendants improperly accounted for certain  merger acquisitions
and that it would probably be required to retroactively  restate
its financial statements to reflect the pre acquisition Operating  
results of these merger transactions, in particular, the $645
million stock  acquisition of Gulf South Medical Supply, Inc., as
a result of an investigation  by the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC").  

The Complaint further  alleges that the price of PSS stock was
artificially inflated as a result of  defendants' conduct, which
included but was not limited to, engaging in  aggressive and
improper accounting practices which artificially inflated  
earnings. During the Class Period, PSS shares traded as high as
$23.25 per share. On  March 10, 1999, after the Company's
announcement that it was being investigated  by the SEC, the
price of PSS shares plunged as much as 19% on exceptionally  
heavy volume, and closed at $9.75 per share on that day.


PSS WORLD: Burt & Pucillo File Complaint in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The law firm of  Burt & Pucillo, LLP announced that, on March 22,
1999, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal  
securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle  District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, by a
shareholder against PSS World  Medical Inc., Patrick C. Kelly and
David A. Smith,  Case No. 99-268. The action is brought on behalf
of a class of persons who  purchased the common stock of PSSI
during the period from June 16, 1998 through  March 10, 1999 .

The Complaint in this action alleges that purchasers of PSSI
common stock  during the Class Period were damaged by reason of
the defendants' conduct in  violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the  Complaint alleges that
the company, under the direction of the individual  defendants,
issued financial statements that overstated revenues from
acquired  entities by improperly using the pooling of interest
method of accounting. The  complaint further alleges that this
resulted in overstated earnings throughout  the Class Period.


SAFESKIN CORP.: Berman DeValerio File Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Safeskin Corp. (Nasdaq: SFSK) was charged  with violating the
federal securities laws in a class action filed in the  Southern
District of California on March 18, 1999.  The case was filed on  
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock
or call  options, or sold put options, during the period October
28, 1998 through and  including March 11, 1999, by Berman
DeValerio & Pease LLP.

The action charges that Safeskin and two of its senior officers
issued  materially false and misleading statements during the
Class Period.  In  particular, it is charged that Safeskin
"stuffed" its product distribution  channels in order to make its
reported sales and earnings appear better than  they really were.  
On March 11, 1999 it is alleged that Safeskin revealed that  it
had previously sent more products into its distribution channels
than its  customers actually needed which resulted in distorted
revenue and earnings  figures during the Class Period.  Upon the
revelation of this news, Safeskin's  stock plummeted 41% in a
single day, falling from $15.25 per share to $6.28 per  share.


SAFESKIN CORP.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was  commenced on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Safeskin Corporation  (Nasdaq:
SFSK), between February 18, 1998 and  March 11, 1999, inclusive,
in the United States District  Court for the Southern District of
California, by Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP.

The lawsuit alleges  violations of the federal securities laws
and names as defendants the Company  and certain of its officers
and/or directors. The complaint charges Safeskin and certain of
its officers and directors with  violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated  thereunder.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false  
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
throughout the  Class Period in the Company's public filings and
public statements. As a result of these misrepresentations and
omissions, the price of Safeskin's  common stock was artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period.


SUBARU: Dealers Levy Racketeering & Extortion Charges
-----------------------------------------------------
The Patriot Ledger reports that, in Concord, New Hamphshire,
seven Subaru dealers have accused Subaru of New England and its
president, Ernie Boch, of racketeering and extortion, claiming he
pads cars with unwanted options to boost his profits at their  
expense.    

The seven dealers sued Boch on March 5 in U.S. District Court in
Concord, N.H., asking a federal judge to declare the suit a
class- action case to  represent all current and former Subaru
dealerships in New England.  They charge that Boch packs the most
popular models with options and shuts  off the dealers' supply if
they refuse to take the cars.

A company official disputed the accusations.


TRIARC COMPANIES: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP:  Notice is hereby given
that on March 23, 1999, a securities class action  lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Triarc Companies, Inc. and  
certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who owned Triarc
common stock  on March 10, 1999.  

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws  (Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934) by misrepresenting or  failing to disclose material
information about the valuation of Triarc that  demonstrated that
the recently announced dutch-auction tender offer for $16.25  to
$18.25 per share was inadequate consideration and not in the best
interests  of Triarc shareholders.



                           *********

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  * * *