CAR_Public/990329.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 29, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 37

                           Headlines

ADVANCED MICRO: Henzel Firm Files Complaint in California
AETNA REAL: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for May 19, 1999
BAY AREA: City Counsel Extends Methadone Clinic Ban for One Year
BERKSHIRE REALTY: 12,034 of 3,000,000 Warrants Exercised
CARIBINER INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Files Suit in New York

CHS ELECTRONICS: Entwistle & Cappucci File Complaint in Florida
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Henzel Firm Files Complaint in Texas
ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Little Concern About Shareholder Suits
ENRON CORP.: Continues to Deny & Defend Ratability Claims Action
ICT SPECTRUM: McDevitt & Miller File Complaint in Idaho

INDIAN TRUST: Interior Lawyer Alleges Corruption
LYCOS, INC.: Shapiro Haber Files Complaint in Massachusetts
LYCOS, INC.: Savett Frutkin Files Complaint in Massachusetts
NOVELL, INC.: Shareholder Suit Remains Contested in Early Stages
PARTY CITY: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in New Jersey

PARTY CITY: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in New Jersey
PAYDAY LOANS: Edelman & Combs Prosecuting 18 Class Action Suits
PLUM CREEK: Delaware Court Enjoins Vote on Conversion Transaction
SUN HEALTHCARE: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in New Mexico
SUN HEALTHCARE: Reinhardt & Anderson Files Suit in New Mexico

SUN HEALTHCARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in New Mexico
SUN HEALTHCARE: Stull Stull Files Complaint in New Mexico
THERMEDICS, INC.: Motion to Dismiss Pending; Discovery Continuing
TOROTEL, INC.: Class Action Settlement Warrant Valued at $33,000
TOTAL RENAL: Louisiana SERS Files Class Action Shareholder Suit

TRAK AUTO: Merger Pact Defines But Does Not Treat Class Actions

                           *********

ADVANCED MICRO: Henzel Firm Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel hereby filed a class action
complaint in the United  States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a  Class of persons who
purchased the common stock of Advanced Micro Devices Inc.  (NYSE:
AMD) at artificially inflated prices during the  period Jan. 13,
1999, through March 9, 1999.

The complaint alleges that defendants AMD and certain of its
officers and  directors violated federal securities laws (Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose a  serious design flaw in
AMD's K6 processor line which forced AMD to retool its  
manufacturing line late in 1998 and would result in a material
decrease in production of its K6 personal computer microprocessor
of 500,000 units during the first quarter and corresponding
negative effect on AMD's earnings for the first quarter. As a
result of defendants' false and misleading statements and  
omissions, the price of AMD's common stock was artificially
inflated during the Class Period.  On March 8, 1999, AMD
announced that it would incur a significant loss in its first
quarter because of the K6 manufacturing problems.   As a result
of this announcement, shares of AMD fell 14%.


AETNA REAL: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for May 19, 1999
---------------------------------------------------------
In November 1996, AETNA REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES, L.P., and its
general partners, Aetna/AREA Corporation and AREA GP Corporation
(the "General Partners"), were named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits filed in the Chancery Court of
Delaware in New Castle County, entitled Bobbitt v. Aetna Real
Estate Associates, L.P., et al and Estes v. Aetna Real Estate
Associates, L.P., et al (collectively, the "Complaints"). The
Complaints alleged, among other things, that management fees that
have been paid and are paid to the General Partners are excessive
and that a standstill agreement with a then tender offeror which
had the effect of limiting the number of Partnership Units that
would be the subject of any tender offer is unlawful.

On March 15, 1999, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release, which was filed
with and is subject to approval by the Delaware Chancery Court.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the following
actions will take place:

(1) Upon the "Final Date" (the date that the judgment is no
     longer subject to appeal) the Applicable Percentage, as
     defined in Section 6.6 of the Partnership Agreement, used to
     calculate the Investment Portfolio Fee per quarter which is
     paid to the General Partners, will be reduced by 0.0625%
     from that set forth in Section 6.6 of the Partnership
     Agreement (the "First Reduction"). The First Reduction will
     be effective on the Final Date and will be applied
     retroactively to the date of the execution of the Settlement
     Agreement. The First Reduction will result in a 0.25%
     reduction of the annual Investment Portfolio Fee otherwise
     provided in the Partnership Agreement.

(2) Effective on the second anniversary of the Final Date, the
     Applicable Percentage will be reduced by an additional
     0.0625% per quarter (the "Second Reduction"). The First and
     Second Reductions will apply cumulatively so that the annual
     Investment Portfolio Fee from the second anniversary of the
     Final Date through the termination of the Partnership will
     be a total of 0.50% below the annual Investment Portfolio
     Fee otherwise provided in the Partnership Agreement.

(3) The General Partners will institute a marketing plan, market
     the Partnership's assets on a property-by-property basis
     and, subject to their fiduciary duties, determine whether or
     not the sale of any particular property should take place.
     The determination of whether to engage in the sale of one or
     more properties will reside solely within the discretion and
     business judgment of the General Partners, in accordance
     with their fiduciary duties.

(4) The Partnership shall make a special distribution no later
     than April 15, 1999 of at least $2,500,000 (or approximately
     $0.20 per Unit) of Partnership cash to limited partners
     holding Partnership Units as of the date of such
     distribution.

(5) The representative plaintiffs and the class will agree to
     release any and all claims, to the extent such claims relate
     to or arise out of the class action lawsuits, against the
     defendants to the fullest extent permitted by law. If the
     Settlement Agreement is approved by the Delaware Chancery
     Court and judgment is entered, the actions will be dismissed
     with prejudice.

(6) The representative plaintiffs or their counsel may submit an
     application to the Delaware Chancery Court for reimbursement
     by the Partnership of attorneys' fees in an amount not to
     exceed $2,000,000 and out-of-pocket expenses in an amount
     not to exceed $200,000.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Delaware
Chancery Court, although there can be no assurance that the Court
will approve the Settlement Agreement. A hearing to consider the
Settlement Agreement is scheduled for May 19, 1999.


BAY AREA: City Counsel Extends Methadone Clinic Ban for One Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Chronicle relates that the Antioch, California,
City Council has extended a ban on methadone clinics near schools
and homes for one year while it awaits a decision from the U.S.
Court of Appeals.  The unanimous vote Tuesday night was necessary
because the city's 10-month  ban on methadone clinics expires
next month. State law allows cities to extend  moratoriums for up
to two years, City Attorney Bill Galstan said yesterday.  The
city's ban arose last year when the nonprofit Bay Area Addiction  
Research and Treatment filed a permit application to open an
office off Lone Tree Way.  The office is in a medical complex
across the street from homes and  near a bus route used by junior
high and high school students.  In August, a U.S. District Court
judge ruled in the city's favor after the  clinic filed a class
action lawsuit against the city, claiming discrimination  under
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.  A decision on the
clinic's appeal is pending. Methadone is a synthetic  narcotic
used by some drug addicts in an attempt to break their habit.


BERKSHIRE REALTY: 12,034 of 3,000,000 Warrants Exercised
--------------------------------------------------------
On June 4, 1991 at a special meeting, the Unitholders of Krupp
Cash Plus-III Limited Partnership and Krupp Cash Plus-IV Limited
Partnership voted in favor of and agreed to participate in an
exchange with BERKSHIRE REALTY CO., INC.   Subsequently, the
Company was named in a consolidated lawsuit filed as a class
action representing those Unitholders related to the Exchange
transaction.  On August 3, 1994, the court approved a settlement
which became effective on September 6, 1994.  The settlement
agreement provided that the Company pay to the plaintiff class
$1.5 million and issue three million stock warrants.  Upon
exercise, each warrant entitles the holder the right to acquire
one share of common stock of the Company. The warrants were
exercisable at an exercise price of $11.79 for a period of four
years ending on September 8, 1998.  On September 8, 1998,
unexercised, outstanding warrants totaling 2,987,966 expired.  As
of that date, 12,034 shares of common stock had been issued upon
exercise of warrants.


CARIBINER INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Files Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach announced that a class
action lawsuit was filed on March 25, 1999, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
all persons who purchased the common stock of Caribiner
International Inc. (NYSE: CWC), between June 12,  1997 and April
24, 1998, inclusive.  

The complaint charges Caribiner and certain officers with
violations of  Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule  10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a  
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's  integration of numerous acquisitions and the
adverse impact that problems  associated with the Company's
acquisitions were having on the Company and its  financial
results. Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described  
above, certain Caribiner insiders sold significant amounts of
their personal  holdings of Caribiner common stock to the
unsuspecting public reaping proceeds  of over $16 million and the
Company completed several acquisitions using its  artificially
inflated common stock as currency.  


CHS ELECTRONICS: Entwistle & Cappucci File Complaint in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci  LLP, commenced a class action lawsuit for
violations of the federal  securities laws against CHS
Electronics, Inc. (NYSE: HS) and certain officers and/or
directors of the Company, in  the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.  The  lawsuit was brought
on behalf of all persons who purchased CHS common stock  between
August 5, 1998 and March 22, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges CHS and certain officers and/or directors
of the Company  during the relevant time period with violations
of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a)  of the Exchange Act.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class  
Period, the defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements  concerning the Company's revenue and net income.
Because of the issuance of  such false and misleading statements,
the price of CHS common stock was  artificially inflated
throughout the Class Period.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Henzel Firm Files Complaint in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel  hereby gives notice that a
class action complaint has been filed in the United  States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of a
Class of persons who purchased the common stock of Compaq
Computer Corporation (NYSE: CPQ) at artificially inflated prices
during the period  January 27, 1999, through February 25, 1999.

The complaint alleges that defendants CPQ and certain of its
officers violated  federal securities laws (Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934) by misrepresenting
or failing to disclose the slowdown in demand for  and sales of
Compaq's products in the first quarter of 1999.  As a result of  
defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions, the
price of  Compaq's common stock was artificially inflated during
the Class Period.


ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Little Concern About Shareholder Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
On December 15,  1997, a  shareholder  class action  lawsuit,  
entitled Steele, et al. v. Electronics  for Imaging,  Inc., et
al., No. CV 403099,  was filed  against  the Company and certain
of its  officers  and  directors  in the California  Superior
Court, San Mateo County.

Five virtually  identical class action complaints were
subsequently filed in the San Mateo Superior Court.  

On December 31, 1997, a putative shareholder class action
entitled Smith v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., et al., No. C97-
4739 was filed  against  the Company and certain of its  officers  
and  directors in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  

The state court class actions allege that the Company made false
and misleading statements concerning its business during a
putative class period of April 10, 1997 through December 11, 1997
and allege violations of California Corporations Code Sections
25400 and 25500 and Civil Code Sections 1709 and 1710.  The
federal court class action complaint makes the same factual
allegations, but alleges violations of certain United States  
federal securities  laws.  The complaints do not specify the
damages sought.

"The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to contest them vigorously, but there can be no assurance
that if damages are ultimately awarded against the Company, the
litigation will not adversely affect the Company's results of
operations," the Company says in its latest annual report.


ENRON CORP.: Continues to Deny & Defend Ratability Claims Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1995, several parties (the Plaintiffs) filed suit in Harris
County District Court in Houston, Texas, against Intratex Gas
Company (Intratex), Houston Pipe Line Company and Panhandle Gas
Company (collectively, the Enron Defendants), each of which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Enron Corp.  

The Plaintiffs were either sellers or royalty owners under
numerous gas purchase contracts with Intratex, many of which have
terminated.  Early in 1996, the case was severed by the Court
into two matters to be tried (or otherwise resolved) separately.  
In the first matter, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Enron
Defendants committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation in
connection with the "Panhandle program," a special marketing
program established in the early 1980s.  

This case was tried in October 1996 and resulted in a
verdict for the Enron Defendants.  

In the second matter, the Plaintiffs allege that the Enron
Defendants violated state regulatory requirements and certain gas
purchase contracts by failing to take the Plaintiffs' gas ratably
with other producers' gas at certain times between 1978 and 1988.  
The court has certified a class action with respect to ratability
claims.  The Enron Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' claims and
have asserted various affirmative defenses, including the statute
of limitations.  The Enron Defendants believe that they have
strong legal and factual defenses, and intend to vigorously
contest the claims.  Although no assurances can be given, Enron
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a materially adverse effect on its financial position or
results of operations.


ICT SPECTRUM: McDevitt & Miller File Complaint in Idaho
-------------------------------------------------------
McDevitt & Miller LLP, on March 24, 1999, filed a class action
lawsuit in  the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho on behalf of a class  of all former shareholders of ICT
Spectrum Constructors, Inc. who received  shares of ICF Kaiser
International, Inc. in connection with a stock-for-stock  merger
that closed on March 17, 1998.

The suit charges that defendants ICF  Kaiser International, Inc.,
James Edwards (former CEO), David Watson (Executive Vice
President and President of ICF Kaiser's Engineers and
Constructors Group) and Jeffrey Goldfarb (CFO of Engineers and
Constructors Group) violated the federal securities laws through
false and misleading statements in a private placement memorandum
issued in connection with the merger. Plaintiff also  alleges a
breach of contract claim by ICF Kaiser and one of its
subsidiaries.  


INDIAN TRUST: Interior Lawyer Alleges Corruption
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Brasher, writing for the Associated Press, reports that an
Interior Department lawyer alleges he was ordered by a  superior
to dispose of some Indian trust records involved in a class-
action  lawsuit against the government.    

In an affidavit made public Thursday, Ralph Williams said he
declined to get  rid of the material because he thought it would
be illegal. He said the  instructions came from the department's
deputy solicitor, Ed Cohen.    

Interior officials denied any wrongdoing.    

The department is being sued for its management of 300,000 Indian
accounts  worth $500 million. Last month, U.S. District Judge
Royce Lamberth held  Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in  contempt for the government's
two-year delay in turning over checks and other  documents
related to five account holders who filed the lawsuit. It was not  
clear if Williams handled any of those documents.    

Lamberth released the affidavit Thursday, along with an order
protecting  Williams from retaliation by the department.    

The department's chief attorney, Solicitor John Leshy, issued a
brief  statement defending Cohen and denying that his office
would attempt to dispose  of records that are relevant to the
lawsuit. Department officials declined to  make Cohen available
for an interview.    

Lawyers for the Indian plaintiffs brought Williams' allegation to
the  judge's attention after they were approached recently by
Williams' attorney. He  is scheduled to give a deposition in the
case next week.    

In the affidavit, Williams said he had been given the job of
reconciling  discrepancies in the trust accounts. Once that was
done, he was supposed "to ensure that ... any other information
which was inconsistent from my findings  could be purged from the
files," he said.    

Williams still works in the solicitor's office. He did not
respond to a  request for an interview Thursday.    

The Interior Department manages $2.5 billion belonging to tribes
in addition  to the $500 million owned by individual Indians. The
money includes lease  revenues, royalties and court settlements.    
Lawyers for the Indians allege that the funds were mismanaged for
decades  and that the government could be liable for billions of
dollars in claims.    

Legislation was introduced in the Senate Thursday to let tribes
have their money transferred to private banks.    

"This bill is the first step, but it is an indication that many
in Congress  have no faith in the Interior Department's ability
to manage these accounts,"  said the chairman of the Senate
Indian Affairs Committee, Ben Nighthorse  Campbell, R-Colo.
"There seems to be an institutional rot there that does not  go
away."    

Campbell cosponsored the bill with Sen. Frank Murkowski, an
Alaska  Republican who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee.                         


LYCOS, INC.: Shapiro Haber Files Complaint in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit alleging securities fraud  has been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of  
Massachusetts against Lycos, Inc. (Nasdaq: LCOS) and its  
President/CEO Robert J. Davis, by the Boston law firm Shapiro
Haber & Urmy LLP.  The case was filed on behalf of all persons
who purchased Lycos common stock  during the period January 8,
1999 through February 9, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued a series of
false and  misleading statements during the class period, causing
Lycos common stock to  trade at an artificially inflated price.
Specifically, the complaint alleges  that Lycos represented that
it was "committed to an independent strategy"  despite the fact
that it was engaging in serious merger discussions with USA  
Networks, Inc. ("USA").  On February 9, 1999, Lycos shocked the
market by  announcing that it signed a definitive merger
agreement with USA. As a result  of this announcement, the price
of Lycos declined 25% to a price of $94.25 per  share.


LYCOS, INC.: Savett Frutkin Files Complaint in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell &  Ryan, P.C., commenced a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of  a Class of persons who purchased the
common stock of Lycos Inc. (NASDAQ:LCOS) at artificially inflated
prices during the period  Jan. 8, 1999 through Feb. 9, 1999.

The complaint charges Lycos and its Chief Executive Officer with
violations of  Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule  10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a  
series of false statements which represented that Lycos was
"committed to an  independent strategy" when, in fact, Lycos was
in serious and advanced  discussions to merge with USA Networks
Inc. ("USA"), with Lycos shareholders  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 common stock fell sharply -- dropping
from $127.25 per share to  $94.25 per share, a decline of 25% on
extremely heavy trading volume.


NOVELL, INC.: Shareholder Suit Remains Contested in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
In February 1998, a suit was filed against Novell and certain of
its officers and directors, alleging violation of federal
securities laws.  The lawsuit was brought as a purported class
action on behalf of purchasers of Novell common stock from
November 1, 1996 through April 22, 1997.  The case is in its
preliminary stages.  Novell believes that the case is without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations.  


PARTY CITY: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action  lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New  Jersey, on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Party City Corporation (Nasdaq:
PCTY) between August 24,  1998, and March 18, 1999, inclusive, by
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach.

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 as well as 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.


PARTY CITY: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on March 25,  1999, in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, on  behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Party City Corporation (NASDAQ:  PCTY)
between October 22, 1998, and March 19,  1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Party City and certain officers and/or
directors with  violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934  as well as Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that  defendants
issued a series false statements and failed to disclose material  
facts throughout the Class Period concerning, among others, the
Company's  financial condition, adequacy of internal controls,
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 over 90,000 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 Prosecuting 18 Class Action Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 18, with the addition of Check-N-Go.     

The list of high-interest lenders sued, and the annual percentage
rate charged by each, are:     

     * American Loan Company                      521%     
     * Americash                                  365%     
     * Campus Cash Systems                        469%     
     * Cash Store                                 521%     
     * Chartwell Financial                        427%     
     * Check-N-Go of Illinois, Inc.               456% - 521%
     * 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 money. "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 in
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.

In addition, on behalf of the Illinois Consumer Justice Council,
Edelman &  Combs sued the Illinois Department of Financial
Institutions, its Director, and  Andrew Madonia, supervisor of
its consumer credit division, for violating the  Illinois Open
Meetings Act by forming a task force to secretly meet with  
industry representatives for the purpose of considering how to
regulate "payday  lenders," while excluding the public.  After
the Circuit Court declined to  enjoin the Department from
violating the law, Edelman & Combs appealed.  The  Department
responded by allegedly disbanding its task force.  


PLUM CREEK: Delaware Court Enjoins Vote on Conversion Transaction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported, a Unitholder, individually and as a
purported representative of all Unitholders except the defendants
and their affiliates, filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against Plum  
Creek Timber Co., L.P. and the Partnership's general partner and
the ultimate general partner of the general partner.  The lawsuit
alleges that the Proxy  Statement/Prospectus mailed to
Unitholders in connection with the proposed  conversion of the
Partnership from a master limited partnership to a real  estate
investment trust ("REIT") is false and misleading and that,
through  alleged misstatements and omissions, the GP Defendants
have breached a  fiduciary duty of candor to the Unitholders.

On March 18, 1999, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion
granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and
enjoined the Unitholder vote on the Conversion Transaction until  
the Plum Creek Defendants have cured the disclosure deficiencies
of the Proxy  Statement/Prospectus and the letter to Unitholders
that accompanied the Proxy  Statement/Prospectus, by issuing a
supplemental disclosure that is consistent  with the rulings in
the Opinion.  

The Conversion Transaction was scheduled to  be voted upon at a
Special Meeting of Unitholders on Monday, March 22, 1999.   The
Partnership expects to convene and then adjourn the Special
Meeting of  Unitholders to a subsequent date, which will be
determined as soon as possible.   

The Partnership continues to believe the Conversion Transaction
is in the best interests  of the Partnership and all of its
Unitholders.


SUN HEALTHCARE: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in New Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------
The first class action lawsuit filed on  behalf of purchasers of
securities of Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (NYSE: SHG) was filed by
the law firm of Weiss &  Yourman on March 12, 1999.  

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading
statements  during the Class Period which materially
misrepresented the impact of changes  in the Medicare
reimbursement system, implemented by the prospective payment  
system ("PPS"), on the financial condition and financial results
of Sun  Healthcare.  The Complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose that  profit margins and reimbursement rates for
ancillary services would be  substantially lower under PPS. The
Complaint also alleges that defendants  failed to disclose that
the goodwill of Sun Healthcare's domestic facilities  had become
impaired as a result of the PPS.  In addition, the Complaint
alleges  that defendants failed to disclose that the financial
results of the Company  would also be materially and adversely
impacted because Retirement Care  Associates, a company acquired
by Sun Healthcare, had been unprepared for the  conversion to PPS
during the Class Period.

                            *   *   *

Sun Healthcare has posted significant losses this past year. Sun
Healthcare was profiled in the Troubled Company Prospector (co-
published by New Generation Research and Beard Group, Inc.; call
301/951-6400 for subscription information concerning the
Prospector) last quarter when the Company violated the EBITDAR
covenant contained in its Senior Credit Facility.


SUN HEALTHCARE: Reinhardt & Anderson Files Suit in New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (NYSE:SHG) from
June 2, 1998 through February 1, 1999, inclusive, by Reinhardt &
Anderson.  

The complaint charges Sun Healthcare and certain officers and
directors of the  Company during the relevant time period with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The complaint  charges Sun Healthcare Group, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors of  issuing false and
misleading statements concerning the impact of the changes in  
the Medicare reimbursement system on Sun Healthcare's operating
results and  business prospects. As a result, the price of Sun
Healthcare's shares were artificially inflated which the
Defendants then used as currency to fund their acquisition spree.


SUN HEALTHCARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, has filed a class action lawsuit was
filed in the United  States District Court for the District of
New Mexico on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Sun
Healthcare Group, Inc. (NYSE:SHG) from June 2, 1998 through
February 1, 1999, inclusive.  

The complaint charges Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. and certain of
its officers  and directors of issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the impact  of the changes in the Medicare
reimbursement system on Sun Healthcare's operating results and
business prospects.  


SUN HEALTHCARE: Stull Stull Files Complaint in New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf of
purchasers of Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (NYSE:SHG) common stock
between June 2, 1998 and February 1, 1999.  The defendants
include Sun Healthcare and certain of its officers and directors.

The Complaint alleges  that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934 and Rule 10-
b(5).  Defendant Sun Healthcare operates long-term and post-acute
health care  facilities. Sun Healthcare also provides related
ancillary services such as  physical therapy, occupational
therapy, respiratory therapy and pharmaceutical  services to its
own facilities, as well as facilities owned and/or operated by  
other health care providers. The Complaint alleges that
defendants issued false  and misleading statements during the
Class Period which materially  misrepresented the impact of
changes in the Medicare reimbursement system,  implemented by the
prospective payment system ("PPS"), on the financial  condition
and financial results of Sun Healthcare. The Complaint alleges
that  defendants failed to disclose that profit margins and
reimbursement rates for  ancillary services would be
substantially lower under PPS. The Complaint also  alleges that
defendants failed to disclose that the goodwill of Sun  
Healthcare's domestic facilities had become impaired as a result
of the PPS. In  addition, the Complaint alleges that defendants
failed to disclose that the  financial results of the Company
would also be materially and adversely  impacted because
Retirement Care Associates, a company acquired by Sun  
Healthcare, had been unprepared for the conversion to PPS during
the Class  Period.


THERMEDICS, INC.: Motion to Dismiss Pending; Discovery Continuing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In late March and early April 1998, four putative class actions
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in
and for New Castle County by shareholders of Thermo Voltek Corp.
(a subsidiary of THERMEDICS, INC.).  On October 6, 1998, the
Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating these four
actions under the caption In re Thermo Voltek Corp. Shareholders
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. 16287.

The complaint in the Action names the Company, Thermo Voltek,
Thermo Electron, and directors of Thermo Voltek as defendants and
alleges, among other things, that Thermo Voltek's directors
violated the fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, and fair
dealing that they owed to all shareholders of Thermo Voltek other
than the named defendants and the affiliates of the named
defendants because the proposed price of $7.00 per share to be
paid to Thermo Voltek's shareholders under the terms of the
proposed Merger Agreement was allegedly unfair and grossly
inadequate. The complaints further allege that the Company,
Thermo Voltek, and Thermo Electron have violated their alleged
fiduciary duty of fair dealing by proposing the merger
transaction at the time. The complaints request that the Court of
Chancery, among other things, declare that the Action is a proper
class action and enjoin the proposed transaction or order that
any transaction be approved by a majority of the Thermo Voltek
shareholders other than the named defendants and their
affiliates.
      
On November 17, 1998, the Company, Thermo Voltek, Thermo
Electron, and the individual defendants filed an answer to the
complaint in the Action in which they deny the allegations of any
violation of law or breaches of any duty to the plaintiffs or the
purported class set forth in the complaints.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for, among
other things, procedural and jurisdictional defects and failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is
currently pending before the court.  The parties are currently
conducting discovery.


TOROTEL, INC.: Class Action Settlement Warrant Valued at $33,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
In its financial statements for the accounting period ending
January 31, 1999, TOROTEL, INC., values the warrant issued to
settle a class action suit alleging racial discrimination in
hiring by Torotel Products, Inc., held by the Torotel Settlement
Fund to purchase 100,000 shares of Torotel, Inc. common stock at
$.75 per share, at $33,000.

The $33,000 fair value of the warrant was estimated on the date
of grant using the Black-Scholes options-pricing model using the
following weighted average assumptions: no dividend payments over
the life of the warrant; expected volatility of 75.9 percent;
risk-free interest rate of 5.8 percent; and expected life of two
years.

The warrant is 100% vested upon issuance and cannot be exercised
until the market price of the company's common stock reaches
$2.00 per share.  The warrant expires on May 4, 2003.


TOTAL RENAL: Louisiana SERS Files Class Action Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Louisiana School Employees'  Retirement System
("LSERS") sued Total Renal Care Holdings Inc. (NYSE: TRL), for
securities fraud on behalf of all  investors who acquired the
Company's securities during the period February 17,  1998 through
February 17, 1999, inclusive, and who were  damaged thereby.  

To prosecute the action, LSERS retained the services of  
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP.

The Complaint alleges that Total Renal Care and certain of its
officers and  directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of  1934 by issuing materially false and
misleading statements concerning the  Company's operating
performance in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting  
Principles ("GAAP").  The Complaint specifically alleges that
Total Renal Care  understated expenses by amortizing goodwill
associated with its acquisition of  Renal Treatment Centers, Inc.
("Renal Treatment") over an improperly long  period of time, and
failed to write down millions in uncollectible Renal  Treatment
accounts receivables pending as of December 31, 1997. The filing
of the Complaint followed Total Renal Care's announcement that it  
would take a charge of $12.3 million, of which fully $11.5
million represented  the writedown of Renal Treatment's
uncollectible accounts receivables.   

Moreover, the Company stated that it was the target of an
investigation by the  Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
centering on its accounting practices, including its amortization
of goodwill.  The market reaction to the news was disastrous.  In
exceptionally heavy  trading, the price of CHS common stock
plunged by 58%, falling from $21.00 a  share on February 16, 1999
to $8.75 a share on February 18, 1999.


TRAK AUTO: Merger Pact Defines But Does Not Treat Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Under cover of Form 8-K, TRAK AUTO CORP. filed a copy of its
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 11, 1999, under
which Trak Auto proposes to merge into HalArt, L.L.C. and HalArt
(Delaware), Inc.

The Merger Agreement sets forth "Class Actions" as a defined term
in Section 1.03 to mean:

     "the class action litigation captioned Richard Amezcua,
     Augustin Dominquez, and other members of the general public
     similarly situated v. Trak Auto Corporation, Superior Court
     of the State of California, Action No. BC183900 and
     D'Artanyon Tett, Linda Wendt and individuals on behalf of
     themselves and all others similarly situated v. Trak Auto
     Corporation, Superior Court of the State of California,
     Action No. BC 186931,"

but makes no further use of that defined term.




                           *********

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  * * *