CAR_Public/990331.MBX             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 31, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 39

                           Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Frequent Flyer & Passenger Suits Press Forward
AUDITOR LIABILITY: Waste Management Settlement Illustrative
CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Shapiro Haber Files Suit in Massachusetts
CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Savett Frutkin Files Suit in Massachusetts
CARDINAL HEALTH: Antitrust Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal Order

CHS ELECTRONICS: Neuwelt Firm Files Complaint in Florida
COMMERICAL CREDIT: Continues Defense of Lending Practice Suits
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Complaint in Texas
ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Suit in Iowa
GIBSON GREETINGS: Settles 1994 Shareholder Claims for $850,000

GK INTELLIGENT: Day Edwards Files Complaint in [Oklahoma]
JOSLYN MANUFACTURER: Insurer Will Cover Chemical Exposure Claims
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Seeking Mandamus on Certification of Class
PARTY CITY: Bernstein Litowitz Files Complaint in New Jersey
PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in Washington

PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Washington
PLUM CREEK: Unitholder Litigation Halts Conversion Transaction
PROLONG INTERNATIONAL: With Injunction in Place, Mediation Starts
PUBLIX SUPER: Company Dogged by Employment Discrimination Claims
RITE-AID: Liebenberg & White File Complaint in Pennsylvania

TOBACCO LITIGTAION: Florida Judge Knocks 37 Disease & Conditions
TOBACCO LITIGATION: 3rd Cir. Dismisses Penna. Union Fund Cases
Y2K LITIGATION: Judiciary Committee Approves Limiting Liability

                           *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Frequent Flyer & Passenger Suits Press Forward
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest annual report, AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., relates the
status of the four material class action proceedings in which it
was involved at year-end.

     (A) In January 1985, American announced a new fare category,
the "Ultimate SuperSaver," a discount, advance purchase fare that
carried a 25 percent penalty upon cancellation. On December 30,
1985, a class action lawsuit was filed in Circuit Court, Cook
County, Illinois entitled Johnson vs. American Airlines, Inc. The
Johnson plaintiff alleges that the 10 percent federal excise
transportation tax should have been excluded from the "fare" upon
which the 25 percent penalty was assessed. Summary judgment was
granted in favor of American but subsequently reversed and
vacated by the Illinois Appellate Court. In August 1997, the
Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
American is vigorously defending the lawsuit.

     (B) In connection with its frequent flyer program, American
was sued in two purported class action cases (Wolens et al v.
American Airlines, Inc. and Tucker v. American Airlines, Inc.)
that were consolidated and are currently pending in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois. The litigation arises from
certain changes made to American's AAdvantage frequent flyer
program in May 1988 which limited the number of seats available
to participants traveling on certain awards. In the consolidated
action, the plaintiffs seek to represent all persons who joined
the AAdvantage program before May 1988 and accrued mileage
credits before the seat limitations were introduced and allege
that these changes breached American's contract with AAdvantage
members. Plaintiffs seek money damages and attorney's fees. The
complaint originally asserted several state law claims, however
only the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim remains after the
U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the Airline Deregulation Act
preempted the other claims. Although the case has been pending
for numerous years, it still is in its preliminary stages. The
court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. American is vigorously defending the lawsuit.

     (C) Gutterman et al. v. American Airlines, Inc. is also
pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In
December 1993, American announced that the number of miles
required to claim a certain travel award under American's
AAdvantage frequent flyer program would be increased effective
February 1, 1995, giving rise to the Gutterman litigation filed
on that same date. The Gutterman plaintiffs claim that the
increase in award mileage level violated the terms and conditions
of the agreement between American and AAdvantage members. On June
23, 1998, the Court certified the case as a class action,
although to date no notice has been sent to the class. The class
consists of all members who earned miles between January 1, 1992
and February 1, 1995 (the date the change became effective). On
July 13, 1998, the Court denied American's motion for summary
judgment as to the claims brought by plaintiff Steven Gutterman.
On July 30, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment as to liability, which motion has not been ruled upon.
American is vigorously defending the lawsuit.

     (D) On August 7, 1998, a purported class action was filed
against American Airlines in state court in Travis County, Texas
(Boon Ins. Agency v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.) claiming
that the $75 reissuance fee for changes to non-refundable tickets
is an unenforceable liquidated damages clause and seeking a
refund of the fee on behalf of all passengers who paid it, as
well as interest and attorneys' fees. On September 23, 1998,
Continental, Delta and America West were added as defendants to
the lawsuit. On February 2, 1999, prior to any discovery being
taken and a class being certified, the court granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment holding that Plaintiff's
claims are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. Plaintiff
has filed an appeal of the dismissal of the lawsuit. American
intends to vigorously defend the granting of the summary judgment
on appeal.


AUDITOR LIABILITY: Waste Management Settlement Illustrative
------------------------------------------------------------
The Baltimore Sun cited the $220 million offer in December
by Waste Management Inc. and its accounting firm Arthur
Andersen to settle a class action lawsuit as an example of the
growing trend of holding auditors liable for corporate financial
irregularities.  Approximately, 55 to 65 percent of the class
action security fraud lawsuits filed by investors last year
alleged accounting problems, up from 30 percent in the previous
year, according to Joseph A. Grundfest, a Stanford University
professor and former commissioner of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Among other complaints, critics claim that some auditors
have a conflict of interest and are willing to misrepresent
corporate results to preserve lucrative management consulting
contracts.  However, Richard Miller, general counsel of the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, challenged
that view. "I have never in all the cases that I've handled seen
where the errors were caused because of the consulting services
being done."  Mr. Miller was reported to say. The Baltimore Sun
also noted that a Securities and Exchange Commission panel last
month recommended reforming the auditing process to require
members to have greater expertise and independence to prevent
fraud.


CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Shapiro Haber Files Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit alleging securities fraud  has been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of  
Massachusetts against Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc.
(Nasdaq: CATP) and certain officers of the Company, by the  
Boston law firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.  The case was filed on
behalf of all  persons who purchased Cambridge common stock
during the period November 25,  1998 through March 18, 1999,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued a series of
false and  misleading statements during the class period, causing
Cambridge common stock  to trade at an artificially inflated
price.  Specifically, the complaint  alleges that Cambridge
issued statements reassuring the market that it was  successfully
implementing a reorganization program to correct "organizational  
missteps" that would return the company to profitability in the
near term.  On  March 18, 1999, after the market closed,
Cambridge shocked the market by  announcing that the Company's
reorganization plan was not having the stated  benefits which
resulted in slower than expected sales growth for the first  
quarter.  In response to the announcement, the price of Cambridge
stock  declined by more than 40% to a low as $12.00.


CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Savett Frutkin Files Suit 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 Cambridge Technology  Partners, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CATP) at artificially  inflated prices during the period Nov. 25,
1998 through March 18, 1999.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws  (Section 10(b) and 20(a) of he 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 positive impact on the Company's problems in
its 1999  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 in excess of  $3,000,000. A substantial amount of
defendants' insider selling took place only  one month before
defendants' announcement on March 18, 1999 regarding the  failure
of the company's reorganization plan.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Antitrust Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In November 1993, Cardinal Health, Inc., Whitmire Corporation,
five other pharmaceutical wholesalers, and twenty-four
pharmaceutical manufacturers were named as defendants in a series
of purported class action antitrust lawsuits alleging violations
of various antitrust laws associated with the chargeback pricing
system. The trial of this matter began on September 23, 1998. On
November 19, 1998, after the close of plaintiffs' case-in-chief,
both the wholesaler defendants and the manufacturer defendants
moved for a Judgment as a Matter of Law in their favor. On
November 30, 1998, the Court granted both of these motions and
ordered judgment as a matter of law in favor of both the
wholesaler and the manufacturer defendants.  On January 25, 1999,
the class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District
Court's decision with the Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.  The Company believes that the allegations set forth
against Cardinal and Whitmire in these lawsuits are without
merit.


CHS ELECTRONICS: Neuwelt Firm Files Complaint in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Klari Neuwelt, on March 25, 1999, filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf  of purchasers of common
stock of CHS Electronics Inc. (NYSE: HS) from  June 19, 1998
through March 19, 1999.  

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.  The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period  CHS issued
materially false and misleading financial statements for the last  
three quarters of its 1998 fiscal year.  The financial statements
are alleged  to be false and misleading because they improperly
credited vendor rebates, in  violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles, thereby materially  overstating CHS'
profits.  The complaint alleges that the market price of CHS  
common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class
Period.  At the end of the Class Period, on March 22, 1999, CHS
announced that it would  restate and revise its overstated
financial results substantially downward.   Upon that
announcement, the market price of CHS stock plunged.


COMMERICAL CREDIT: Continues Defense of Lending Practice Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In June 1994, a putative class action lawsuit, entitled Princess
Nobels, et al., v. Associates Corporation of North America, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama claiming that charges for non-filing insurance violate
the Truth in Lending Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act.  Associates Corporation is a subsidiary of
publicly-held COMMERCIAL CREDIT CO.  

In May 1996, an additional putative class action entitled Keckler
v. Commercial Credit Corporation was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida with similar
allegations to the Nobels case. In February 1997, Keckler was
transferred to the Middle District of Alabama pursuant to a
multi-district litigation plan and was consolidated for pre-trial
purposes with Nobels. Keckler seeks a nationwide class action
with regard to the charges for non-filing insurance by all of the
Company's subsidiaries other than those in Alabama. In November
1997, the plaintiffs in Nobels were granted leave to amend the
complaint to embrace a nationwide class, which is essentially
duplicative of the class described in Keckler. In September 1998,
the court ordered the parties to submit to mediation with a
court-appointed mediator and has stayed all proceedings in the
action pending the outcome of the mediation process.

Beginning in June 1994, a number of putative class actions have
been filed against the Alabama subsidiary of the Company alleging
that premiums charged on credit life insurance were excessive.
These cases, which essentially duplicate each other, are:
Lawrence v. Commercial Credit Corporation, et al., filed in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama in June 1994; Royster
v. Commercial Credit Corporation, et al., filed in the Circuit
Court of Walker County, Alabama in September 1995; Hughes v.
Commercial Credit Corporation, filed in the Circuit Court of
Calhoun County, Alabama in July 1996; and Smith v. Commercial
Credit Corporation, filed in the Circuit Court of Walker County,
Alabama in December 1996. In December 1996, a settlement class
was conditionally certified in the Hughes case. But several
decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court cast doubt on whether that
Court has jurisdiction to entertain the settlement in Hughes. In
the event that it is determined that the Court in Hughes does not
have jurisdiction, the Lawrence case will proceed.

In October 1995, a putative class action entitled McCurdy v.
American General Finance was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Alabama on behalf of borrowers who
purchased credit property insurance from the Alabama subsidiary
of the Company.  The allegations in McCurdy are similar to those
in the above-referenced credit life cases.  In May 1997, a class
of Alabama purchasers of credit property insurance between 1993
and 1996 was certified. As with the Hughes case discussed above,
subsequent decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court cast doubt on
the viability of the claims in this action.

In September 1997, the Alabama subsidiary of the Company was
named as a defendant in a purported class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Marengo County, Alabama entitled Daniel, et al.
v. Commercial Credit Corporation.  Plaintiffs assert claims for
fraud and suppression of facts which defendant had a duty to
disclose in connection with the refinancing of loans or the
supposed practice of "flipping" loans. In January 1998, the
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals issued a decision which casts
doubt on the viability of the plaintiff's theory of liability in
this case.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Complaint in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit
before the United  States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of all  purchasers of the common
stock of Compaq Computer Corporation (NYSE:CPQ) from  January 27,
1999 through February 25, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Compaq and certain of its officers and
directors with  issuing false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's operating  results and business
prospects during the first quarter of 1999.


ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Suit in Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP announced that it had
filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
and call options of Engineering Animation Corporation (Nasdaq:
EAII) between February 19, 1998 and February 17, 1999, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Iowa.

The lawsuit asserts that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose material facts in the
Company's public filings and statements. These misrepresentations
and omissions were claimed to have artificially inflated the
price of Engineering Animation's common stock.


GIBSON GREETINGS: Settles 1994 Shareholder Claims for $850,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
     SUMMARY NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT                                               
                  Against Gibson Greetings, Inc.  

                   United States District Court
                For the Southern District of Ohio
                        Western Division

In Re                          ) Consolidated Master  
                               ) File No. C-1-94-445
Gibson Greetings               )
Securities Litigation          ) Judge Beckwith

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON  STOCK OF GIBSON
    GREETINGS, INC. ("GIBSON") AFTER APRIL 19, 1994 AND BEFORE
    JULY 1, 1994 AND WHO RETAINED THEIR SHARES AS OF JULY 1, 1994
    (THE "CLASS PERIOD").

     YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District  Court for the Southern District of Ohio dated
March 17, 1999, that a hearing  will be held on May 24, 1999, at
9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Sandra S.  Beckwith, United States
District Judge, Room 810, Potter Stewart U.S.  Courthouse, 100
East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, among other things,  
to determine

   (1) whether the proposed settlement of the above litigation
       for the principal amount of $850,000 in cash plus interest
       should be approved by  the Court as fair, reasonable and
       adequate;

   (2) whether the allocation of the  Settlement Fund should be
       approved;

   (3) whether, thereafter, this litigation  should be dismissed
       with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of  
       Settlement dated as of March 16, 1999 and filed with the
       Court; and

   (4) whether  the application of Plaintiffs' counsel for the
       payment of attorneys' fees and  reimbursement of expenses
       incurred in connection with this action, together  with
       interest thereon, should be approved.

     Your rights may be affected by this litigation and the
settlement thereof. If  you are a Class Member and have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and  Proposed Settlement
of Class Action and Settlement Hearing and a copy of the  Proof
of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by contacting the
Settlement  Administrator at:     

          In Re Gibson Greetings Securities Litigation     
          Settlement Administrator     
          P.O. Box 2176     
          Cincinnati, Ohio  45273     

     Class Counsel representing the class in this litigation are
Richard S. Wayne, Strauss & Troy, 2100 PNC Center, 201 East Fifth
Street,  Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP,
212 E. 39th Street, New  York, NY 10010; and Goodkind Labaton
Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, 100 Park Avenue,  New York, NY 10017-
5563.

     PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.     

                                 BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: March 17, 1999            /s/ Honorable Sandra S. Beckwith
                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                                      
                                 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO  


GK INTELLIGENT: Day Edwards Files Complaint in [Oklahoma]
---------------------------------------------------------
Day, Edwards, Federman, Propester &  Christensen, P.C. announced
that it filed an Amended Complaint in a securities  class-action
lawsuit on March 15, 1999 against GK Intelligent Systems, Inc.  
(Amex: GKI), and certain officers and directors in the United
States District  Court on behalf of purchasers of GK Intelligent
Systems, Inc., common stock during the period between February
10, 1998 and  September 14, 1998, inclusive.

The Amended Complaint charges GKI and certain officers and
directors with  violating the federal securities laws and common
law.  The Plaintiffs claim,  inter alia, that the Defendants
failed to disclose and misrepresented material  facts concerning
the Company's announced agreement with an Israeli company and  
issued press releases and public filings omitting certain
material information.   The Amended Complaint alleges that each
of the Defendants is liable as a  participant in the scheme and
course of business by disseminating materially  false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts. As a
result  of the false and misleading statements alleged,
Plaintiffs allege that the  price of GKI's common stock was
artificially inflated throughout the Class  Period.


JOSLYN MANUFACTURER: Insurer Will Cover Chemical Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joslyn Manufacturing Company, a subsidiary of publicly-held
DANAHER CORP., previously operated wood treating facilities that
chemically preserved utility poles, pilings and  railroad ties.  
All such treating operations were discontinued or sold prior
to 1982.  These facilities used wood preservatives that included
creosote, pentachlorophenol and chromium-arsenic-copper.  While
preservatives were handled in accordance with then existing law,
environmental law now imposes retroactive liability, in some
circumstances, on persons who owned or operated wood-treating
sites.  JMC is remediating some of its former sites and will
remediate other sites in the future.  

Additionally, JMC is a defendant in a class action tort suit,
Henry L. Johnson, et. al. v. Lincoln Creosote Company, Inc., et.
al., filed in the 26th Judicial District Court of the State of
Louisiana, in Bossier Parish, Louisiana.  The suit alleges
exposure to chemicals and property devaluation resulting from
wood treating operations previously conducted at a Louisiana
site.  Both the size of the class and the damages are uncertain.  
The Company has tendered the defense of the suit to its insurance
carrier.  JMC has reached agreement with its insurance carrier
which fixes its liability for this matter to a stated amount
which will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations or financial condition.


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Seeking Mandamus on Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Effective January 31, 1998, O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., acquired
100% of the outstanding capital stock of Hi-Lo Automotive, Inc.
and its subsidiaries.  That acquisition brought O'Reilly into
litigation as a result of a complaint filed against Hi/LO in May
1997 by Charles Beresky.

The plaintiff in this lawsuit sought to certify a class action on
behalf of persons or entities in the States of Texas, Louisiana
and California that have purchased a battery from Hi/LO since May
1990. The complaint alleges that Hi/LO offered and sold "old,"
"used" and "out of warranty" batteries as if the batteries
were new, resulting in claims for violations of deceptive trade
practices, breach of contract, negligence, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of warranty. The plaintiff is
seeking, on behalf of the class, an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and
pre- and post-judgment interest.

On July 27, 1998, the Trial Court certified this class. O'Reilly
appealed the decision to certify the class in the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas. On February 25, 1999,
the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the Trial
Court's decision to certify the class. O'Reilly intends to
contest this ruling by seeking a mandamus from the Supreme Court
of Texas. O'Reilly believes that the accusations made in this
case are unfounded, and intends to defend this lawsuit
vigorously. Although the extent of damages suffered by any member
of the class is arguably minimal, it is difficult at this stage
of the case to determine the likely outcome of the case or to
quantify the risk that we face from this litigation.


PARTY CITY: Bernstein Litowitz Files Complaint in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, on March 29, 1999,
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on  behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Party City Corporation (NASDAQ:  PCTY), from July
9, 1998 through March 18,  1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Party City, 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, defendants issued materially  
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's ability
to implement  its aggressive acquisition program. As a result of
the issuance of these  statements, the price of Party City common
stock was artificially inflated  during the Class Period,
providing an opportunity for certain officers and  directors of
the Company to sell 93,500 shares of Party City common stock to  
the investing public at artificially inflated prices, and realize
proceeds from  these sales of approximately $1.5 million.


PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine commenced a class action proceeding in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of all persons who  purchased the common
stock of PathoGenesis Corp. (Nasdaq: PGNS) between January 26,
1999 and March 22, 1999, inclusive.  

The complaint charges PathoGenesis and certain officers of the
Company with  violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.   The complaint alleges that
defendants issued a series of materially false and  misleading
statements during the class period about the market for its  
principal product, tobramycin solution for inhalation (TOBI).  On
March 22,  1999, the Company revealed that sales for the first
quarter would only be about  $10 million, and that it expected to
report a net loss of $0.30 per share  versus analysts' consensus
estimates of a $0.20 profit.  In addition, the  Company said
sales for the year would likely be in the $62-$63 million range
as  opposed to $90-$100 million.  As a result of this
announcement, the stock price  fell on March 23rd by over 22
points, from approximately $34 per share to $12  per share on
volume of over 22 million shares.


PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit on March
29, 1999, in the United States District Court for the Western
District of  Washington on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of PathoGenesis Corp. (NASDAQ:PGNS) between  
January 26, 1999 through March 22, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges PathoGenesis and certain officers 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 alleges that defendants issued a  series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the market
for  its principal product tobramycin solution for inhalation
(TOBI). On March 22,  1999, the Company announced that sales for
the first quarter would only be  about $10 million, and that it
expected to report a net loss of $0.30 per share  versus
consensus estimates of a $0.20 profit. In addition, the Company
said  sales for the year would likely be in the $62-$63 million
range as opposed to  $90-$100 million. As a result of this
announcement, the stock price fell on  March 23, 1999 by over 22
points, from approximately $34 per share to $12 per  share on
volume of over 22 million shares.


PLUM CREEK: Unitholder Litigation Halts Conversion Transaction
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 11, 1998, a PLUM CREEK TIMBER CO., L.P., Unitholder,
individually and as a purported representative of all Unitholders
as of June 8, 1998, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against the
Partnership, the General Partner and Advisory Corp., alleging
that the General Partner's receipt of a 27% equity interest in
the REIT violates the General Partner's and Advisory Corp's
fiduciary duties to the Unitholders.  The Action also challenges
the General Partner's and Advisory Corp's receipt of certain
special voting and board nomination rights in the Conversion
Transaction.  

On December 17, 1998, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
Plum Creek Defendants' motion to dismiss.  On January 11, 1999,
the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware with respect to the Action.  The Plum Creek
Defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously in
connection with this appeal.

On February 8, 1999, the Plaintiff in the Action, individually
and as a purported representative of all Unitholders, filed a
second purported class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the Plum Creek Defendants.  This new action
alleges that the Partnership's proxy statement/prospectus,
included in a registration statement filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 28, 1999, is false and
misleading.  The proxy statement/prospectus has been provided to
all Unitholders of record as of January 22, 1999 in connection
with the Special Meeting of Unitholders scheduled for March 22,
1999, at which approval of the Conversion Transaction will be
sought.  The Plaintiff claims that, through alleged misstatements
and omissions, the General Partner and its affiliate have
breached a fiduciary duty of candor to the Unitholders.  The
Plaintiff seeks:

       (i) to enjoin the Conversion Transaction,

      (ii) in the event the Conversion Transaction is
           consummated, to rescind and set aside the transaction
           or award rescissory damages to the purported class,

     (iii) an accounting to the purported class for their alleged
           damages and the Plum Creek Defendants'alleged profits,

      (iv) costs, including experts' and attorneys' fees, and

       (v) such further relief as the Court deems just and    
           proper.

The Plum Creek Defendants dispute the Plaintiff's allegations and
intend to defend themselves vigorously.

The General Partners' decision to proceed with the Conversion
Transaction is in the sole discretion of the General Partner,
subject to receipt of the requisite Unitholder's approval and
satisfaction of the other conditions precedent in the Conversion
Agreement.  The General Partner currently expects to delay the
consummation of the Conversion Transaction until the Action,
including the appeal and any additional claims that may be
brought, is fully resolved to the General Partners' satisfaction.


PROLONG INTERNATIONAL: With Injunction in Place, Mediation Starts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On February 5, 1998, PROLONG INTERNATIONAL CORP. entered into a
definitive agreement with EPL Pro-Long, Inc., a California
Corporation ("EPL"), under which PIC purchased the business
assets of EPL.  Under the terms of the agreement, PIC purchased
the principal assets and assumed certain liabilities of EPL for
approximately 2,981,035 shares of PIC's common stock.  With the
purchase, PIC acquired the patents for the AFMT technology and
related trademarks and, as a result, currently owns the
exclusive, worldwide rights to manufacture, sell and distribute
lubrication and other products based on AFMT and to use the
"Prolong" name.  Prior to this transaction, PIC, through PSL,
held an exclusive license from EPL to use AFMT and the "Prolong"
name.  

This transaction closed on November 20, 1998.  

On November 25, 1998, the U.S. District Court in San Diego,
California granted a temporary restraining order without a
hearing in response to a class action filed by a group of
plaintiffs representing less than 2% of the outstanding shares of
EPL's common stock against PIC, PSL, EPL and their respective
former and current officers and directors.  Following a hearing
on December 30, 1998, the Court entered a preliminary injunction,
which enjoins the further consummation of the asset purchase
transaction and prevents EPL from completing its liquidation and
dissolution until further notice from the Court.

While PIC, PSL, and their respective current officers and
directors believe there is no merit to the plaintiffs' claims,
the parties have agreed to attempt to mediate the dispute.  
Mediation conferences are underway, but resolution of
the matter cannot presently be determined.

In another matter, on or about November 17, 1998, Michael Walczak
et al, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
shareholders of EPL filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court in San Diego, California against PIC, PSL, EPL and their
respective former and current officers and directors.  The named
plaintiffs allege breach of contract, certain fraud claims, civil
RICO, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion and seek monetary
damages.  The named plaintiffs in the action are allegedly
current EPL shareholders who hold less than two percent (2%) of
the outstanding shares of EPL's common stock, in the aggregate.  
The plaintiffs applied for a preliminary injunction to halt the
sale of the assets of EPL to PIC and to prevent the dissolution
of EPL.

On November 25, 1998, the Court granted a temporary restraining
order without a hearing and before opposition could be submitted.  
On December 30, 1998, the Court held a hearing on whether a
preliminary injunction should be issued in connection with such
action.  The Court entered a preliminary injunction based on the
plaintiffs' (a) alleged claim for fraudulent conveyance in
connection with PSL's license agreement with EPL and (b) alleged
claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  The preliminary injunction
enjoins the further consummation of the asset purchase
transaction and prevents EPL from completing its liquidation and
dissolution until further notice from the Court.  The preliminary
injunction will last until the case is tried on its merits or
until the preliminary injunction is otherwise dismissed.  The
Court ordered the plaintiffs to post a bond in the amount of
$100,000, which bond has been posted. PIC has appealed the
Court's preliminary injunction ruling.

PIC and PSL and their respective current officers and directors
continue to believe that there is no merit to the plaintiff's
claims and plan to vigorously defend against the claims.  The
defendants have each filed and served motions to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. These motions are scheduled for determination in April
1999.  The defendants successfully moved to change venue and the
case has just been ordered transferred to the federal court in
Orange County, California, where PIC's principal office is
located.  The parties have agreed to attempt to mediate the
dispute.  They are engaged in settlement discussions in an effort
to resolve the matter.  However, it is too early to tell whether
an acceptable settlement can be reached.


PUBLIX SUPER: Company Dogged by Employment Discrimination Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported  class action was filed against PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS,
INC., on April 3, 1997 in the Federal  District Court for the
Middle  District of Florida by Lemuel  Middleton  and 15 other  
present  or former  employees  of the  Company, individually  and
on  behalf  of  all  other  persons  similarly  situated.  In
their Complaint,  the plaintiffs allege that the Company
has  and  is  currently   engaged  in  a  pattern  and  practice  
of  race-based discriminatory  treatment  of black  employees  
and  applicants  with respect to hiring,  promotion,  job  
assignment,   conditions  of  employment,   and  other employment  
aspects,  all in violation  of Federal and state law.  
Subsequently, three  of the  named  plaintiffs  withdrew  their  
claims  with  prejudice.  The plaintiffs  sought,  among other
relief,  a certification of the suit as a class action,  
declaratory and injunctive  relief,  back pay, front pay,  
benefits and other compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

On June 15, 1998, a Federal magistrate judge recommended
certification as a class action of claims in the Middleton  case  
relating only to Publix's  retail stores in Florida and Georgia.  
Publix and the plaintiffs  have both objected to the
recommendation, with Publix asking that no class be certified and
plaintiffs asking that the class be expanded.  The  plaintiffs  
have also moved to drop all claims for  compensatory  and  
punitive  damages  asserted in the  lawsuit  and, therefore, to
withdraw their demand for a jury trial.

On November 6, 1997,  another  purported class action was filed
against the Company in the Court by Shirley Dyer and five other
present or former  employees of the  Company,  individually  and
on  behalf of all  other  persons  similarly situated.  In their
Complaint,  the plaintiffs allege that the Company has violated
and is currently  violating  Federal and state civil rights
statutes by discriminating  against female employees and
applicants with respect to  hiring,  promotion,  training,   
compensation,   discipline,   demotion  and termination, and/or
retaliation for bringing allegations of discrimination.  The
plaintiffs  have  moved to  certify a class of all  female  
current,  former and future Company  employees and  applicants in
all of the Company's  manufacturing plants and distribution  
centers with respect to certain claims.  The plaintiffs
seek,  among other relief,  declaratory and injunctive  relief,  
back pay, front pay, benefits and other compensatory  damages,
and punitive damages. The parties have  briefed  issues  relating  
to class  certification  and await the  Court's ruling.

On December 8, 1998,  another  purported class action was filed
against the Company  in the Court by  Charlene  Jones,  
individually  and on behalf of other persons similarly  situated.  
In her Complaint,  the plaintiff alleges that the Company has
violated  and is  currently  violating  Federal and
state civil rights  statutes by  discriminating  against  female  
applicants for employment in the Company's  manufacturing plants
and distribution  centers. The plaintiffs  in the Jones and Dyer
cases have asked the Court to combine  the two cases.

The Company denies the allegations of the plaintiffs in the
Middleton, Dyer and Jones cases and is vigorously defending the
actions.


RITE-AID: Liebenberg & White File Complaint in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liebenberg & White commenced a class action securities suit on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Rite Aid Corporation  
(NYSE: RAD), between December 14, 1998 and March  11, 1999,
inclusive, in the United States District Court  for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  

The lawsuit alleges violations of  the federal securities laws
and names as defendants the Company and its  Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Martin L. Grass. The Complaint asserts that
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The lawsuit alleges that defendants'  
material misrepresentations and omissions caused the Company's
stock to trade  at artificially inflated levels during the Class
Period.  In summary, the  Complaint states that during the Class
Period defendants made materially false  and misleading
statements about charges associated with the Company's strategic  
exit plan, which include vacating certain markets, closing bantam
East Coast  stores and consolidating certain other store
locations.  The Complaint alleges  that these statements were
materially false and misleading and artificially  inflated the
price of Rite Aid common stock because they misled investors into  
believing that the charges would be sufficient and would lead to
the  enhancement of future results.  

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during  the Class Period
the defendants knew but failed to disclose that:

     (1) the costs  associated with opening and closing stores
         were running substantially higher  than initially
         projected and that as a consequence, future results,
         including  fourth quarter results for the period ended
         February 28, 1999, would be  severely impacted,

     (2) that severe start-up software problems were occurring at  
         Rite Aid's new distribution center in Perryman,
         Maryland, supplying 760 stores  in the mid-Atlantic
         region, which meant that the closing of the older  
         Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania distribution center would be
         delayed, leading to  substantial incremental costs in
         running both facilities at the same time,

     (3) that the implementation of a revised merchandising
         strategy during the quarter  would lead to markdowns and
         thereby negatively impact earnings, and

     (4) that  the Company's acquisition of PCS Health Systems
         was going to close in mid to  late January and as a
         result the Company would not be able to recognize any  
         fourth quarter benefits from synergies.

Defendants' announcement on March 12, 1999 that its earnings per
share would be  $.30 to $.32 per share, well short of First Call
analyst consensus estimates of  $.52 per share shocked the
marketplace.  The price of Rite Aid's common stock  plummeted
from $37 per share to close at $22 9/16 per share, a plunge of
$14  7/16 per share or over 39%, on enormous volume of 47 million
shares.


TOBACCO LITIGTAION: Florida Judge Knocks 37 Disease & Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
>From Miami, Florida, the Associated Press reports that sick
Florida smokers suing tobacco companies and industry groups won't
be allowed to make claims for 37 diseases and conditions after a  
judge's ruling in the first class-action lawsuit by smokers to
reach trial.  The health problems, the AP reports, include
repeated sore throats, skin cancer, burned nasal  passages,
tumors originating in the heart, and kidney cancer.    

The diseases were excluded because the smokers' attorneys,
Stanley and Susan Rosenblatt, didn't present evidence that
smoking causes the illnesses, Circuit  Judge Robert Kaye said in
a ruling released Friday.  Also excluded were malignant carcinoid
tumors and sarcomas of the lung.  Dr. Kasi Sridhar, professor of
medicine and president of the medical staff at the University of
Miami's Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, explained those
are rare conditions and no one really knows their causes, the AP
relates.  The Rosenblatts represent as many as half a million
Florida smokers who  blame cigarettes for their illnesses, saying
they were never warned exactly how  dangerous smoking is. They
are seeking at least $200 billion in damages.    

Judge Kaye has forbidden lawyers and parties to the case to
discuss it with  reporters, the AP notes.  

Opening statements in the trial were held Oct. 19. Tobacco
lawyers began  presenting their case March 1.  The defendants are
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Inc., Lorillard  Tobacco
Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and Liggett Group Inc., as
well  as the Tobacco Institute and the Council for Tobacco
Research.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: 3rd Cir. Dismisses Penna. Union Fund Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting in
Philadelphia, this week affirmed the dismissal of a class action
brought by seven labor union health and welfare funds in  
Pennsylvania.  The funds were seeking reimbursement for
potentially hundreds of  millions of dollars in costs
attributable to the alleged smoking-related  illnesses of their
members.  

"We are delighted that the highest court yet to rule on these
contrived  lawsuits has concluded that the funds' claims are
totally without merit," said  Steven B. Rissman, assistant
general counsel for Philip Morris. "This decision  reinforces and
extends rulings from more than a dozen federal district courts  
which in the past year have dismissed similar cases on the
grounds that union  funds and other insurers are simply too far
removed from the alleged harm to  bring direct claims against the
tobacco industry.  

"Today's decision in the Steamfitters case should prove to be as
decisive a  blow to the so-called health care reimbursement suits
as the Fifth Circuit's  1996 Castano decision was to smoker class
actions," Rissman said. "It is clear  from Chief Judge Becker's
43-page opinion that the laws in this country do not  go out the
window merely because a defendant may be politically unpopular.
This  result, therefore, should not be viewed simply as a win for
the tobacco  industry. It is a victory for our judicial system as
a whole."  

Of the 70 or so union fund cases filed by plaintiffs' contingency
fee lawyers  against the tobacco industry, only one - known as
the Ohio Ironworkers case -  has proceeded to trial.  Less than
two weeks ago, a unanimous federal court jury in Akron, Ohio,
returned a verdict in favor of the major U.S. tobacco  
manufacturers after concluding that they were not liable for any
medical costs  paid by Ohio's union funds to treat the alleged
smoking-related illnesses of  their members.  

"In view of the Ohio experience, we are pleased that even when
judges fail to  apply the law and permit these cases to go to
trial, a jury will ultimately  reach the correct conclusion: that
these cases are baseless in both law and  fact," Rissman said.  
Additional labor fund appeals are pending in four other U.S.
Courts of Appeal.

The three-judge panel sitting for the 3rd Circuit, the Associated
Press relates, ruled unanimously that Judge John P. Fullam was
correct in his April 1998 ruling.  Fullam said the welfare funds
had no legal right to recover the millions of dollars in payments
because they had not spent their own money on sick smokers.    
The private funds, which allow union workers to maintain health
benefits as  they change companies, represent more than 7,500
blue-collar workers and  retirees.    

In the suit, the AP explains, the union welfare funds argued that
the tobacco industry  intentionally targeted less educated, blue-
collar workers with special  advertising and promotional
campaigns featuring images such as Joe Camel and  the Marlboro
Man.    


Y2K LITIGATION: Judiciary Committee Approves Limiting Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that the Senate
Judiciary Committee has approved a bill that would put limits on
class-action lawsuits related to year 2000 computer breakdowns.
However, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the Republican sponsor, noted
that supporters of the bill must overcome Democratic resistance.
"I know that no Y2K bill that is not bipartisan is going to
pass," he said. According to the report, Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
D-Calif., a co-sponsor of the bill, was the only Democrat on the
committee to vote for the measure. The Hatch-Feinstein bill would
also protect companies by allowing them a 90-day grace period to
fix computer problems before suits could proceed.


                           *********

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  * * *