CAR_Public/990407.MBX              C L A S S  A C T I O N  R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 7, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 44

                            Headlines

AMERICAN BINGO: Video Gaming Ruled Not to be an Illegal Lottery
BMC SOFTWARE: Spector & Roseman File Securities Complaint
BOCA RATON: Florida City May Ban Religious Monuments on Graves
CAMBRIDGE CORP.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Massachusetts Suit
CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Massachusetts Suit

CHS ELECTRONICS: Fleming & Associates File Complaint in Florida
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Spector & Roseman File Complaint in Texas
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Weinstein Kitchenoff Files Complaint in Texas
COMPLETE MANAGEMENT: Schatz & Nobel File Complaint in New York
GAMETECH INTERNATIONAL: May 24 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss

GLENBOROUGH REALTY: Supreme Court May End REIT Litigation
LASER TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Colorado
LOUISIANA PACIFIC: ABT Hardboard Litigation and Cost Allocation
MBNA AMERICA: Discloses Trade Practices Suits in Note Offering
NORTH FACE: Milberg, Weiss Files Complaint in Colorado

OKLAHOMA PRISONS: April Hearing for Medical Neglect Case
ORBITAL SCIENCES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Virginia
PARTY CITY: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in New Jersey
SMART CHOICE: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Florida
SUN HEALTHCARE: Medicare Problems Create "Cottage Industry"

SUN HEALTHCARE: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in New Mexico
Y2K LITIGATION: Changing Diversity Rule May Swamp Federal Courts

                            *********

AMERICAN BINGO: Video Gaming Ruled Not to be an Illegal Lottery
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997 a subsidiary of AMERICAN BINGO & GAMING CORP. was named
a defendant (among many other video gaming operators) in a legal
action in the Federal U.S. District Court in Columbia, South
Carolina filed by video poker players. This action alleges
various wrongful acts by the defendants, including allegations
that certain of the defendants' video gaming operations in South
Carolina: i) comprise a lottery, which violates the state
constitution; ii) violate the state's daily net video gaming
machine payout limit of $125 per player; iii) violate the
state's single premise rule which only allows up to five video
gaming machines per premise; and iv) violate the state's
prohibition against beer and wine permit holders allowing
gambling or games of chance. The plaintiffs in this action are
attempting to have this action certified as a class action
lawsuit. The plaintiffs seek to recover the money lost from
playing video poker and to restrict or otherwise limit in
various respects the manner in which video gaming operations are
conducted in South Carolina.

The District Judge certified questions for an advisory opinion
of the South Carolina Supreme Court regarding whether video
gaming constitutes an illegal lottery in South Carolina. The
Supreme Court issued an opinion in November 1998 stating that
video gaming does not constitute an illegal lottery. Other
issues in this case are still pending in the District Court. The
Company believes that this action is completely without merit
and will defend itself vigorously. If this case were to be
decided against the Company, it would likely have a material
adverse effect on the financial position and operations of the
Company.


BMC SOFTWARE: Spector & Roseman File Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Spector & Roseman, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of BMC Software, Inc. (Nasdaq:
BMCS), between April 16, 1998 and Feb. 25, 1999.

The complaint charges BMC and certain of its officers and
directors with violating the federal securities laws by
materially misstating BMC's financial results. It alleges that
BMC acquired BGS Software in February 1998, and accounted for
the transaction as a pooling of interests. The pooling of
interest method of accounting requires that the financial
results of the "pooled" companies be combined for financial
statement reporting purposes. However, defendants chose not to
include BGS's results in BMC's financial statements as they were
required to do, thus overstating BMC's reported financial
results.

Later, defendants admitted that BGS's results should have been
included in BMC's financial reports, and as a result, they were
restating BMC's prior reported financial results. The complaint
alleges that defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing
that BMC's reported financial results were overstated.

Moreover, BMC's materially inflated earnings, revenue and growth
rate caused BMC's stock price to be artificially inflated. Prior
to the announcement of the restatement, certain defendants sold
more than 216,000 shares of their own BMC stock, netting
proceeds in excess of $10 million.


BOCA RATON: Florida City May Ban Religious Monuments on Graves
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a federal judge ruled that
the city of Boca Raton can tear down crosses, stars of David and
other monuments on grave sites in the city's municipal cemetery
because the decorations are not essential for religious
practice. The ruling was reported to be the first of its kind in
the nation, and the first under Florida's Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1998, which says governments cannot impose a
"substantial burden" on people's freedom of religious
expression.

The AP says that Judge Kenneth Ryskamp ruled that families who
decorated the final resting places of their loved ones with
religious symbols, plants, stones and other items will not have
their religious rights trampled if they cannot keep the
decorations. According to the story, Boca Raton permits only a
horizontal plaque at the foot of each grave in the city
cemetery. The city reportedly claimed the religious monuments
were an obstacle for maintenance workers and violated long-
standing but seldom-enforced rules against vertical decorations.

The Associated Press explained that about 400 families sued the
city to stop the removal of the items. "We clearly are going to
appeal," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American
Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which had filed the class-
action lawsuit.

The AP noted that the judge offered several reasons for ruling
against the families, who claimed they were never given a copy
of the cemetery's regulations. First, he said, there are
Catholic and Jewish cemeteries with similar regulations
prohibiting large or vertical grave coverings or statues, and
those cemeteries haven't been found to impede religious
expression. The judge also said the families do not own the
cemetery plots; rather, they own the rights to burial in that
public land.

According to the AP story, Beverly Pohl, an attorney for the
city, said the city may remove the items, but probably will hold
off until the appeals are exhausted.


CAMBRIDGE CORP.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Massachusetts Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced by Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Cambridge Corporation (Nasdaq: CATP) between November
25, 1998 and March 18, 1999, in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint charges Cambridge and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts in the Company's public filings and
public statements. As a result of these misrepresentations and
omissions, the price of Cambridge's common stock was
artificially inflated


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

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

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and
omissions, the price of Cambridge's stock was artificially
inflated. Later, the Company announced that its reorganization
plan was not having the benefits defendants stated it had and
that as a result its sales were still well down. Meanwhile
defendants took advantage of the stock's artificially inflated
price to sell significant amounts of their own holdings for
proceeds of over $3,139,000.


CHS ELECTRONICS: Fleming & Associates File Complaint in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. and the Law Offices of Mark McNair
have filed a class action lawsuit against CHS Electronics, Inc.
(NYSE: HS) charging CHS with overstating its revenues and
earnings. The case was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division on behalf
of all who purchased the common stock of CHS during the period
June 19, 1998 through and March 19, 1999.

The action charges CHS and certain officers and directors with
issuing a series of false and misleading statements concerning
CHS's revenue and net income. Such material misstatements and
deceptions by CHS and the individual defendants forced the
Company to restate its 2Q and 3Q of Fiscal 1998 as well as its
preliminary results for its 4Q. CHS has admitted that it
overstated vendor rebates for the 2Q, 3Q and 4Q and that some of
the overstated vendor rebates were supported by "invalid
documentation." Because of the issuance of such false and
misleading statements, the price of CHS common stock was
artificially inflated. On March 22, 1999, CHS's stock price fell
to $3.938, down 79.2% from its recent high of $19.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Spector & Roseman File Complaint in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Spector & Roseman, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of persons who purchased shares of Compaq Computer Corporation
(NYSE:CPQ) common stock between Jan. 27, 1999 and February 25,
1999. The lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Plaintiffs charge Compaq, its President and Chief Executive
Officer, Eckhard Pfeiffer, and its Chief Financial Officer, Earl
L. Mason, with violating the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information
regarding weakening demand in certain market sectors which led
to slower sales of Compaq's products in those markets.

The complaint alleges that at the same time that Compaq was
experiencing a slow down in sales to small and medium size
businesses, particularly in North America and Europe, defendants
repeatedly made statements to the market directly and through
securities analysts that demand for Compaq's products and
services remained strong. Mr. Mason and other executives of the
Company took advantage of the inflated stock price by selling
hundreds of thousands of Compaq shares while those shares were
trading at inflated prices. When Compaq belatedly revealed the
slow down to the market, the price of Compaq shares plummeted,
and investors who purchased shares of Compaq common stock
suffered losses.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Weinstein Kitchenoff Files Complaint in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato & Goldman Ltd. and Caddell &
Chapman filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of persons who
purchased shares of Compaq Computer Corporation (NYSE: CPQ)
common stock between January 27, 1999, and February 25, 1999.
The lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The complaint charges Compaq, its President and Chief Executive
Officer, Eckhard Pfeiffer, and its Chief Financial Officer, Earl
L. Mason, with violating the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information
regarding a slowdown in sales of Compaq products in certain
market sectors in North America and Europe. It alleges that
despite the known slowdown in sales, defendants repeatedly made
statements to the market, directly and through securities
analysts, that demand for Compaq's products and services
remained strong.

The complaint further alleges defendants' violations of law
caused the price of Compaq stock to be artificially inflated.
When Compaq belatedly revealed the sales slowdown, the price of
Compaq shares plummeted. Recent investors who purchased shares
of Compaq common stock have been damaged by defendants' wrongful
conduct. However, Mr. Mason and other Compaq executives
benefited by selling hundreds of thousands of their personal
Compaq shares just prior to the revelation of the sales
slowdown.


COMPLETE MANAGEMENT: Schatz & Nobel File Complaint in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed by Schatz & Nobel, P.C. in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities (stock,
debentures or bonds) of Complete Management Inc. (OTC:CPMI) from
May 1, 1996 to August 13, 1998.

The Complaint charges that CMI and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, knowingly or
recklessly making misrepresentations about the Company's
financial condition.

The Complaint alleges that CMI improperly recognized revenue on
uncollectible receivables from its largest customer, Greater
Metropolitan Medical Services ("GMMS"), a related party, in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As a
result of this conduct, CMI announced on August 19, 1998 that it
would be writing off $28.9 million in management fees due from
GMMS and would be severing its relationship with them.

The Complaint further alleges that by making these material
misrepresentations, the Defendants artificially inflated the
price of the Company's common stock. The auditor of CMI's
financial statements and various underwriters of securities
issued by CMI in public offerings are also named as defendants.


GAMETECH INTERNATIONAL: May 24 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------
On February 13, 1998, a purported securities class action
complaint, WEISS V. GAMETECH INTERNATIONAL, INC., No. 98-0268
PHX-ROS, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona against the Company and certain officers and
directors alleging that defendants violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by making false misleading statements and
omissions in GameTech's Form S-1 Registration Statement in
connection with the Company's public offering on November 25,
1997. Two other complaints making nearly identical factual
allegations have been consolidated with the WEISS action for all
purposes as IN RE GAMETECH, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master
File No. Civ. 98-0268 PHX-ROS. On July 17, 1998, the Court
appointed "lead plaintiff" and co-lead counsel.

On September 21, 1998, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint, alleging a claim against the Company and the
individual defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act and
a claim against the individual defendants under Section 15 of
the Securities Act, based upon the conduct alleged in the
original complaints. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages.

On November 5, 1998, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
Defendants' motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard by the
Court on May 24, 1999. There has been no discovery to date and
no trial is scheduled in this action. Defendants believe that
there is no merit to plaintiffs' allegations and intend to
defend the action vigorously.


GLENBOROUGH REALTY: Supreme Court May End REIT Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Glenborough Realty Trust, Inc., and Glenborough Properties,
L.P., settled a class action complaint filed on February 21,
1995 in connection with the consolidation of various limited
partnerships into a newly-formed REIT. Certain parties objected
to the settlement, but the settlement has been approved (or
review denied) by the Superior Court of the State of California
in and for San Mateo County, the California state court of
appeals, and the California Supreme Court.

In August 1998 the objecting parties filed a petition for writ
of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. The
Company and the co-defendants filed a brief in opposition to the
petition. The Supreme Court of the United States has not yet
granted or denied the petition

The plaintiff in the case is Anthony E. Blumberg, an investor in
Equitec B, one of the Partnerships included in the
Consolidation, on behalf of himself and all others (the
"Blumberg Action") similarly situated. The defendants are GC,
Glenborough Realty Corporation ("GRC"), Robert Batinovich, the
Partnerships and the Company.

The complaint alleged breaches by the defendants of their
fiduciary duty and duty of good faith and fair dealing to
investors in the Partnerships. The complaint sought injunctive
relief and compensatory damages. The complaint alleged that the
valuation of Glenborough Corporation was excessive and was done
without appraisal of Glenborough Corporation's business or
assets. The complaint further alleged that the interest rate for
the Notes to be issued to investors in lieu of shares of Common
Stock, if they so elected was too low for the risk involved and
that the Notes would likely sell, if at all, at a substantial
discount from their face value (as a matter entirely distinct
from the litigation and subsequent settlement, the Company, as
it had the option to, paid in full the amounts due plus interest
in lieu of issuing Notes).

On October 9, 1995 the parties entered into an agreement to
settle the action. The defendants, in entering into the
settlement agreement, did not acknowledge any fault, liability
or wrongdoing of any kind and continue to deny all material
allegations asserted in the litigation. Pursuant to the
settlement agreement, the defendants will be released from all
claims, known or unknown, that have been, could have been, or in
the future might be asserted, relating to, among other things,
the Consolidation, the acquisition of the Company's shares
pursuant to the Consolidation, any misrepresentation or omission
in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, filed by the Company
on September 1, 1994, as amended, or the prospectus contained
therein ("Prospectus/Consent Solicitation Statement"), or the
subject matter of the lawsuit.

In return, the defendants agreed to the following: (a) the
inclusion of additional or expanded disclosure in the Prospectus
Consent Solicitation Statement, and (b) the placement of certain
restrictions on the sale of the stock by certain insiders and
the granting of stock options to certain insiders following
consummation of the Consolidation. Plaintiff's counsel indicated
that it would request that the court award it $850,000 in
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. In addition, plaintiffs'
counsel indicated it would request the court for an award of
$5,000 payable to Anthony E. Blumberg as the class
representative. The defendants agreed not to oppose such
requests.

On October 11, 1995, the court certified the class for purposes
of settlement, and scheduled a hearing to determine whether it
should approve the settlement and class counsel's application
for fees. A notice of the proposed settlement was distributed to
the members of the class on November 15, 1995. The notice
specified that, in order to be heard at the hearing, any class
member objecting to the proposed settlement must, by December
15, 1995, file a notice of intent to appear, and a detailed
statement of the grounds for their objection.

Objections were received from a small number of class members.
The objections reiterated the claims in the original Blumberg
complaint, and asserted that the settlement agreement did not
adequately compensate the class for releasing those claims. One
of the objections was filed by the same law firm that brought
the BEJ Action described below.

At a hearing on January 17, 1996, the court heard the arguments
of the objectors seeking to overturn the settlement, as well as
the arguments of the plaintiffs and the defendants in defense of
the settlement. The court granted all parties a period of time
in which to file additional pleadings. On June 4, 1996, the
court granted approval of the settlement, finding it
fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable to the respective
parties to the settlement. However, the objectors gave notice of
their intent to appeal the June 4 decision. All parties filed
their briefs and a hearing was held on February 3, 1998. On
February 17, 1998, the Court of Appeals rejected the objectors'
contentions and upheld the settlement. The objectors filed with
the California Supreme Court a petition for review, which was
denied on May 21, 1998. On August 18, 1998, the objectors filed
a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the
United States. On September 18, 1998, the Company and the co-
defendants filed a brief in opposition to the petition. The
Supreme Court has not yet granted or denied the petition.

BEJ Equity Partners. On December 1, 1995, a second class action
complaint relating to the Consolidation was filed in Federal
District Court for the Northern District of California (the "BEJ
Action"). The plaintiffs in the BEJ Action have voluntarily
stayed the action pending resolution of the Blumberg Action.

The plaintiffs in the BEJ Action are BEJ Equity Partners, J/B
Investment Partners, Jesse B. Small and Sean O'Reilly as
custodian f/b/o Jordan K. O'Reilly, who as a group held limited
partner interests in certain of the Partnerships included in the
Consolidation known as Outlook Properties Fund IV, Glenborough
All Suites Hotels, L.P., Glenborough Pension Investors, Equitec
Income Real Estate Investors-Equity Fund 4, Equitec Income Real
Estate Investors C and Equitec Mortgage Investors Fund IV, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The
defendants are GRC, GC, the Company, GPA, Ltd., Robert
Batinovich and Andrew Batinovich. The Partnerships are named as
nominal defendants.

This action alleges the same disclosure violations and breaches
of fiduciary duty as were alleged in the Blumberg Action. The
complaint sought injunctive relief, which was denied at a
hearing on December 22, 1995. At that hearing, the court also
deferred all further proceedings in this case until after the
scheduled January 17, 1996 hearing in the Blumberg Action.
Following several stipulated extensions of time for the Company
to respond to the complaint, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the case. Plaintiffs in the BEJ Action voluntarily
stayed the action pending resolution of the Blumberg Action;
such plaintiffs can revive their lawsuit.

It is management's position that the BEJ Action, and the
objections to the settlement of the Blumberg Action, are without
merit, and management intends to pursue a vigorous defense in
both matters.


LASER TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed suit against
Laser Technology, Inc. (Amex: LSR) and certain corporate
insiders in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of all purchasers of Laser Technology
securities during the period of January 25, 1996 through
December 23, 1998.

The Complaint alleges that, by issuing false and misleading
statements to the public, Laser Technology and certain corporate
executives violated the federal securities laws and thereby
artificially inflated the value of the Company's securities and
damaged class members who acquired such securities. As result of
the Company's announcement that its independent public
accountants had resigned, trading of Laser Technology's common
stock halted on December 23, 1998. It was only on March 22,
1999, that the trading halt was finally lifted.

On December 28, 1998, the Company reported that their auditor
had resigned because it could "no longer rely on management's
representations" and was "unwilling to be associated" with the
Company's previously issued financial reports. A March 17, 1999
Company press release stated further that due to accounting
improprieties uncovered by an internal investigation relating to
certain transactions and payments, the Company's then President
and CEO had resigned from the Company's Board of Directors as
did the CFO, effective February 24, 1999.


LOUISIANA PACIFIC: ABT Hardboard Litigation and Cost Allocation
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABT Building Products Corporation (acquired by LOUISIANA PACIFIC
CORP. in January 1999), ABTco, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of ABT, Abitibi-Price Corporation, a predecessor of ABT, and
certain affiliates of Abitibi have been named as defendants in a
conditionally certified class action filed in Alabama state
court and six other putative class action proceedings filed in
various state courts from 1995 to 1998 and brought on behalf of
various persons or purported classes of persons (including
nationwide classes) who own or have purchased or used hardboard
siding manufactured or sold by the ABT Entities or the Abitibi
Entities.

In general, the plaintiffs in these proceedings have alleged
unfair business practices, breach of warranty, fraud,
misrepresentation, negligence, and other theories related to
alleged defects, deterioration, or other failure of such
hardboard siding, and seek unspecified compensatory, punitive,
and other damages, attorneys' fees and other relief. In
addition, Abitibi has been named in certain other actions, which
may result in liability to ABT under the allocation agreement
between ABT and Abitibi described below. Except in the case of
certain of the putative class actions that have been stayed, the
ABT Entities have filed answers in these proceedings that deny
all material allegations of the plaintiffs and assert
affirmative defenses. L-P intends to cause the ABT Entities to
defend these proceedings vigorously.

ABT and Abitibi have agreed to an allocation of liability with
respect to claims relating to (1) siding sold by the ABT
Entities after October 22, 1992, and (2) siding sold by the
Abitibi Entities on or before, or held as finished goods
inventory by the Abitibi Entities on, October 22, 1992. In
general, ABT and Abitibi have agreed that all amounts paid in
settlement or judgment (other than any punitive damages assessed
individually against either the ABT Entities or the Abitibi
Entities) following the completion of any claims process
resolving any class action claim (including consolidated cases
involving more than 125 homes owned by named plaintiffs) shall
be paid (a) 100% by ABT insofar as they relate to ABT Board, (b)
65% by Abitibi and 35% by ABT insofar as they relate to Abitibi
Board, and (c) 50% by ABT and 50% by Abitibi insofar as they
cannot be allocated to ABT Board or Abitibi Board.

In general, amounts paid in connection with class action claims
for joint local counsel and other joint expenses, and for
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses, are to be allocated in
a similar manner, except that joint costs of defending and
disposing of class action claims incurred prior to the final
determination of what portion of claims relate to ABT Board and
what portion relate to Abitibi Board are to be paid 50% by ABT
and 50% by Abitibi (subject to adjustment in certain
circumstances). ABT and Abitibi have also agreed to certain
allocations (generally on a 50/50 basis) of amounts paid for
settlements, judgments and associated fees and expenses in
respect of non-class action claims relating to Abitibi Board.
ABT is solely responsible for such amounts in respect of claims
relating to ABT Board.


MBNA AMERICA: Discloses Trade Practices Suits in Note Offering
--------------------------------------------------------------
In its draft prospectus prepared in connection with the issuance
of $693,750,000 in Credit Card Receivable-Backed Certificates,
MBNA AMERICA BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION discloses the existence
of two pending class action suits against it:

   (A) In May 1996, Andrew B. Spark filed a lawsuit against MBNA
Corporation, MBNA and certain of its officers and its
subsidiary, MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc. The case is pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
This suit is a purported class action. The plaintiff alleges
that MBNA's advertising of its cash promotional annual
percentage rate program was fraudulent and deceptive. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages including actual, treble and
punitive damages and attorney's fees for an alleged breach of
contract, violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices
Act and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

   (B) In February 1998, a class was certified. In October 1998,
Gerald D. Broder filed a lawsuit against MBNA Corporation and
MBNA in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York. This suit is a purported class action. The plaintiff
alleges that MBNA's advertising of its cash promotional annual
percentage rate program was fraudulent and deceptive. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages including actual, treble and
punitive damages and attorneys fees for an alleged breach of
contract, common law fraud and violation of New York consumer
protection statutes.

MBNA Corporation believes that its advertising practices are
proper under applicable federal and state law and intends to
defend these actions vigorously. It is not clear at this point
in time what effect, if any, these cases will have with respect
to the Certificate holders' interests, and MBNA cautions
potential investors.


NORTH FACE: Milberg, Weiss Files Complaint in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against The North Face, Inc. (Nasdaq: TNFI) and certain
of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all
who purchased North Face common stock between April 25, 1997 and
March 4, 1999


OKLAHOMA PRISONS: April Hearing for Medical Neglect Case
--------------------------------------------------------
The Tulsa World reported that attorneys for inmates are expected
to try show next month that the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections has blood on its hands and indifference in its heart
when it comes to medical care. According to the story, U.S.
District Judge Michael Burrage of the Eastern District in
Muskogee agreed to an April hearing on an emergency request from
Tulsa attorneys Louis Bullock and Thomas Seymour for federal
control of state prison medical operations, alleging that the
department's actions led to inmate deaths and needless
suffering.

The attorneys will have to prove that the department showed
deliberate indifference to inmates for whom it was charged with
providing medical care, said Guy Hurst, chief of litigation for
Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who is helping
represent the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Deliberate
indifference is more severe than negligence, Hurst said in the
Tulsa World story. It requires the plaintiffs to show not that
the Department of Corrections made bad decisions, but that the
department didn't even try to take care of inmates.

The Tulsa World explained that the case stems from a 1972 class
action lawsuit, Battle vs. Anderson, that was filed by inmates
who successfully alleged a variety of complaints, including
inadequate medical care. The state had been operating under
court orders to improve conditions.

According to the report, one of the witnesses who is expected to
be called is Dr. Robert Greifinger, one of three joint
consultants agreed on by both the department and Bullock to
review medical conditions in state prisons. Greifinger issued a
report in July 1998 detailing horrendous conditions in medical
care. During five days in May 1998, Greifinger and the other
experts toured Joseph Harp Correctional Center in Lexington,
Lexington Correctional Center, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
in Oklahoma City and Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester.

The Tulsa World noted that Greifinger's findings include:

     ---Inmate J.F. at Oklahoma State Penitentiary saw a
physician on Aug. 27, 1997, who identified masses in his chest
and larynx. A biopsy revealed cancer. A CT scan was ordered, but
"for some reason did not happen. Staff alleges that he refused.
The patient was lost to follow-up and had no more care for his
cancer. It is not clear if he knew he had cancer."

     ---"There were two inmates in the OSP infirmary with the
rare condition of Huntington's chorea," the report said. A
chorea is a nervous system disorder characterized by irregular
jerking movements due to involuntary muscle contractions.
Huntington's chorea is hereditary, progressive and accompanied
by mental deterioration. "One was in a back cell that was hot
with barely any ventilation. The cell was filthy. The inmate was
alone with no way to call for assistance. He was getting no
socialization, no nursing care, no physical therapy, nor was he
getting mental health evaluation or mental health intervention."

     ---"At OSP, the care and follow-up for inmates with life-
threatening conditions (such as cancer of the larynx) is
inadequate. In the case of J.F., this care will likely result in
premature and painful death. The death of inmate B.W. Jr. at OSP
is remarkable for its pain and suffering, without access to
modern treatment, without mental care and without nursing
attention in an infirmary or nursing home."

     ---Mabel Bassett inmate M.C. "had a clearly documented
history of a lump in her breast on March 4, 1994. The history
was ignored completely, despite multiple requests for care. She
died of metastatic breast cancer on June 10, 1996, in custody."

     ---"Several staff members at OSP are practicing beyond the
scope of their training and expertise, without sufficient
supervision, policy, protocol or other guidance. This is
illegal, it violates policy and endangers the inmates."

     ---Because of DOC restrictions, "old medication from other
inmates and nondepartment pharmacies" is retained and used at
Lexington Correctional Center. There is no inventory process for
the medication.

     ---Care for diabetes and asthma at all four facilities did
not meet nationally accepted standards. "This increases the risk
for severe complications, early mortality and increased cost to
the state for hospital care and security."

     ---Care for hypertension at Lexington Correctional Center
and Oklahoma State Penitentiary and care for seizure disorder at
Mabel Bassett did not meet nationally accepted standards.

According to The Tulsa World, during the trial Bullock is
expected to call inmates who were on the receiving end of
questionable medical care. But what did or did not happen in May
1998 may not necessarily be the deciding factor as to whether
the court intervenes, because the department has made changes
based on Greifinger's findings since then, Hurst said.
Meanwhile, the Governor's Office apparently still hopes that the
negotiations process will continue, although no contact with
Bullock has been made.

Gov. Frank Keating's recently tapped chief negotiator, Chief of
Staff Ken Lackey, was reported to say that the state is moving
forward to deal with the problem. However, the Tulsa World story
noted that Lackey and Bullock have yet to speak with each other.
The department, Bullock and Seymour had been negotiating a
settlement agreement for more than a year. Efforts stalled last
month when the Board of Corrections, citing a need for
legislative commitment to provide money, tabled the agreement.

According to the story, medical care is just one component of
the Battle vs. Anderson suit. Other issues remaining to be
resolved include discrimination in housing and jobs, sanitation
and fire safety. However, The Tulsa World noted that the price
tag for medical services alone could range as high as $12
million.

Still, Keating, lawmakers and others reportedly aired concerns
that the agreement did not have a complete price tag. Also a
source of consternation is that the settlement agreement tapped
Bullock and Seymour as monitors to ensure that the department
was doing what it said it would do based on the settlement
agreement. According to the Tulsa World story, critics say that
is a conflict of interest. Lackey reportedly appeared somewhat
skeptical of the allegations, saying that if conditions were so
deplorable, someone would have come forward under the state's
whistle blower act.

However, "They (department medical employees) have brought these
issues to the (department) administration over the last few
years, pointing out the problems in medical service delivery,
and were told there was no money to fix it," said Mark Bledsoe,
Oklahoma Public Employees' Association government relations
coordinator in the Tulsa World report. The employees are
frustrated and feel like they are being blamed for things
outside of their control, he said.


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
suit against Orbital Sciences Corp. (NYSE: ORB) and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Orbital common
stock between April 21, 1998 through February 16, 1999.

The Complaint charges that Orbital and certain of its officers
overstated earnings for the first three quarters of 1998 by 70%.
In particular, defendants prematurely recorded revenues for
long-term contracts, improperly capitalized product improvement
costs, and prematurely recognized revenue from license fees on
international franchise agreements.

On February 16, 1999, Orbital announced that it was restating
the first, second, and third quarters of 1998. The restatement
involves adjustments to revenues, expenses and earnings in
excess of $24 million. Revelation of the restatement caused a
29% decline in the price of Orbital stock. Prior to any public
disclosure of Orbital's problems, Orbital's CEO and CFO bailed
out of their Company stock reaping over $3.6 million at prices
inflated by their misconduct.


PARTY CITY: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP filed a class action lawsuit
against Party City Corporation (Nasdaq: PCTY) in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The
lawsuit was filed on behalf of persons who acquired Party City
securities in the open market between February 26, 1998 through
March 18, 1999.

The Complaint charges that defendants violated the U.S.
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and by omitting material facts required to be
disclosed so as to make the statements issued not materially
false and misleading.


SMART CHOICE: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes
& Lerach in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Smart Choice Automotive, Inc. (Nasdaq: SMCH)
between April 15, 1998 and February 26, 1999.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's revenues and results of operations.


SUN HEALTHCARE: Medicare Problems Create "Cottage Industry"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Albuquerque Journal reported that investors have filed at
least three class-action lawsuits against Sun Healthcare Group,
the Albuquerque-based nursing home company. They claim Sun,
whose stock sank nearly 95 percent in the past year, knew a
change in Medicare payments would mean financial trouble but did
not warn investors.

The report quoted analyst Murray Innes of Credit Lyonnais
Securities as saying that more suits were to be expected. "Once
one law firm files a class-action, you can pretty much count on
several others." Sun spokeswoman Phyllis Goodman reportedly said
class-action lawsuits are "a cottage industry." "This is the
business they're in," she said. "These law firms exist to do
nothing other than class-action lawsuits." She said one law firm
that has filed against Sun announced six other class-action
suits the same day.

The Albuquerque Journal story noted that the latest suit was
filed by two local lawyers, Wayne C. Wolf and Roderick A. Dorr,
and the New York firm Schoengold & Sporn. Their complaint
alleged that the company "issued to the investing public false
and misleading financial statements and press releases thereby
artificially inflating Sun's net income."  Another lawsuit was
filed against the company by five law firms, including Youngdahl
& Sadin of Albuquerque. Lawyer Joseph Arshawsky of Youngdahl &
Sadin reportedly said he expects to see the cases consolidate
and go to trial in a year to 18 months. Additionally, two New
York law firms -- Weiss & Yourman and Stull, Stull & Brody --
announced that they filed a suit March 12.

In the Journal story, Goodman said the company will fight the
lawsuits. "We are continuing to take care of 40,000 patients,"
she said. "That's what we're working out with our banks and the
government." Sun is reportedly trying to renegotiate the terms
of loans with major banks, and the company has asked lawmakers
to change the payment system. Sen. Pete Domenici's staffers say
the New Mexico Republican plans to introduce a bill in mid-April
to change the payment system.

The Albuquerque Journal noted that stockholders have been
debating Sun's situation online on a Yahoo Finance bulletin
board, and some call for a change in management. But analyst Rob
Mains of Advest in New York reportedly said CEO Andrew Turner's
job is probably safe. "It's hard to imagine the company without
him," Mains said. "In this situation, no one is safe. But it
would be a stretch to blame a lot of the problems on Andy
Turner."


SUN HEALTHCARE: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class
action suit against Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (NYSE: SHG) and
certain officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf of all purchasers
of common stock between June 2, 1998 through February 1, 1999.

The Complaint charges that Sun Healthcare 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 impact that changes in the
Medicare reimbursement system brought about by the prospective
payment system would have on the Company's business prospects
and operating results.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose (a) that profit margins and reimbursement rates for
ancillary services would be substantially lower under PPS; (b)
that the goodwill of Sun Healthcare's domestic facilities had
become impaired as a result of the PPS; and (c) that the
financial results of the Company would be materially and
adversely impacted because certain operations acquired from
Retirement Care Associates by Sun Healthcare had been unprepared
for the conversion to PPS.


Y2K LITIGATION: Changing Diversity Rule May Swamp Federal Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Record Baltimore reported that two bills in the U.S.
Senate and one in the House of Representatives may lower the bar
for federal jurisdiction, easing the requirements for diversity
of citizenship and the amount in controversy. These measures
would permit lawsuits in the federal courts if any defendant and
any plaintiff are from different jurisdictions, rather than
requiring complete diversity. The federal court would, however,
be given the right to send the case back to state court if
certain circumstances are met.

Some practitioners see merit in the idea, according to the
story. "Class action seems to be the way to go for Y2K
litigation, and usage of computer programs is becoming so
widespread that finding complete diversity is increasingly
difficult," said attorney Ned T. Himmelrich, who heads up the
Year 2000 practice group at Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman,
Hoffberger & Hollander in Baltimore. "It's an outgrowth of the
globalization of the product."

However, the Daily Record Baltimore reported that the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts voted to oppose the
measures, S. 96, S. 461 and H.R. 775, at its March conference.
"One of the primary objectives of this legislation is to
facilitate the resolution of Y2K claims, and this shift of class
action litigation holds the potential for overwhelming the
federal courts, resulting in substantial costs and delays," the
AOC said in a statement.

The Daily Record Baltimore quoted John C. Joyce of Lerch, Early
and Brewer in Bethesda as saying, "If you dump all the Y2K
litigation into the federal court system, it could shut it
down." Mr. Joyce also noted that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
has suggested creating a separate system to deal with Year 2000
issues, similar to the bankruptcy courts. "But the question of
jurisdiction is addressing the problem after the fact. What the
government should be concentrating on now is fixing the problem
and creating contingency plans, and H.R. 775 is one of the few
Y2K bills that tries to address those issues."

The House measure, which is co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Constance
E. Morella, R-Md., of Rockville, reportedly includes provisions
that would require parties to make efforts to correct the
problem before filing suit, encourage alternative dispute
resolution and limit legal fees. According to the Daily Record
Baltimore story, the measure is pending in the Judiciary
Committee and no action is expected until after legislators
return from their Easter district work sessions in April.



                            *********

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  * * *