---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 13, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 48

                            Headlines

CELEBRITY CRUISES: Another Carrier Settles Port Charges Suit
ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Milberg Weiss Expands Defrauded Victims
ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Reinhardt & Anderson File Suit in Iowa
FUEL TAXES: Truckers Seek Rebates for Miles Driven on Toll Road
GK INTELLIGENT: Federman Firm Files Amended Complaint

LEARNING CO.: Shareholder Suits Don't Deter Merger with Mattel
MONARCH DENTAL: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in Texas
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Bernstein Litowitz Files Suit in California
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in California
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Complaint

NETWORKS ASSOCIATES: Milberg Weiss Files Suit in California
NORTH FACE: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Colorado
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Trapped Passengers Return to State Court
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Bernstein Litowitz Expands Billing Fraud Suit
RIVERSIDE GROUP: Wickes Shareholder Litigation at Standstill

SAFESKIN CORP.: Finkelstein Thompson Files Suit in California
TEL-SAVE.COM: Shareholder Class Still Isn't Certified
TII INDUSTRIES: Acquisition of PRC Terminated Due to Settlement
WICKES LUMBER: Asbestos-Related Claims Still Manageable
WICKES LUMBER: No 1998 Activity in 1995 Securities Litigation

WICKES LUMBER: Silica-Related Liability is Minimal, Company Says
ZIFF-DAVIS: Anticipate Response to Shareholder Suit Next Month
ZIFF-DAVIS: Derivative Suits Seek Option Repricing Nullification


                            *********


CELEBRITY CRUISES: Another Carrier Settles Port Charges Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Following yesterday's report of a settlement by Royal Caribbean
Cruises, Celebrity Cruises also announced that there has been a
settlement of class action lawsuits that has been preliminarily
approved by the Court as fair and reasonable. In the lawsuits,
the plaintiffs allege that Celebrity Cruises Inc. misrepresented
the true nature and purpose of the "port service charges" it
collected from passengers, an allegation Celebrity denies.

The actions allege Celebrity's advertising and other promotional
materials implied "port charges" represented monies paid by
Celebrity to governmental authorities, that Celebrity paid less
to those governmental authorities than it collected from
passengers and that Celebrity's passengers are due the
difference between the amount collected from them and the amount
paid to governmental authorities. Plaintiffs' claims are, at
present, only allegations since no trial on the merits has
occurred in the Actions. Celebrity denies all of plaintiffs'
allegations of wrongdoing and liability and maintains that no
one is entitled to damages or any other relief. Celebrity denies
that it ever represented that "port charges" reflect only
reimbursement for payments made to governmental authorities. In
Celebrity's view, passengers were not misled or harmed.

On February 19, 1999, the Court conditionally certified a
nationwide class for purposes of settlement only, and granted
preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. The class is
composed of all residents of the U.S. who (1) traveled on a
Celebrity cruise, (2) paid "port charges" to Celebrity, and (3)
departed on their cruise during the period between April 19,
1992 to April 1, 1997, but excludes from participation: (a)
Celebrity's employees and their immediate family members, any
reduced fare passengers who traveled on a discounted fare that
was not offered to the general public (such as travel agents,
journalists, etc.); and (b) all persons who execute a timely
request for exclusion from the Settlement Class.

On February 19, 1999, the Court granted preliminary approval of
this Settlement subject to final approval after a Settlement
Hearing to be held on June 3, 1999. If you are a Settlement
Class member, you will receive a Voucher for every qualifying
Celebrity cruise you have taken between April 19, 1992 and April
1, 1997 depending on when you cruised and the length of your
cruise as follows:

   4/19/92-12/31/94
   Cruise Length      Voucher Amount
     7 or fewer Night Cruises $20.00
     Over 7 Night Cruises $30.00

   1/1/95-4/1/97
   Cruise Length      Voucher Amount
     7 or fewer Night Cruises $30.00
     Over 7 Night Cruises $45.00

Vouchers can only be used to reduce the cruise fare on Celebrity
cruises and may not be used for on-board expenses. Vouchers may
be used by (1) a Settlement Class member only for bookings made
within 120 days of departure or (2) by someone who obtains a
Voucher which was initially distributed to a Settlement Class
member ("Transferee") only for bookings made within 45 days of
departure. Vouchers may be used on new bookings for cruises with
a sailing date that begins within three years of the date the
Vouchers are distributed if the Vouchers are used by the
Settlement Class member and may be used on new bookings for
cruises with a sailing date that begins within two years of the
date of distribution if the Vouchers are used by a Transferee.

Vouchers cannot be used in conjunction with fares that are not
offered to the general public. Vouchers cannot be partially
redeemed. Vouchers will have no value except the stated value
when used in conjunction with a cruise offered by Celebrity, and
are not redeemable for cash from Celebrity. Vouchers can be
stacked or combined up to $50 for cruises of seven or fewer
nights, and $100 for cruises over seven nights. There will be no
blackout dates for the Vouchers.

In exchange for the ability to participate in the Settlement,
Settlement Class members will be deemed to have released any and
all claims against Celebrity arising out of, or relating to its
"port charges."

Celebrity has also agreed as part of the Settlement to take all
reasonable steps to comply with the Assurance of Voluntary
Compliance entered into by Celebrity and the Florida Attorney
General in all of its United States advertising until the
earlier of (a) two years from the date of Final Approval of the
Settlement; (b) such time as a significant competitor of
Celebrity, including, but not limited to, Princess Cruises,
Norwegian Cruise Line, Carnival Cruises, and Holland America
begin advertising in the U.S. in a manner that is inconsistent
with the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance entered into by
Celebrity and the Florida Attorney General; or (c) the
termination of the Settlement Agreement by its own terms.

Celebrity will pay the necessary and reasonable costs of notice
and administration of the Settlement. Such costs of
administration may include mailing and clerical costs associated
with their distribution of Vouchers. In addition, Celebrity has
agreed to pay fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel in the
amount awarded by the Court not to exceed $450,000. The fees and
expenses awarded by the Court shall accrue simple interest at
the rate of 5% per annum from the date of entry of the Final
Settlement Order and Judgment.

If you do NOT want to remain a Settlement Class member and
participate in the Settlement, and thus wish to exclude
yourself, that is to "opt out" of these Actions, then you must
personally prepare, sign and return an exclusion request to
Celebrity Port Charges Litigation, P.O. Box 527543, Miami,
Florida 33152, postmarked no later than May 10, 1999. The
exclusion request must reference these cases, Bellikoff v.
Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 96-8077, and Kaplan v.
Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 96- 17453, and must include the
following statement: "I am opting out of participation in
Bellikoff v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 96-8077, and
Kaplan v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 96-17453, and I
hereby exclude myself from participation in the Settlement."

The Court will hold a final settlement hearing on June 3, 1999,
9:30 a.m. in the Miami Dade County Circuit Court, in the
Courtroom of Judge Stuart Simons, 73 West Flagler Street, Miami,
Florida. At the Final Settlement Hearing, the Court will
consider whether the above- described Settlement should be
granted final approval as fair, adequate, and reasonable under
the circumstances and in the best interests of the Settlement
Class as a whole, and whether the payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses for Plaintiffs' Counsel should be approved by the
Court.

Additional information is available by calling 1-877-202-1530.


ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Milberg Weiss Expands Defrauded Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP today announced that the securities
class action litigation involving Engineering Animation, Inc.
(Nasdaq: EAII), filed in late February 1999, will be amended to
extend the class of defrauded victims to those trading between
February 19, 1998 through April 6, 1999.

The action filed in February 1999 charged Engineering Animation
with violations of the federal securities laws and alleged that
the Company had issued materially false and misleading financial
statements and had misrepresented the Company's financial
performance. Prior to the disclosure of these adverse facts,
certain insiders profited by selling shares to the public at
artificially inflated prices.

On April 6, 1999 Engineering Animation shocked the market by
announcing that its revenues and earnings for the first fiscal
quarter, the three-month period ended March 31, 1999, would be
significantly below analyst consensus estimates. Following this
announcement, Engineering Animation shares plummeted over 56% in
value, trading to a low of $17.5625 on April 7, 1999 on heavy
volume. The amended complaint will allege that Engineering
Animation issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's operating results and future
prospects during the expanded period.

For additional details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H.
Rudman at 800-320-5081 or email endfraud@mwbhl.com.


ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Reinhardt & Anderson File Suit in Iowa
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt & Anderson have filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Iowa on behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Engineering
Animation, Inc. (Nasdaq: EAII) between February 19, 1998, and
February 17, 1999.

The complaint charges Engineering Animation and certain officers
and directors 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 concerning the Company's financial results in order
to (i) permit individual defendants to dump $20,800,000.00 of
stock on the unsuspecting public at artificially inflated prices
(ii) acquire multiple companies using the Company's inflated
stock as currency for the acquisitions (iii) and materially
understate the Company's losses for the first and third quarters
of 1998.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants were able to
complete their scheme through engaging in improper accounting
practices involving violations of the Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). Because of the issuance of a
series of false and misleading statements, the price of
Engineering Animation common stock was artificially inflated.

In light of the recent disclosures causing the price of the
Company's stock to drop more than 50% in intraday trading on
April 7, 1999, Reinhardt & Anderson have launched an
investigation in an effort to extend the period named in the
complaint in which the defendants' violations defrauded
investors to the present.

To learn more, contact Randall H. Steinmeyer by telephone at
888-253-5139 or 651-227-9990, or by email at ralaw@minn.net.


FUEL TAXES: Truckers Seek Rebates for Miles Driven on Toll Road
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Journal of Commerce reports that an independent truckers'
organization is suing Ohio and three other states to get fuel-
tax rebates for mileage driven on toll roads. The story says
that since the Ohio Turnpike and toll roads in New York, Indiana
and Illinois "are completely self-sufficient financially,"
collection of fuel taxes from trucks that use those roads
amounts to "an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce,"
the Owner- Operator/Independent Drivers' Association argues.

The class-action lawsuits, filed in Franklin County Common Pleas
Court in Columbus and similar courts in Chicago, New York City
and Indianapolis, seek injunctions against states collecting
fuel taxes for toll-road mileage and refunds of four years'
worth of such collections, according to the Journal of Commerce.
Association officials reportedly claim that the fuel taxes paid
by toll-road truckers run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

"Our legal actions will communicate the message to states that
truckers will no longer stand for unfair double taxation," Jim
Johnston, the association's president, said in the report. The
lawsuits seek fuel-tax rebates and abatements for all truckers
using the Ohio Turnpike, not just association members.

The Journal of Commerce reports that Ohio Attorney General Betty
Montgomery's office is reviewing the complaint and preparing a
response. The report explains that of the $1.36 billion in fuel-
tax revenue that Ohio received during fiscal 1998, $737 million
went to the Ohio Department of Transportation's operating and
capital budgets and another $64 million was dedicated to highway
construction bond payments. Brian Cunningham, an ODOT spokesman,
said in the story that the lawsuit's potential effect on the
department's budget is unknown. "Obviously we would be impacted,
but to what extent? That's not out there yet," he said. "I don't
think we can even speculate at this point."

Along with the independent truckers' association, the Journal of
Commerce identified truck owners Raymond B. Kasicki of
Cleveland, Douglas B. Bailey of Ravenna, Ohio, and Marino Motor
Services Inc. of Palatine, Ill., as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
The International Fuel Tax Association Inc. is a secondary
defendant.

Unlike car drivers, whose dealings with fuel taxes end at the
filling station, the Journal of Commerce reported that owners of
commercial trucks annually must reconcile their fuel-tax
payments with the mileage they actually drive in each state.
They file tax returns with the International Fuel Tax
Association, a nonprofit organization formed by the National
Governors' Association to serve as a fuel-tax clearinghouse.
Based on mileage records and fuel-efficiency calculations, tax
money is transferred between states depending on whether trucks
paid more or less tax to particular states than was commensurate
with the fuel they consumed while driving in those states. The
system is designed "to keep trucks from passing through states
without contributing" to the cost of highway maintenance, said
Dick Beckner, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Taxation.

The Journal of Commerce reports that in Ohio, commercial trucks
must pay an additional 3 cents a gallon when they file their
fuel-tax return, bringing their total fuel tax to 25 cents a
gallon. The independent truckers contend that when they drive
the toll road, they already are paying for its maintenance, so
they should not have to pay Ohio's fuel tax, too. Their lawsuit
reportedly seeks a declaration that such payments violate the
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and an order that all
taxes paid be reimbursed with interest. Paul D. Cullen, the
association's attorney, said Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and New
York were chosen as representative examples. Other states with
toll roads may be considered for similar lawsuits in the future.


GK INTELLIGENT: Federman Firm Files Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
William B. Federman has filed an amended complaint in U.S.
District Court in Houston on behalf of an Oklahoma City woman,
Shelley Griffin, and all who acquired the common stock of GK
Intelligent Systems Inc. of Houston from Feb. 10, 1998, to Sept.
14, 1998. The complaint alleges that the price of the company's
common stock was artificially inflated, ranging in value from
less than $1 to more than $19, then dropping to less than $3.

According to the Daily Oklahoman, the amended complaint alleges
the company failed to disclose and misrepresented material facts
concerning an agreement with an Israeli company, Capella
Computers Ltd. in Tel Aviv.


LEARNING CO.: Shareholder Suits Don't Deter Merger with Mattel
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 1998, stockholders of LEARNING CO., INC., filed
four separate purported class action complaints in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County
against the Company and the Company's board for alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties in connection with the Company's proposed
merger with Mattel. On December 21, 1998 and December 23, 1998,
two additional purported class action complaints were filed in
the same court. Each of the complaints seeks the certification
as a class of all the Company's stockholders, an injunction
against the merger with Mattel, rescission if the merger is
consummated, damages, costs and disbursements, including
attorneys' fees.

The complaints allege that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by, among
other things, failing to conduct due diligence sufficient to
have discovered material, adverse information concerning
Mattel's anticipated operational and financial results and
agreeing to an exchange ratio that failed to protect the
Company's stockholders against a decline in the value of Mattel
common stock. Four of the complaints name Mattel as an
additional defendant, claiming that Mattel aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Company will
aggressively defend against the actions and pursue the merger
with Mattel.


MONARCH DENTAL: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in Texas
---------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. filed a class action
in United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, on
behalf of all persons who acquired the common stock of Monarch
Dental Corp. (Nasdaq: MDDS) between February 24, 1998 and
December 22, 1998.

The complaint alleges that Monarch Dental and certain of its
executive officers and directors issued false and misleading
statements which artificially inflated the price of Monarch
Dental common stock to highs of nearly $20 per share. However,
the price of Monarch Dental common stock collapsed to
approximately $3 per share when the company announced that it
would post a $0.38 per share loss in the fourth quarter of 1998.

For more information, contact Steven E. Cauley or Scott E.
Poynter at 1-888-551-9944, or email: cauleypa@aol.com.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Bernstein Litowitz Files Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of Network
Associates Inc. common stock (NASDAQ: NETA) between January 20,
1998 and April 6, 1999.

The complaint charges Network Associates, 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. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
materially overstated the Company's earnings as a result of
excess write-off of in-process research and development in
connection with several acquisitions completed by the Company in
1997 and 1998. The complaint further alleges that as a result of
the issuance of these statements, the price of Network
Associates common stock was artificially inflated, providing an
opportunity for certain of the Company's senior officers and
directors to sell over 900,000 shares of Network Associates
common stock to the investing public at artificially inflated
prices, and realize proceeds from these sales in excess $41
million.

On April 6, 1999, in direct contrast to the statements
defendants had made earlier, defendants revealed that, in
connection with an investigation of the Company being conducted
by the SEC, the Company had determined that its amortization
expenses were materially understated by $13 million and $43
million in 1997 and 1998, respectively.

To learn more, contact Robert S. Gans or Gerald H. Silk at 800-
380-8496 or 212-554-1400 or by email at robert@blbglaw.com.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Cauley Firm Files Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. filed a class action
in United States District Court, Northern District of California
on behalf of all who acquired the common stock of Network
Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA) between January 20, 1998 and
April 6, 1999. The lawsuit is also on behalf of all who received
shares of Network Associates in exchange for the American
Depository Receipts (ADR's) of Doctor Solomon's Group PLC
(Nasdaq: SOLLY; European Stock Exchange: SOLL), in connection
with Network Associates's acquisition of Doctor Solomon's on
August 13, 1998.

The complaint alleges that Network Associates' accounting was
improper as it was taking merger related charges so that it
could manage its future earnings. The lawsuit alleges that the
false financial statements submitted by Network Associates
artificially inflated the price of its stock and permitted
certain officers and directors of Network Associates to sell
over $33 million worth of their personal stock holdings at
prices as high as $50 per share. However, it was only after
these sales that the defendants revealed that Network Associates
accounting was improper. When Network Associates disclosed its
improper accounting on April 6-7, 1999, the price of its stock
collapsed from $29-15/16 to $16-15/16 on two day trading volume
of over 60 million shares.

For additional information, contact Steven E. Cauley or Scott E.
Poynter at 1-888-551-9944, or email cauleypa@aol.com.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Network Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA) securities
between January 20, 1998 and April 6, 1999, charging that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10- b(5) by, among other things:
misrepresenting the financial condition of Network Associates by
issuing false and misleading financial statements for the 1997
and 1998 fiscal reporting periods.

Because of the issuance of these false and misleading
statements, the price of Network Associates common stock was
artificially inflated. On April 6, 1999 Network Associates
shocked the market by announcing that first- quarter profits
would fall short of estimates as a result of a slowdown in
demand and concerns that it would have to restate fourth-quarter
earnings downward after a review by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission. As a result of the SEC review, Network
Associates decreased its write-offs for acquired in-process
research and development by $169 million in 1998 and $45 million
in 1997.

For additional information, contact James E. Tullman or Vahn
Alexander via email at wyinfo@wyca.com, or by telephone at 800-
437-7918, or Michael D. Braun via email at BraunatSSB@aol.com,
or by telephone at 888-388-4605.


NETWORKS ASSOCIATES: Milberg Weiss Files Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Networks Associates Inc. (NASDAQ: NETA) common stock during the
period between January 20, 1998 and April 6, 1999.

The complaint charges Networks Associates and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the defendants
issued numerous false statements about Networks Associates, its
financial results and its business prospects, including that the
Company was experiencing strong pricing trends, its business was
healthy, its outlook had never been better and, as a result, it
would earn EPS of $2.12 in 1999, respectively. These false
statements caused Networks Associates stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels of as high as $67 per share in
December 1998 and kept it trading at over $30 per share,
enabling several executive officers of Networks Associates to
sell over 852,500 shares of stock at artificially inflated
prices ranging from $34.33 to $50.88, for almost $33 million.

However, it was only after these stock sales occurred that the
defendants revealed that Networks Associates' accounting
procedures may be improper. On Jan. 6, 1999, Networks Associates
revealed that it had received a letter from the Securities and
Exchange Commission questioning the Company's accounting
practices in the Company's SEC filings made during 1998. Upon
this announcement, Networks Associates stock price fell from
$59-15/16 to $58-3/16 per share on enormous volume of 14.9
million shares. Then, in stark contrast to the defendants'
earlier statements, the defendants admitted after the close of
the market on April 6, 1999 that, in connection with the SEC's
investigation, Networks Associates had determined that: its in-
process research and development expenditures were overstated by
$45 million in 1997; its amortization expenses were materially
understated in 1997; its in-process research and development
expenditures were overstated by $169 million in 1998; its
amortization expenses were materially understated in 1998; and
its amortization expense for 1Q99 would increase to $58 million
from planned expense of $22 million.

To learn more, contact William Lerach, Alan Schulman or Darren
Robbins at 800-449-4900 or via email at wsl@mwbhl.com.


NORTH FACE: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, on
behalf of all purchasers of The North Face Inc. (Nasdaq: TNFI)
common stock between April 25, 1997 and March 11, 1999.

The Complaint charges North Face and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws. Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants issued a series
of materially false and misleading statements regarding North
Face's 1997 and 1998 financial results. On March 12, 1999, North
Face announced that, following the completion of an
investigation into its accounting practices, it will restate its
1997 financial statements and 1998 interim financial statements.

Additional information can be obtained from Karin E. Fisch,
Esq., at 800-889-3701 or 212-889-3700, or via email at kfisch@a-
g-s.com.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Trapped Passengers Return to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The Detroit News reported on a lawsuit filed against Northwest
Airlines by angry passengers trapped on airplanes for as much as
nine hours during the January blizzard. In a ruling on a co-
defendant, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Page Hood ordered
the case sent back to Wayne County Circuit Court on Thursday,
refusing to remove Wayne County as a party to the case. "This is
a big victory for us," said, D. Michael Kratchman an attorney
for one of the half-dozen plaintiffs, said in the News report.

Wayne Circuit Judge Daphne Means Curtis, a former Recorder's
Court and 36th District Court judge, will preside over the case.
"She's a very intelligent judge and an excellent draw to handle
the case," said Michael Sapala, chief judge of the Wayne County
Circuit Court, in the Detroit News story. Curtis is expected to
rule on several motions in the next month: whether to dismiss
the suit, certify it as a class action and decide how extensive
discovery should be.

The Detroit News reported that Northwest attorney Dan Seymour
said the decision wasn't a big loss. "We go back to state court,
where we believe we'll get a fair trial," Seymour said. An
attorney for Wayne County, Alan B. Havis, noted the ruling was
only a "jurisdictional issue." "We will still press ahead with
out motion to dismiss," Havis said. The Detroit News noted that
both sides hope for a speedy resolution of the lawsuit.

The story also described the events of Jan. 3, when more than
4,000 Northwest Airlines passengers were trapped on 30 airplanes
after county work crews pushed snow piles in front of gates.
Toilets backed up and planes ran out of food and water,
according to the Detroit News. The incident sparked a
congressional hearing and an FAA inquiry, which is continuing.
Northwest, whose image still hadn't recovered from a pilots'
strike, reportedly suffered another hit with the stranding.


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Bernstein Litowitz Expands Billing Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announced that the New
Orleans Employees' Retirement System has added a party to
prosecute a lawsuit against Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. (NYSE:
PDX), and that the class action which will be expanded to
include all who purchased Pediatrix common stock between April
28, 1998 and April 1, 1999.

Recently, it has been reported that attorneys general of the
states of Florida, Colorado, and Arizona have been investigating
Pediatrix with respect to its billing practices, including its
medicare billing, causing the stock to lose over 45% of its
market value since April 1. Following these revelations, the New
Orleans Employees' Retirement System decided to join the lawsuit
commenced by the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund on
March 17, 1999, which alleges that Pediatrix overstated its
reported revenues and earnings in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles, by improper acquisition
accounting and recognizing revenue from accounts receivable that
were not collectible.

Although the current lawsuit was commenced on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased Pediatrix common stock
between April 28, 1998, and February 12, 1999, the Funds intend
to expand their lawsuit in light of the Company's recent
disclosures to include those who purchased Pediatrix common
stock through and including April 1, 1999.

To receive additional information, contact Douglas M. McKeige,
at 800-380-8496 or 212-554-1400 or by email doug@blbglaw.com.


RIVERSIDE GROUP: Wickes Shareholder Litigation at Standstill
------------------------------------------------------------
On November 3, 1995, a complaint styled Wolfson v. Riverside
Group, Inc., et al., was filed against Wickes, its Directors and
Riverside in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in
and for New Castle County (C.A. No. 14678). As amended, this
complaint alleges, among other things, that the sale in 1995 by
Wickes Lumber Company of 2 million newly issued shares of its
common stock to Riverside was unfair and constituted a waste of
Wickes' assets and that Wickes and Riverside breached their
fiduciary duties in their approval of this transaction.

The amended complaint, among other things, seeks on behalf of a
purported class of Wickes' shareholders to enjoin, or to obtain
unspecified damages with respect to, the transaction. For more
details, see "WICKES LUMBER: No Activity in 1998 in 1995
Securities Litigation" later in this newsletter. There was no
activity in this suit in 1998.


SAFESKIN CORP.: Finkelstein Thompson Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all who purchased the common stock of
Safeskin Corp. (Nasdaq: SFSK) between July 22, 1998 and March
11, 1999. The Complaint names Safeskin and certain officers and
directors as defendants, alleging that these parties violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC
Rule 10b-5, by originating a series of materially misleading
statements and omissions concerning the Company's business
prospects and financial status.

On March 11, 1999, only one month after the Company's February
10, 1999 press release which stated that Safeskin would "deliver
another year of record results in 1999," the defendants
announced that the Company would experience revenues and
earnings well below analysts' expectations for the first quarter
of 1999 and for the entire fiscal year, with revenues for the
quarter expected to be $28 million below prior estimates.
Following this revelation, Safeskin's share price fell
dramatically. On April 6, 1998, Safeskin announced that, due to
high distributor inventory levels, it was restating and
adjusting its previously announced financial results for 1998 to
reflect higher distributor rebate levels, and reported that net
income was actually six percent -- or $.04 per share -- lower
than previously reported. Plaintiffs allege that this
development underscores the fact that investors have been misled
by Safeskin.

To learn more, contact Donald J. Enright at 888-333-4409 or 202-
337-8000, or email DJE@FTLLAW.com, or call Richard Wirtz at 619-
237-5000.


TEL-SAVE.COM: Shareholder Class Still Isn't Certified
-----------------------------------------------------
On June 16, 1998, a purported shareholder class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against TEL-SAVE.COM, INC., and certain of its
officers alleging violation of the securities laws in connection
with certain disclosures made by the Company in its public
filings and seeking unspecified damages. Thereafter, additional
lawsuits making substantially the same allegations were filed by
other plaintiffs in the same court.

At this point, no classes have been certified. The Company
believes the allegations in the complaints are without merit and
intends to defend the litigations vigorously.


TII INDUSTRIES: Acquisition of PRC Terminated Due to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
TII Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq NMS: TIII) has cancelled a Special
Meeting of Stockholders scheduled to be held on April 20, 1999.
The company reported that the meeting was no longer necessary as
the Stock Purchase Agreement between it and Alfred J. Roach, the
company's chairman of the board of directors, which was subject
to stockholder approval at the proposed Special Meeting, will be
terminated upon completion of a settlement contemplated by a
memorandum of understanding to settle a purported class action
lawsuit instituted by two stockholders.

The Stock Purchase agreement contemplated the company's
acquisition of PRC Leasing, Inc., a company owned by Roach that
currently leases certain manufacturing equipment to the company.
The company will continue to lease the equipment under the terms
of the existing lease. The company and PRC Leasing, Inc. have
agreed not to exercise their respective options to terminate the
lease on July 1999 and the lease will continue in effect until
July 2001.

"While we wanted stockholders to determine whether to proceed
with a transaction that would have assured the company the
permanent availability of the equipment, we did not believe that
incurring the substantial costs that protracted litigation would
have entailed was prudent for the company and its stockholders,"
noted Timothy J. Roach, president of the company.

Founded in 1964, TII designs, manufactures and markets surge
protection, network interface devices and station electronics
products for the communications industries. The firm has
operations in New York, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic.


WICKES LUMBER: Asbestos-Related Claims Still Manageable
-------------------------------------------------------
Wickes Lumber Company is one of many defendants in approximately
100 actions, each of which seeks unspecified damages, in various
Michigan state courts against manufacturers and building
material retailers by individuals who claim to have suffered
injuries from products containing asbestos. Each of the
plaintiffs in these actions is represented by one of two law
firms.

Wickes is aggressively defending these actions and does not
believe that these actions will have a material adverse effect
on Wickes. Since 1993, Wickes has settled 16 similar
actions for insignificant amounts, and another 186 of these
actions have been dismissed.


WICKES LUMBER: No 1998 Activity in 1995 Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 3, 1995, a complaint styled Morris Wolfson v. J.
Steven Wilson, Kenneth M. Kirschner, Albert Ernest, Jr., Claudia
B. Slacik, Jon F. Hanson, Robert E. Mulcahy, Frederick H.
Schultz, Wickes Lumber Company and Riverside Group, Inc. was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and
for New Castle County (C.A. No. 14678). As amended, this
complaint alleges, among other things, that the sale by the
Company in 1996 of 2 million newly-issued shares of the
Company's Common Stock to Riverside Group, Inc., the Company's
largest stockholder, was unfair and constituted a waste of
assets and that the Company's directors in connection with the
transaction breached their fiduciary duties.

The amended complaint, among other things, seeks on behalf of a
purported class of the Company's shareholders equitable relief
or to obtain unspecified damages with respect to the
transaction. There was no activity in this suit in 1998.


WICKES LUMBER: Silica-Related Liability is Minimal, Company Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wickes Lumber Company is one of many defendants in two class
action suits filed in August of 1996 by approximately 200
claimants for unspecified damages as a result of health problems
claimed to have been caused by inhalation of silica dust, a
byproduct of concrete and mortar mix, allegedly generated by a
cement plant with which Wickes has no connection other than as a
customer. Librado Amador, et al. v. Alamo Concrete Products
Limited, Wickes Lumber Company, et al., Case No. 16696, was
filed in the 229th Judicial District Court of Duval County,
Texas. Javier Benavides, et al. v. Magic Valley Concrete, Inc.,
Wickes Lumber Company, et al., Case No. DC-96-89 was filed in
the 229th Judicial District Court of Starr County, Texas.

Wickes has entered into a cost sharing agreement with its
insurers, and any liability is expected to be minimal.


ZIFF-DAVIS: Anticipate Response to Shareholder Suit Next Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
Following a decline in the price per share of Ziff-Davis Inc.'s
common stock in October 1998, eight securities class action
suits were filed against Ziff-Davis Inc. and certain of its
directors and officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The complaints allege that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with
the registration statement filed by Ziff-Davis Inc. with the
Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the initial
public offering of Ziff-Davis Inc.'s stock on April 29, 1998.
More particularly, the complaints allege that the registration
statement contained false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose facts that could have indicated an impending decline
in Ziff-Davis Inc.'s revenue. The complaints seek on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Ziff-Davis Inc.'s common stock from the
date of the IPO through October 8, 1998 unspecified damages,
interest, fees and costs, rescission, and injunctive relief such
as the imposition of a constructive trust upon the proceeds of
the IPO.

On January 28, 1999, the court entered an order consolidating
the actions, appointing lead plaintiff's counsel and requiring
the filing of a consolidated amended complaint within 45 days.
Thereafter, Ziff-Davis Inc. will have 45 days to respond to the
consolidated amended complaint.


ZIFF-DAVIS: Derivative Suits Seek Option Repricing Nullification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two derivative suits by stockholders pend against Ziff-Davis
Inc. and all of its directors in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware for New Castle County. The complaints allege
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Ziff-Davis
Inc. by repricing the stock options awarded to certain directors
and demand the nullification of the repricing and an injunction
against exercise by the directors of any repriced option.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 17, 1999
(which is substantially similar to the original complaints,
except that the amended complaint also addresses the granting of
"new options" at an allegedly "reduced exercise price") and have
indicated their intent to seek consolidation of the actions. A
response to the amended complaint has not yet been filed.



                            *********

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  * * *