CAR_Public/990414.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 14, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 49

                            Headlines

AMES DEPARTMENT: Wage & Hour Settlements Followed by New Suits
BALLY ENTERTAINMENT: Delaware Sup.Ct. Revives Hilton Merger Suit
CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Weiss & Yourman File Suit in Massachusetts
ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Name More Victims
FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Briefing Motion to Dismiss Derivative Action

FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Sub Judice
GENERAL MOTORS: Indiana Dealers Say GM's Ad Collection Illegal
GREEN TREE: Wants Consolidation of Minnesota Shareholder Suits
HEALTHSOUTH CORP.: Continues Battling 1998 Shareholder Suits
INFORMATION ANALYSIS: Denies Wrongdoing, Explains Stock Decline

LEAD POISONING: Lawyers Set Sights on Pigment Manufacturers
NASDAQ LITIGATION: SEI System Recovers Transaction Data
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Stull Stull Files Securities Complaint
NETWORKS ASSOCIATES: Scott & Scott File Securities Complaint
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Schiffrin & Barroway File Suit in California

PERRIGO COMPANY: Appeals Dismissed, Ending Securities Litigation
PROTECTION ONE: Finkelstein Thompson Files Suit in California
USDA FARM SERVICE AGENCY: Race Discrimination Trial Begins
WELFARE BENEFITS: Poor Kids Not Receiving Dental Care


                            *********


AMES DEPARTMENT: Wage & Hour Settlements Followed by New Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 21, 1995, a class action complaint was filed against
Ames in the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court,
Suffolk County, Massachusetts entitled David W. Abrams,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. Ames Department Stores, Inc. The complaint alleged
that Ames violated Massachusetts wage and hour law by failing to
pay Abrams, and other similarly situated Assistant Managers in
Massachusetts, time and one-half their regular rates of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week. The complaint sought
injunctive relief, treble damages, costs and attorney's fees. On
April 21, 1995, the case was removed to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Ames denied the claims on the basis that Abrams and other
similarly situated Assistant Managers were exempt employees not
entitled to overtime pay. Ames further denied that the action
was properly maintainable as a class action and that the
plaintiff was a proper representative of the purported class.

On March 14, 1996, Abrams amended his complaint to include
Richard Serrano as name representative of all Replenishment
Assistant Managers located throughout Massachusetts. On November
22, 1996, the Court remanded the claims of Serrano and the
putative class of Replenishment Assistant Managers to State
Court because Serrano failed to satisfy the amount in
controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction. On January 3,
1997, the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts certified a class of Hardlines and Softlines
Assistant Managers employed by Ames in any Ames store in
Massachusetts on or after March 21, 1993, but limited the class
to those Assistant Managers whose claim satisfied the amount in
controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction as of April 21,
1995, the date the case was removed to federal court.

Abrams caused notice to be sent to the class apprising them of
the pending action and their right to opt-out of the action if
they did not wish to participate in the litigation. On January
21, 1999, the parties reached a settlement in this action, which
was preliminarily approved by the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on January 22, 1999. Notice of
the Abrams settlement was sent to all class members on January
26, 1999. The Abrams settlement, which was approved by the Court
on March 30, 1999, provides that each class member will receive
a calculated amount of cash and scrip usable in Ames stores
based on the number of weeks worked and individual weekly salary
levels in exchange for a release of all claims against Ames. The
total of the Abrams settlement is not expected to exceed
approximately $445,000 in cash and $150,000 in scrip.

On December 13, 1995, a class action complaint was filed and on
January 23, 1996 an amended class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entitled Colleen Austin, On Behalf of Herself and
Others Similarly Situated v. Ames Department Stores, Inc. et al.
The factual allegations in the Austin complaint were essentially
the same as those in the Abrams complaint referenced above.
However, the Austin complaint also included claims against Ames
and certain of its officers and directors under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, ERISA and the wage and hours laws of each state
where Ames does business and purported to state claims on behalf
of Assistant Managers in each of those states. Ames asserted,
among other things, that the case was not properly maintainable
as a class action suit and that the plaintiff was not a proper
class representative. Ames also denied liability on the basis
that Austin and other similarly situated Assistant Managers were
exempt employees and moved to dismiss the claims under ERISA and
the laws of all states except Massachusetts.

On November 21, 1997, the Court granted Ames' motion to dismiss
the ERISA claims and denied the remainder of the motion. On July
15, 1998, the Court approved a class action settlement that had
been reached by the parties. Notice of the Austin settlement was
sent to all potential class members on August 19, 1998. The
Austin settlement provided that in exchange for a release of all
claims against Ames each class member who elected to opt-in to
the Austin settlement would receive a benefit, either cash or
discounts on future purchases at an Ames store, based on the
number of days worked for Ames during the class period.
Individuals who wished to opt-in to the Austin settlement were
required to sign and return a consent and release form on or
before October 3, 1998. The total cost of the Austin settlement
to Ames will be approximately $1.2 million in cash and $167,000
in discounts usable on purchases made at Ames stores.

On December 6, 1996, the remand referenced above from the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts of
Abrams v. Ames Department Stores, Inc. as to Richard Serrano and
the putative class of Replenishment Assistant Managers was
docketed in the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court,
Suffolk County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This complaint
alleged that Ames violated General Laws, Chapter 151, ss. 1A by
failing to pay Serrano and other similarly situated
Replenishment Assistant Managers located throughout
Massachusetts time and one-half their regular rates of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Serrano agreed to a
voluntary dismissal of the action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated Replenishment Assistant Managers pursuant to
a class action settlement in a wage and hour case reached
between Ames and another former Replenishment Assistant Manager,
David Root, entered into and approved by the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 31,
1997 (David Root, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Ames Department Stores, Inc., Civil Action
No. 96-11301-GAO). Serrano and other former or then-current
Replenishment Assistant Managers employed by Ames in
Massachusetts had the option to opt-in to the Root settlement.

On March 18, 1997, the complaint was further amended to add
Kristen Gould as a named plaintiff to represent the putative
class of Hardlines and Softlines Assistant Managers employed by
Ames in any Ames stores in Massachusetts whose claim failed to
satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for federal
jurisdiction in the Abrams case. Gould's substantive claims
mirror those alleged in the Abrams case for Massachusetts
Hardlines and Softlines Assistants. Also, on March 18, 1997, the
Court dismissed Serrano's action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated Replenishment Assistant Managers pursuant to
the settlement reached between Ames and David Root described
above. This case has gone forward solely on behalf of the
Hardlines and Softlines Assistant Managers under the caption
Kristen Gould v. Ames Department Stores, Inc., in the Superior
Court Department of the Trial Court, Suffolk County,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ames responded to the Gould
complaint and asserted the same defenses as it did with regard
to the Abrams complaint. Gould moved for class certification and
on February 5, 1998, the Superior Court certified a class of
Hardlines and Softlines Assistant Managers employed in any Ames
store in Massachusetts on or after March 21, 1993 whose claim
did not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for
federal jurisdiction as of April 21, 1995. On June 12, 1998, the
Superior Court stayed the proceedings in the Gould complaint
until the conclusion of the Abrams complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On February 18, 1997, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York entitled Michelle Moschelle, Individually, and on Behalf of
Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. Ames Department Stores,
Inc. et al. This complaint was substantially identical to the
Austin complaint except for the allegations regarding the named
plaintiff. Ames answered the Moschelle complaint, and asserted
the same defenses as it did with regard to the Austin complaint
and moved to stay the Fourth complaint on the ground it was
duplicative of the Austin complaint. On August 7, 1997, the
District Court stayed the action pending the outcome of Ames'
partial motion to dismiss the Austin complaint. On November 19,
1998, Moschelle agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the action on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated Hardlines and
Softlines Assistant Managers pursuant to the Austin settlement.
Under the terms of the Austin settlement, Moschelle and other
former or current Hardlines and Softlines Assistant Managers
employed by Ames anywhere in the United States had the
opportunity to opt-in to the Austin settlement.

On December 15, 1998, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled Edmond Smoot, III and Yousef S.A. Syed, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ames
Department Stores, Inc. The factual allegations in the Smoot
complaint are essentially the same as those in the Austin
complaint referenced above and are alleged on behalf of those
Assistant Managers who did not opt-in to the settlement of the
Austin complaint, those who opted in and continued to work for
Ames and anyone who worked for Ames as an Assistant Manager
after the date of the Austin settlement notice, but who is not
otherwise covered by the previous categories. However, the Smoot
complaint does not include claims against Ames and certain of
its officers and directors under ERISA. Ames believes, among
other things, that the case is not properly maintainable as a
class action suit. Ames has filed an answer in the case in which
it has also denied liability on the basis that Smoot and Syed
and other similarly situated Assistant Managers were exempt
employees and, thus, not entitled to overtime pay. On March 1,
1999, the plaintiffs moved for class certification of the state
law claims and on March 22, 1999, Ames filed a partial
objection. Discovery has commenced in this action which Ames
intends to defend vigorously.


BALLY ENTERTAINMENT: Delaware Sup.Ct. Revives Hilton Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action against Bally Entertainment
Corporation, its directors and Hilton was commenced in August
1996 under the caption PARNES V. BALLY ENTERTAINMENT
CORPORATION, ET AL. in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, New Castle County. The plaintiff alleges breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with the merger of Bally with and
into HILTON HOTELS CORP. in December 1996, including allegedly
illegal payments to Arthur M. Goldberg that purportedly denied
Bally shareholders other than Mr. Goldberg an opportunity to
sell their shares to Hilton or any other bidder at the best
possible price. In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks, among
other things:

      (i) an order enjoining the Bally Merger;

     (ii) an award of damages in an unspecified amount;

    (iii) an order requiring Mr. Goldberg to disgorge his
          profits; and

     (iv) an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

In orders dated May 13, 1997 and February 3, 1998, the Court
dismissed this litigation. Plaintiff appealed this dismissal
and, on January 25, 1999, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed
the dismissal order and remanded the case to the Court of
Chancery.


CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Weiss & Yourman File Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit against Cambridge
Technology Partners, Inc. (NASDAQ: CATP) and certain individuals
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of investors who purchased Cambridge
shares during the period November 25, 1998 through March 18,
1999.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading public statements. These false
and misleading statements caused the price of Cambridge's common
stock to be artificially inflated in violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Certain
officers and directors capitalized upon the artificial inflation
of the stock by selling shares while in possession of material
adverse inside information.

For additional information, contact David C. Katz at 888-593-
4771 or 212-682-3025, or at wynyc@aol.com via electronic mail.


ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Name More Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announced that plaintiffs will file an
amended complaint in their securities class action litigation
against Engineering Animation, Inc. (Nasdaq: EAII), to extend
the class represented to include those trading in the stock from
February 19, 1998 through April 6, 1999.

To learn more, contact Andrew L. Barroway, Esq. at 888-299-7706
or 610-667-7706, or info@scbclasslaw.com by email.


FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Briefing Motion to Dismiss Derivative Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 26, 1998, Carol Bradley filed a purported derivative
action on behalf of the Company, against William Farley, Richard
C. Lappin, Omar Z. Al Askari, Dennis S. Bookshester, Henry A.
Johnson, Mark H. McCormack, Larry K. Switzer, A. Lorne Weil and
Sir Brian Wolfson, each of whom is a current or former director
of the Company, and the Company, as a nominal defendant, in the
Warren Circuit Court of the State of Kentucky. The plaintiff
asserts various common law claims against the individual
defendants including, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of
corporate assets, breach of contract and constructive fraud
claims.

The plaintiff also asserts an insider trading claim against
defendants Farley, Lappin and Switzer. The claims asserted
against the individual defendants are based on the same alleged
misrepresentations and omissions which form the basis of the
claims asserted by the plaintiff in the New England Action as
described above. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs and ancillary
relief.

On September 18, 1998, defendant Farley, with the consent of the
Company, removed the action from state court to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
Those defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to make an appropriate demand
on the Company prior to filing the action. That motion is
currently being briefed.


FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Sub Judice
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 1, 1998, the New England Health Care Employees Pension
Fund filed a purported class action on behalf of all those who
purchased Fruit of the Loom, Inc. Class A Common Stock and
publicly traded options between July 24, 1996 and September 5,
1997, against the Company and William Farley, Bernhard Hansen,
Richard C. Lappin, G. William Newton, Burgess D. Ridge, Larry K.
Switzer and John D. Wigodsky, each of whom is a current or
former officer of the Company, in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants engaged in conduct
violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the Company and Mr. Farley are also liable
under Section 20(a) of the Act. According to the plaintiff, the
Company, with the knowledge and assistance of the individual
defendants, made certain material misrepresentations and failed
to disclose certain material facts about the Company's condition
and prospects during the Class Period, causing the plaintiff and
the class to buy Company stock or options at artificially
inflated prices. The plaintiff also alleges that during the
Class Period, the individual defendants sold stock of the
Company while possessing material non-public information. The
plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts as damages, interest and
costs and ancillary relief.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action, which is
fully briefed and awaiting court action. The defendants filed a
motion to change venue from Bowling Green, Kentucky, and such
motion is not yet fully briefed.


GENERAL MOTORS: Indiana Dealers Say GM's Ad Collection Illegal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United Press International (UPI) reported that automobile
dealers in Indiana have filed a class action lawsuit against
General Motors in federal court in Indianapolis. According to
the UPI, the dealers claim that GM is illegally collecting money
from them to fund the company's ads of its products. However, GM
allegedly has begun keeping the money for itself, instead of
returning it to the dealers for area advertising efforts.


GREEN TREE: Wants Consolidation of Minnesota Shareholder Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Various lawsuits have been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota against GREEN TREE FINANCIAL
CORP. These lawsuits were filed by certain stockholders of the
Company as purported class actions on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased common stock of the Company during the
alleged class periods. In addition to the Company, certain
current and former officers and directors of the Company are
named as defendants in one or more of the lawsuits.

The Company and the other defendants intend to seek
consolidation of each of the lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiffs in the
lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In each case, plaintiffs allege
that the Company and the other defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, making false and
misleading statements about the current state and future
prospects of the Company (particularly with respect to
prepayment assumptions and performance of certain of the
Company's loan portfolios) which allegedly rendered the
Company's financial statements false and misleading. The Company
believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
defend such lawsuits vigorously.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP.: Continues Battling 1998 Shareholder Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corp. was served with certain lawsuits filed
beginning September 30, 1998, which purport to be class actions
under the federal and Alabama securities laws. Such lawsuits
were filed following a decline in the Company's stock price at
the end of the third quarter of 1998.

Seven such suits have been filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, comprising
substantially identical complaints filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors alleging that, during the
period August 12, 1997 through September 30, 1998, the
defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose certain material
facts concerning the Company's business and financial condition
in order to artificially inflate the price of the Company's
Common Stock and issued or sold shares of such stock during the
purported class period, all allegedly in violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. Certain of the named plaintiffs in some of the
complaints also purport to represent separate subclasses
consisting of former stockholders of corporations acquired by
the Company in 1997 and 1998 who received shares of the
Company's Common Stock in connection with such acquisitions and
who assert additional claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

In January 1999, these complaints were ordered to be
consolidated, with a consolidated amended complaint due to be
filed by April 5, 1999.

Additionally, another suit has been filed in the Circuit Court
of Jefferson County, Alabama, purportedly as a derivative action
on behalf of the Company. This suit largely replicates the
allegations of the federal actions described in the preceding
paragraph and alleges that the current directors of the Company,
certain former directors and certain officers of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and engaged in
other allegedly tortious conduct. The plaintiff in that case has
forborne pursuing its claim thus far pending further progress in
the federal actions, and the Company has not yet been required
to file a responsive pleading in the case. Another non-
derivative state court action was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff, without prejudice.

The Company believes that all claims asserted in the above suits
are without merit, and expects to vigorously defend against such
claims.


INFORMATION ANALYSIS: Denies Wrongdoing, Explains Stock Decline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Information Analysis Incorporated (Nasdaq: IAIC) has responded
to a class action lawsuit recently filed in the United States
District Court in Alexandria, Virginia against the Company,
Sandor Rosenberg, its CEO, and Richard S. DeRose, its CFO. The
suit alleges that as of a result of public misrepresentations
and omissions to disclose other pertinent information, persons
who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between
February 26, 1998 and September 25, 1998 were damaged. The
Company and the two named officers intend to deny the
allegations and to vigorously defend the action.

In response to the filing of the lawsuit, Sandor Rosenberg has
advised, "Obviously, we regret the need to divert resources
towards the defense of the claims filed against us. We have
reviewed the complaint and maintain that all information that we
should have disclosed, we did timely and accurately disclose. It
is our position that the claims are without merit. No one can
escape the fact that the decline in our stock price over the
period referenced in the litigation is merely symptomatic to
what occurred in the share price of many other companies whose
primary focus, like ours, was to address the Y2K marketplace."

Information Analysis Incorporated headquartered in Fairfax,
Virginia, is an information technology services company. Through
its Fairfax Solutions Factory, IAI provides highly automated
software and platform conversion, modernization and migration.
Through its UNICAST/2000 product family, IAI provides clients
the ability to achieve Year 2000 compliance in-house or through
IAI's or other solution factories.

For additional information, contact Richard S. DeRose at 703-
383-3000.


LEAD POISONING: Lawyers Set Sights on Pigment Manufacturers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Baltimore Sun reported that some lawyers involved in last
year's $246 billion tobacco settlement are setting their sights
on a new target: the manufacturers of lead pigment used in paint
that has blighted the lives of poor, urban children for decades.

According to the story, the South Carolina law firm that played
a crucial role in forging the states' tobacco settlement has
urged the attorneys general to launch a similar legal campaign
against the lead industry and is assisting in a private lawsuit
against the pigment makers. Peter G. Angelos has had eight
lawyers working for the past two months preparing suits against
the lead industry that he says will be filed this year in
Baltimore and a number of eastern cities. Both Angelos and the
South Carolina firm -- Ness, Motley -- reportedly earned
hundreds of millions of dollars suing the asbestos industry and
then used that capital to finance their legal assault on
cigarette makers.

The Baltimore Sun explained that the same fundamental claim
advanced in asbestos, tobacco and, more recently, firearms
lawsuits -- that manufacturers knew their product was dangerous
but sold it anyway -- is being wielded against the lead
industry. Potential plaintiffs include tens of thousands of
people whose ingestion of paint chips and lead dust as children
has left them mentally retarded or with behavior problems.
"There is little doubt that the lead industry knew lead paint
was poisoning kids for years," said Arthur H. Bryant, executive
director of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice in Washington in
the Baltimore Sun story. "There's certainly a basis for massive
litigation."

According to the report, industry attorneys also anticipate a
wave of lawsuits, with or without the involvement of attorneys
general. "I think plaintiffs' attorneys are going to try to make
lead paint the next tobacco situation," said Thomas Graves,
general counsel for the National Paint & Coatings Association in
the Baltimore Sun report. "Whether public policy-makers are
willing to follow them off the cliff has become a question."

However, the story also noted that any legal challenge will have
to overcome a 12-year history of unfavorable court rulings,
including one in a case filed by Angelos in Baltimore five years
ago. Still, advocates for victims of lead poisoning have been
heartened by recent procedural rulings in cases pending in state
courts in New York and Louisiana. They have also been buoyed by
the success of the tobacco litigation, which showed that even
the richest and most unyielding of industries is not immune.
Pierre Erville, an attorney in Takoma Park in Montgomery County
and a lead poisoning expert, was quoted as saying the time is
ripe for lawsuits against the lead pigment manufacturers. "These
cases are ready to go," said Erville, who worked until last year
for the Washington-based Alliance to End Childhood Lead
Poisoning. "There's a lot of research. There's a lot of public
awareness. Politically, this is the right time for these cases."

The Baltimore Sun wrote that if the optimism of Erville and
others turns out to be well- founded, lead poisoning cases could
move from the realm of "slip and fall" lawyers suing landlords
to that of mass tort attorneys going after deep-pocket
corporations such as Sherwin-Williams, Atlantic Richfield and
Glidden. However, contrasting themselves with the tobacco
industry, paint companies said they have not marketed household
lead paint for decades and have paid for lead paint removal
programs. "A dozen lawsuits against us have been thrown out" of
court, said Jeffrey Miller, executive director of the Lead
Industries Association, in the report. "And I'm confident that
the remaining ones will be thrown out as well." He said the
industry would vigorously defend itself.

The Baltimore Sun also explained that the damage lead can do to
the human nervous system has been known since ancient times. A
Greek physician wrote in 200 B.C. that lead "makes the mind give
way." Benjamin Franklin wrote of the metal's "mischievous
effects." By 1897, physicians in Australia had published
detailed accounts of childhood lead poisoning. Since then,
hundreds of studies of lead paint poisoning were published in
medical journals, detailing damage to the brain and other organs
that in turn caused reduced intelligence and behavior problems.
Bans on lead paint were enacted in many countries. In 1978, the
United States became one of the last developed countries to ban
lead in paint used in homes, a delay that plaintiffs' attorneys
and advocates say was clearly the result of the manufacturers'
aggressive lobbying and deceptive public relations. "Even Iraq
had banned it -- in 1960," said Erville in the Baltimore Sun
story.

Though the number of lead-poisoned children has declined in the
two decades since the ban, about two-thirds of the occupied
housing in the United States still contains lead paint, and lead
poisoning continues to be a serious problem, especially in older
urban areas, experts say. According to the Baltimore Sun, in
Maryland, 1,233 children under the age of 6 were lead poisoned
in 1997, the last year for which figures are available, and an
additional 7,763 children were found to have elevated lead
levels, according to the state Department of the Environment.
Those numbers are down from 1,834 poisoned and 10,218 with
elevated lead in 1995. The Kennedy Krieger Institute's Lead
Poisoning Prevention Clinic sees up to 20 patients a week
referred for treatment and consultation, according to medical
director Dr. Cecilia T. Davoli. But Davoli cautions against
assuming that the problems of all the children come from
deteriorating lead-based paint. Children can also get lead
poisoning from soil, imported goods such as pottery or vinyl
blinds, or exposure to a parent or caregiver who works with
lead, she said in the Baltimore Sun story.

According to the report, this is often part of the legal defense
of landlords sued by young tenants who have been diagnosed with
lead poisoning. For years, those landlords have been the main
targets of attorneys involved in the lead issue. "It's been like
the siege of Stalingrad -- fighting house to house against the
landlords," said Boston attorney Neil Leifer. One of those
involved in the fight has been Baltimore attorney Saul E.
Kerpelman. Kerpelman puts the number of lead paint cases he has
filed since 1981 in the thousands, but he called his work a
piecemeal approach to a large problem. "In each case, I help one
kid," he said. "It's like pushing a boulder one inch every day."
Success against lead pigment manufacturers could generate enough
money to eliminate lead as a housing problem, he said. "Even the
landlords would like that," he said. "They say, `I didn't put
the {lead} paint in there. Why should I be responsible?' "
Kerpelman feels the case against the lead industry is even more
compelling than that against tobacco companies. "You don't have
an adult who picked up a pack of cigarettes that had a label
that said: 'Caution: Smoking can cause cancer,' " Kerpelman said
in the Baltimore Sun story. "Instead you have a little kid who
gets poisoned typically between the ages of 1 and 3, just by
sucking his thumb."

The Baltimore Sun reported on Meritta Hill's daughter, Melissa
Williams, 8, one of Kerpelman's Baltimore clients who is a
victim of lead poisoning. Hill said her daughter is a happy
child who appears normal -- until she attempts simple tasks.
"She can't make her ABCs or numbers -- they come out backward,"
Hill said. "Even when she sees her brothers and sisters tie
their shoes, she can't do it. It's the simple stuff."

In 1987, Leifer of Boston filed the first lawsuit against lead
pigment manufacturers, followed by similar suits in several
states. But most failed because it was impossible to prove which
manufacturer produced the pigment that poisoned a particular
child. The Baltimore Sun also noted that among the unsuccessful
suits was one filed by Angelos' firm in 1994 on behalf of two
brothers, one of whom died of kidney disease and the other who
developed mental illness. Baltimore Circuit Judge Ellen M.
Heller reportedly dismissed the case in 1996, saying there was
insufficient evidence that the youths' illnesses were caused by
lead poisoning and to decide who made the paint. The dismissal
was upheld by Maryland's intermediate appeals court; last year,
the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, refused to
review the decision.

Angelos reportedly declined to discuss in detail how the new
suits would differ from his 1994 case, but said he would
concentrate on the conduct of the companies. "Acting in concert
with others, the lead industry was responsible for marketing a
product they knew was harmful," he said in the Baltimore Sun
story. Many plaintiffs have sought damages under "market share
liability." Under that legal theory, the half-dozen lead pigment
makers would share damages according to their historical share
of sales, even if it couldn't be proved who made the pigment
that damaged a particular child. Courts have accepted that
theory in the case of DES, a synthetic female hormone later
found to cause cancer, but largely rejected it in cases
involving lead pigment.

The Baltimore Sun reported that in January, a state trial court
in Buffalo, N.Y., ruled that makers of lead pigment can be held
collectively responsible under the market-share theory in a 1993
case. A motion is pending to allow the theory to be applied in a
suit filed a decade ago against lead pigment manufacturers by
the New York City Housing Authority to recover millions of
dollars in lead abatement costs at two city housing projects.

The Baltimore Sun described another potential blow to the
industry struck in March by the Louisiana Court of Appeals,
which gave class-action status to a lead paint suit against the
New Orleans Housing Authority, allowing as many as 2,000 lead-
poisoned children to sue as a group. If the ruling survives
appeals, it could also apply to future litigation against lead
pigment makers, said Jennifer N. Willis, the attorney suing the
authority. "Clearly, it is a crack in the wall," she said in the
Baltimore Sun story. Another pending suit against the lead
pigment makers, filed in Cleveland in 1992, is seeking to have
its four plaintiffs certified as representatives of a class of
lead-poisoned children.

Whoever takes on the industry had better be prepared for a long,
tough fight, said Paul J. Bottari, a New York lawyer working on
the city housing authority's claim: "The attitude we have found
is very simple: Millions for defense but not a penny for
tribute." The Baltimore Sun reported that the industry has
swamped the city with demands for painting contracts and other
paperwork. "You're talking about mountains and mountains of
documents over a period of decades, not years," Bottari said.

The report noted that plaintiffs have made extensive document
demands of their own. But, according to the Baltimore Sun, some
say the lead industry cases have yet to generate the kind of
damning internal correspondence revealed by the tobacco
lawsuits. That could change as more lawsuits are filed and more
records uncovered, said Robert V. Percival, an environmental law
professor at the University of Maryland. "My guess is they have
all kinds of documents that could be incriminating," he said in
the report. "It took some creative lawyering to overcome long-
standing obstacles in asbestos and tobacco litigation.


NASDAQ LITIGATION: SEI System Recovers Transaction Data
-------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments (Nasdaq: SEIC) Trust Technology group announced
a solution for its TRUST 3000(R) clients who anticipate filing
claims under the Nasdaq Class Action Litigation and require
historical transaction information. According to Richard B.
Lieb, president of SEI's Investment Systems & Services division,
"For most investment organizations, obtaining sufficient data to
submit claims will be an overwhelming and daunting task. The
automated solution we developed will identify qualifying
transactions under the terms of this litigation and will prove
to be an asset to many of our clients. Our goal is to save
clients both time and money throughout this lengthy process."

Investors who traded in any of 1,659 Nasdaq stocks during
specific time periods between May 1, 1989, and July 17, 1996,
are positioned to share in recovery from settlements in the
Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation. The settlements,
approved by the United States District Court on November 9,
1998, provide for aggregate payments by defendants which,
including interest, total approximately $1,027,000,000 before
fees and expenses.

Upon request from participating customers, SEI Investments will
restore customer databases related to buy and sell transactions
in Class Securities on the Nasdaq National Market from 1991
through 1996, and make information available to the applicable
institution. SEI has developed a program that will make data
available to clients in time to file electronically under the
Class Action. "The option for filing the Nasdaq class action
using microfiche and paper is not a viable alternative. We are
fortunate that SEI is able to provide an automated solution
which should reduce a significant portion of our research
effort," says Brian H. Goldman, director, Securities Processing,
Banc One Investment Management Corporation.

SEI's TRUST 3000 system is designed for trust and securities
accounting, customer reporting, and management information.
TRUST 3000 is in use at 27 of the top 60 U.S.-based banks. SEI
Investments provides global investment solutions to institutions
and individuals and business solutions to investment
intermediaries. Serving corporations, banks, insurance
companies, unions, foundations, endowments and individuals with
a wide array of investment products and administration services,
the company manages and administers $185 billion of investable
assets and processes over $1.5 trillion of assets.

To learn more, contact Richard Virgilio or Laura Berger at 973-
761-4331, or write r.virgilio@bergerbrown.com via email.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Stull Stull Files Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Network Associates, Inc.
(NASDAQ: NETA) securities between January 20, 1998 and April 6,
1999 for violations of federal securities laws. Defendants
include Network Associates and certain of its officers and
directors.

The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-
b(5) by, among other things: 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 $13 million in 1997.

For additional information, contact Steven Chroman or Tzivia
Brody at 1-888-388-4605 or at SBCATSSB@aol.com through email.


NETWORKS ASSOCIATES: Scott & Scott File Securities Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott & Scott, LLC filed a class action against Networks
Associates, Inc.(Nasdaq: NETA) and certain of its officers for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of shareholders
who purchased common stock between January 20, 1998 and April 6,
1999.

The complaint alleges that defendants made numerous false and
misleading statements about the Company's financial results and
business prospects, causing the stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices as high as $67 per share. During that time,
certain executive officers of the Company unloaded shares valued
at almost $33 million.

On April 6, 1999, the defendants announced that in 1997 and
1998, certain expenditures were overstated by millions of
dollars and that certain expenses were materially understated.

To learn more, contact Neil Rothstein, Esq. at 800-449-4900 or
800-404-7770 or 619-338-3887, or at nrothstein@scott-scott.com
via email.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Schiffrin & Barroway File Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Network Associates, Inc. (NASDAQ: NETA) from January
20, 1998 through April 6, 1999. The complaint charges Network
Associates and certain of its officers and directors with
issuing false and misleading statements concerning its financial
results and business prospects.

To learn more, call Andrew L. Barroway, Esq. at 888-299-7706 or
610-667-7706, or write info@scbclasslaw.com via email.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Appeals Dismissed, Ending Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Perrigo Company (Nasdaq: PRGO) announced that the plaintiffs
in a shareholder class action lawsuit filed against the Company
have withdrawn their appeal. The dismissal of the appeal and the
subsequent entering of the final judgment ends any further
action against the Company.

In June 1998, the United States District Court ruled in favor of
Perrigo's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence to
support the plaintiffs' allegations of federal securities laws
violations by Perrigo and its officers. In November 1998, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal in the United States Court of
Appeals, which was dismissed on February 10, 1999 upon agreement
of all parties. On March 30, 1999, a request to dismiss the
action was approved and final judgment in favor of Perrigo was
entered by the Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District
Judge for the Western District of Michigan.

Michael Jandernoa, Perrigo's Chairman and CEO, stated, "We
always believed this lawsuit had no merit. We are pleased the
suit, after nearly four years in litigation, has been concluded
in favor of Perrigo."

The dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal will spare Perrigo from
incurring additional legal expenses. Under the agreement reached
with the plaintiffs, no money or other compensation will be paid
to the plaintiffs or their attorneys. Separately, the plaintiff
in the related shareholder derivative lawsuit has agreed to
dismiss that suit in light of the dismissal of the class action.
Under the terms agreed to with the plaintiff, no money or other
compensation will be paid to the plaintiff or his attorneys. The
Company noted that under provisions of its liability insurance
coverage, it anticipates reimbursement of a significant portion
of the legal fees and expenses incurred for this lawsuit and the
related derivative lawsuit.

Perrigo Company is the nation's largest manufacturer of over-
the-counter (non- prescription) pharmaceutical, nutritional and
personal care products for the store brand market. Store brand
products are sold by national and regional supermarket,
drugstore and mass merchandise chains under their own labels and
compete with nationally advertised brands. The Company's
products include over- the-counter pharmaceuticals (such as
analgesics, cough and cold remedies, antacids, laxatives,
suppositories, and feminine hygiene products), nutritional
products (such as vitamins, nutritional supplements and
nutritional drinks) and personal care products (such as
toothpaste and mouthwash, hair care products, "wets", baby care
products, and skin care and skin care products).

To learn more, contact Thomas J. Ross, Vice President of
Finance, 616-673-9125, or Ernest J. Schenk, Manager, Investor
Relations and Communication, 616-673-9212, or write
Investor@perrigo.com via email.


PROTECTION ONE: Finkelstein Thompson Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Plaintiff seeks to represent persons who purchased the
common stock of Protection One, Inc. (POI) between April 23,
1998 and April 1, 1999.

The complaint names POI 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 Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by originating a series of
materially misleading statements and omissions concerning the
Company's business prospects. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants knowingly or recklessly understated the
Company's expenses, and overstated the Company's operating
income and net income.

On April 1, 1999, the defendants announced that, due to an SEC
inquiry, the Company would restate the its financial results for
1997 and 1998, thereby reducing net income for 1998 by $13
million, causing the Company to report a net loss of $2.6
million for the year. Worse still, POI's April 1, 1999 press
release indicated that the SEC is still conducting an inquiry
concerning the Company's amortization of certain costs
associated with the acquisition of subscribers. The market
reacted with shock to this news, and POI's share price fell 36%
on April 1, 1999.

To learn more, contact Donald J. Enright at 888-333-4409 or 202-
337-8000, or at DJE@FTLLAW.com by email.


USDA FARM SERVICE AGENCY: Race Discrimination Trial Begins
----------------------------------------------------------
African American middle managers claiming discrimination by the
USDA's Farm Service Agency are having their day in court as
their case began on Tuesday, April 13, 1999 before the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. The group, which filed the
class action two years ago, is claiming that the same Agency
that is settling claims by the Black Farmers for racial
discrimination in farm loans also denied African American
managers promotions and positions of responsibility because of
their race.

Thirty-three witnesses, including experts, are scheduled to
testify at the hearing, taking place at the Washington Field
Office of the EEOC before EEOC Administrative Judge Adria S.
Zeldin. The named African American class members Clifford J.
Herron, Starendel S. Bryant, 0. Jim Lawson, Harry D. Millner,
Harold Connor, Charles Smith, and Helen L. Smith seek to prove
that the Farm Service Agency has discriminated against them
personally in promotions, has engaged in a pattern and practice
of discrimination against African American middle and upper
middle managers throughout the Farm Service Agency, and has
implemented policies that adversely impact the ability of
African American managers at the Agency to obtain promotions.
The class includes approximately 300 African American middle and
upper middle managers at the Farm Service Agency.

Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of promotions (which they
have been unfairly denied on the basis of their race), monetary
relief including back pay and compensatory damages, and changes
in the Agency's system of making promotions to eliminate racial
discrimination.

For more information, call Joseph D. Gebhardt or Charles W. Day,
Jr. at 202-496-0400.


WELFARE BENEFITS: Poor Kids Not Receiving Dental Care
-----------------------------------------------------
The United Press International (UPI) reported that a Portsmouth,
New Hampshire, mother has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court
claiming that the state has done nothing to help poor children
receive dental care.

UPI quotes Cassandra Hawkins as saying many seacoast dentists
don't provide services to children on Medicaid. She says after
weeks of trying, she was able to find one dentist nearly 40
miles away to treat her child. Legal advocates reportedly say
the state Department of Health and Human Services does not
provide enough administrative assistance to help poor children
get the dental care mandated by the federal Medicaid law.
Advocates say poor reimbursement rates for dentist and a lack of
state oversight has virtually eliminated dental treatment
options for poor families.

The UPI noted that this lawsuit could open the door for a class
action suit against the state.


                            *********

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  * * *