CAR_Public/990415.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, April 15, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 50

                            Headlines

ADVANCED LIGHTING: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Ohio
BOY SCOUTS: ACLU Plans Suit to End Government Sponsorship
CHS ELECTRONICS: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Florida
COINMACH LAUNDRY: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in New York
ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in Iowa

ERNST & YOUNG: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Minnesota
LASER TECH: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Colorado
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Keller Rohrback Will Represent Shareholder
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Kirby McInerney Files Suit in California

NETWORKS ASSOCIATES: Spector & Roseman File Suit in California
NICE SYSTEMS: Milberg Weiss File Complaint in New Jersey
NORTH FACE: Exaggerated Earnings Report Fuels Litigation
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals Court Dismisses More Health Fund Suits
PHILIP MORRIS: Studying Potential Latin American Class Liability

PROTECTION ONE: Schubert & Reed File Complaint in California
PROTECTION ONE: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Complaint
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Directors Claim They Considered All Offers
RITE AID: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
SOFTWARE AG: Berger & Montague File Complaint in Virginia

SOFTWARE AG: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in Virginia
STEPHAN CO.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Florida
STEPHAN CO.: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Florida


                            *********


ADVANCED LIGHTING: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Advanced Lighting Technologies
Inc. (Nasdaq:ADLT) publicly traded securities during the period
between Dec. 30, 1997 and Sept. 30, 1998. The complaint charges
Advanced Lighting and its CEO, Wayne R. Hellman, with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants' false and misleading
statements about strong sales of Advanced Lighting's existing
metal halide lighting products, about the strong continuing
growth of the metal halide market for the next several years,
which would result in 40% EPS growth for Advanced Lighting
during 1998-1999, and the Company's false financial results,
allowed Advanced Lighting to raise $100 million in a debt
offering on 3/13/98, and inflated its stock to a recent high of
$29-15/16. Defendant Hellman took advantage of this inflated
price by using inflated Advanced Lighting shares as collateral
to secure a $12+ million loan. On 9/30/98, Advanced Lighting
revealed that, due to weak demand, its financial results were
going to be much worse than earlier forecast and its stock fell
in one day to $7-1/2, a 75% drop from its recent high of $29-
15/16.

For more information, call William Lerach, Alan Schulman or
Darren Robbins at 800-449-4900 or write wsl@mwbhl.com via email.


BOY SCOUTS: ACLU Plans Suit to End Government Sponsorship
---------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union says it plans to file a class
action lawsuit to end the government sponsorship -- by federal,
state, and local agencies -- of programs offered by the Boy
Scouts of America.

The ACLU of Illinois staff attorneys will prosecute the suit on
behalf of five named taxpayer plaintiffs. For more information
call Jay A. Miller, Executive Director, at 312-201-9740, ext.
301 or at 773-907-3023.


CHS ELECTRONICS: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a securities class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against CHS Electronics, Inc. (NYSE: HS) and certain of
its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of CHS at artificially inflated prices between June
19, 1998, and March 22, 1999.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934) by misrepresenting or failing to disclose
material information about CHS' financial results. As a result
of defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions,
the price of CHS' securities was artificially inflated such that
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired CHS' securities were
damaged by overpaying for their securities.

To learn more, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. by calling 1-800-337-
4983 or by writing SSBNY@ao1.com via email.


COINMACH LAUNDRY: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on April 8, 1999, in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons
who acquired the common stock of Coinmach Laundry Corp. (Nasdaq:
WDRY) between August 6, 1997 and September 29, 1998, including
all those who purchased Coinmach common stock pursuant to the
Registration Statement/Prospectus issued by the Company in
connection with its December 19, 1997 Secondary Offering.

The complaint charges Coinmach and certain officers with
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule 10b-5. The complaint
alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's financial
condition and operating results. Prior to the disclosure of the
adverse facts described above, certain Coinmach insiders sold
significant amounts of their personal holdings of Coinmach
common stock to the unsuspecting public reaping proceeds of over
$4.9 million and the Company completed a Secondary Offering
raising over $50 million in proceeds.

For additional information, call Steven G. Schulman, Samuel H.
Rudman or Michael Swick by telephone 1-800-320-5081 or write
endfraud@mwbhlny.com via email.


ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in Iowa
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on
April 8, 1999 filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Iowa on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Engineering Animation, Inc. (Nasdaq: EAII)
between Feb. 19, 1998 through Feb. 17, 1999. The complaint
charges Engineering Animation, Inc. and certain officers of the
Company with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial results in order to (i) permit the
Individual Defendants to dump $20,800,000 of Engineering
Animation stock on the unsuspecting public at artificially
inflated prices, (ii) acquire multiple companies using the
Company's inflated stock as currency for the acquisitions, and
(iii) 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.

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. Counsel are investigating this announcement to see if
the class will be expanded through April 6, 1999.

To learn more, contact Steven J. Toll or Emma Larson at 888-240-
1238 or 206-521-0080 or at stoll@cmht.com or elarson@cmht.com
via email.


ERNST & YOUNG: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a
complaint against Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y") seeking class action
status in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of the stock of Summit Medical
Systems, Inc. pursuant to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus for Summit's initial public offering in August 1995.
Summit changed it name to Celeris Corporation in January 1999,
and currently trades under the symbol "CRSC."

The complaint charges that the defendants violated Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, by misleading investors via the
dissemination of materially false and misleading information to
the investing public which overstated Summit's financial
information contained in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in conjunction with Summit's initial public
offering in August 1995. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that E&Y, identified as an "expert" in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, stated in the Report of Independent
Auditors annexed to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
that it had audited and certified Summit's financial statements
and opined that the Company's consolidated financial statements
presented fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of Summit for the 1993 and 1994 fiscal years,
and the results of the Company's consolidated operations and its
consolidated cash flows for 1992, 1993, and 1994, "in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles."

On March 3, 1997, the Summit issued a press release disclosing
than it has materially overstated its reported revenues and
earnings as far back as 1994. In its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 1997, the Company
reported a restated net loss for fiscal 1994 of $1,173,000 from
a previously reported net loss of $300,000, and revenues were
restated downward to $11.3 million from $12.3 million.

Summit sold approximately 2,500,000 shares of its common stock
in its initial public offering at $9.00 per share, for total
proceeds of $22, 500,000. Upon news of the restatement of its
financial statements on March 3, 1997, the price of Summit
common stock plummeted to $3.875 per share.

For more information, call Mildred C. Frazzitta, Esq. or Julian
P. Carr at 888-476-6529, or write to jpcarr@pomlaw.com via
email.


LASER TECH: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
The Denver Post reported that another New York law firm has
filed a class-action lawsuit against Laser Technology Corp.,
alleging that the company issued false statements about its
financial condition and operating performance. Representing the
plaintiff is Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri LLP. The class includes
those who bought Laser Technology common stock between Feb. 12,
1996 and Dec. 22, 1998.

Several other class-action lawsuits have already been filed
against the Arapahoe County, Colorado, firm.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Network
Associates, Inc. (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 the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued numerous false
statements about Network 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. These false statements caused Network
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
Network Associates to sell over 852,500 shares of Network
Associates 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 Network Associates' accounting
procedures may be improper. On January 6, 1999, Network
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, Network 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, Network 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.

For additional details, call Maxine S. Goldman at 800-417-7305
or 215-963-0600, or write msgoldman@barrack.com via email.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Keller Rohrback Will Represent Shareholder
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. announced that it is representing a
shareholder who purchased or acquired the common stock of
Network Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA) between January 20, 1998
and April 6, 1999.

The firm also reported that class action complaints have been
filed alleging that Network Associates improperly took merger
related charges in an effort to manage future earnings. The
lawsuits also allege that the 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 $30 million worth of their personal
stock holdings at prices as high as $50 per share. They claim
that it was only after these sales that the defendants revealed
that the Network Associates accounting was improper. When
Network Associates disclosed the accounting questions 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 more information, call Lynn Sarko, Mark Griffin or Elizabeth
A. Leland at 800-776-6044 or write bleland@kellerrohrback.com
via email.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Kirby McInerney Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 9, 1999, Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, of New York
City filed a class action lawsuit against Network Associates,
Inc. (NASDAQ Symbol: NETA) and certain of its officers and
directors. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California on behalf of all
purchasers of common stock between January 20, 1998 and April 6,
1999.

The complaint asserts that defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by, among other
things, issuing numerous false and misleading statements, i.e.,
that Network Associates was experiencing strong business results
and would achieve growth of 30%-40% before acquisitions, that
its revenue growth could be 50% taking acquisitions into account
and that these exceptional growth rates would permit Network
Associates to earn $2.12 in 1999. The complaint alleges that
such false and misleading statements by defendants operated
artificially to inflate Network Associate's stock price.

On January 6, 1999, the SEC had sent Network Associates a letter
questioning its acquisition related accounting, and a
representative of Network Associates was quoted saying that
"hundreds of companies" had received such letters. Three months
later, on April 6, 1999, Network Associates responded by
conceding that: its in-process research and development
expenditures were overstated by $45 million and $169 million in
1997 and 1998; its amortization expenses were materially
understated in 1997 and 1998; and its amortization expense for
1Q99 would increase to $22 million from a planned $58 million.
As a result, its profits for the quarter would be virtually
eliminated.

Additionally, Network Associates used approximately $700 million
of the company's stock, which traded at artificially inflated
levels, to acquire another company, and four company insider
defendants sold over 650,000 shares of Network Associates for
nearly $45 million, profiting far more than if the stock price
had not been inflated. These sales were exceptional,
constituting over four times the sales of those insiders in the
year immediately preceding. If one includes the sales of the
defendant chairman of the board, the sales are over 1.1 million
shares, an over 50% increase from the year earlier. In addition,
Network Associates raised $300 million by issuing bonds
convertible to the company's stock, a strategy that depended
upon artificially inflated stock price levels. These facts, in
our view, give rise to an inference of scienter in respect of
the accounting irregularities complained of.

For additional details, call Randall K. Berger, Esq. or Danielle
Feman at 888-529-4787, or write kms@kmslaw.com via email.


NETWORKS ASSOCIATES: Spector & Roseman File Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spector & Roseman, P.C. filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of persons who purchased the publicly traded securities
of Networks Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA) between Jan. 20,
1998 and April 6, 1999, including those persons who received
shares of Networks 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 Networks Associates' acquisition of Doctor Solomon's on
Aug. 13, 1998.

The complaint alleges that Networks Associates and certain of
its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint charges that
defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
public 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. Because of the issuance of
these false and misleading statements, the price of Networks
Associates' publicly traded securities was artificially inflated
to levels as high as $67 per share in December of 1998 and it
kept trading at over $30 per share. During this time, several
officers of the Company sold over 852, 500 shares of Networks
Associates stock at artificially inflated prices which enabled
them to realize proceeds of approximately $33 million.

On Jan. 6, 1999, Networks Associates revealed that it had
received a letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission
questioning the accounting practices that were used by the
Company in its 1998 SEC filings. It was only after the officers
of the Company had sold their stock that the defendants revealed
that Networks Associates' accounting practices may be improper.
Then, after the market closed on April 6, 1999, Networks
Associates shocked the market by admitting 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 expenses for the First Quarter of
1999 would increase to $58 million from planned expense of $22
million.

To learn more, contact Robert M. Roseman or Joshua H. Grabar at
1-888-844-5862 or write classaction@spectorandroseman.com via
email.


NICE SYSTEMS: Milberg Weiss File Complaint in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on March 22, 1999, in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers of
the American Depository Shares of Nice Systems, Ltd. (Nasdaq:
NICEY) between February 4, 1998, and September 24, 1998.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of false
statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning the
Company's operations, technologies, products and prospects.

To learn more, contact Steven G. Schulman, Samuel H. Rudman or
Michael A. Swick by telephone at 800-320-5081 or write
endfraud@mwbhlny.com via email.


NORTH FACE: Exaggerated Earnings Report Fuels Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
The Denver Post reported that The North Face, the manufacturer
of outdoor gear and clothing that is moving from California to
Colorado, said that it may have exaggerated its revenue by more
than $21 million over the past two years. The company is the
subject of several class-action lawsuits in Denver's U.S.
District Court. The suits claim the company overstated sales
growth, leading to inflated stock prices. The company announced
that its board of directors was told that an internal audit
revealed both revenues and net income were lower than previously
declared.

According to the Denver Post, on March 12 the company said its
auditors questioned the way some transactions were recorded and
that the 1997 and 1998 financial results would be restated.
North Face then announced that the revenue it claimed would be
reduced by $5.1 million for 1997, from $208.4 million, and by
$16.2 million in 1998, from $263.3 million. And it said net
income would be lowered $3 million for 1997, from $11.1 million,
and $4 million for 1998, from $13.8 million.

The Denver Post reported that Company officials were not
available for comment.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals Court Dismisses More Health Fund Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously
ordered that two class action lawsuits brought against the
tobacco industry by two labor union health and welfare trust
funds and four public employees health plans in New York be
dismissed in their entirety. The cases sought reimbursement for
costs spent on treating the smoking-related illnesses of the
plans' members and beneficiaries.

In March 1998, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin
granted in part and denied in part the industry's motion to
dismiss the cases. This newest Second Circuit decision reverses
that portion of Judge Scheindlin's opinion which refused to
dismiss certain claims.

In a 30-page opinion dismissing the remaining RICO, fraud, and
special duty claims, Judge Cardamone, writing on behalf of the
court, determined that plaintiffs' damage claims were
"incredibly speculative" and that it would be "virtually
impossible for plaintiffs to prove [their allegations] with any
certainty." In addition, the court held that "it would be the
sheerest sort of speculation to determine how [the plaintiffs']
damages might have been lessened had the Funds adopted the
measures defendants allegedly induced them not to adopt."

Additional labor fund appeals are pending in three other U.S.
Courts of Appeal.


PHILIP MORRIS: Studying Potential Latin American Class Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Journal of Commerce reported that tobacco giant Philip
Morris Co., facing record judgments in U.S. civil courts, is
bankrolling a comprehensive study into product liability laws in
Latin America, with an eye toward learning whether the U.S.
legal trend could spread south.

Sponsored by the Kansas City, Mo., law firm of Shook, Hardy and
Bacon, the Journal of Commerce reports that the study will be
carried out by the National Law Center for Inter- American Free
Trade in Tucson, Ariz. The law center has worked to promote
asset- based lending, alternative dispute resolution and other
legal mechanisms to protect U.S. trade and investment in Latin
America. "The reason for the project is because this has become
a hot topic in a number of Latin American countries that seem to
have misunderstood totally the nature of U.S. law on product
liability," said Boris Kozolchyk, the founder and director of
the law center, in the story. A research and educational
corporation, the law center will provide an analytical report on
the range of product liability laws in Latin America, how they
came about and where they might be developing into new
applications. The study will look closely at major consumer
markets like Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Mexico.

According to the Journal of Commerce, Mike Socorras, the Shook,
Hardy and Bacon lawyer coordinating with the law center said
that it was important for U.S. companies with heavy investment
in Latin America, particularly in consumer products, to
understand what is happening in the region. The development of
product liability regimes in Latin America has enormous
potential legal and investment consequences for industries
ranging from aviation and consumer goods to health care and
pharmaceuticals, he said. "I think it's fair to say that
cigarette product liability may be in the forefront of what
might be a much broader trend," Mr. Socorras was reported to
say. "Other companies in other industries dealing with consumers
in Latin America should be aware of what is happening and when
alerted to the trends emerging in Latin America (may) have an
equal interest in participating in this effort." Shook, Hardy
and Bacon is a defender of companies hit with class-action
suits, particularly the tobacco and auto industries.

The Journal of Commerce reported that the project organizers are
not promoting the fact that Philip Morris is funding the study,
but they suggested that however negative the tobacco industry's
image may be, there are broader questions about suits against
U.S. companies that export to, or manufacture in, Latin America.
Philip Morris, and the tobacco industry in general, is under
fire nationwide. On March 30, a jury in Oregon issued a guilty
verdict against Philip Morris in a case brought by the family of
a man who smoked Marlboros for 40 years and died of lung cancer.
The jury hit the company with a record $81.1 million in damages,
including $79.5 million in punitive damages. Civil juries
reportedly continue ruling against tobacco companies, despite
the industry's November settlement with 46 U.S. states to repay
state expenditures on health-care spending tied to smoking-
related illnesses.

The Journal of Commerce reported that the American Association
of Chambers of Commerce in Latin America, in a trade background
notice, warned members in March that U.S. trial attorneys --
pointing to tobacco settlements -- are telling Latin American
governments that they can increase their revenue stream by suing
a multinational corporation. The logic is that the company will
settle with the government in order to avoid litigation that
could prove far more costly. "If successful, these suits would
establish troubling precedents that would have consequences for
many other industries. Companies that have complied with all
relevant laws and regulations over decades of doing business
might suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of
litigation," the chamber notice reportedly warned.
"Manufacturers of chemicals, alcohol, mining, agriculture (e.g.,
dairy and red meat), firearms (witness the recent U.S.
litigation) and other industries that can be theoretically
linked to health-care costs should be especially concerned." The
chamber's notice said U.S. plaintiff attorneys have already
brought tobacco suits on behalf of governments of Bolivia,
Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela.

Gauging the range of product liability law in Latin America is
not easy because there are varying legal systems and different
methods for setting judicial precedent. In many Latin American
judiciaries, said Mr. Kozolchyk in the Journal of Commerce
story, the process is "doctrinal" -- the law shaped by
legislators who pass codes or statutes, but academics fill in
the gaps on legal interpretation. Going into the study, Mr.
Kozolchyk felt that many of those Latin American academics have
misinterpreted U.S. class action law and do not understand the
difficulty in being a party to a class action suit. "Their
understanding is all you have to say is, "I bought milk,' " Mr.
Kozolchyk said of interpretations about how to join a class
action suit. U.S. law, however, has clear burdens of proof and
thresholds for parties joining and filing a class action. The
law center's project attempts to compile academic writings in
the region and determine how interpretations of product
liability regimes came about. Knowing the legal tendencies will
give foreign investors a better feel for potential legal risks,
added Mr. Socorras in the report. "We would like to understand
why it occurs in some countries and not others," he said.

The Journal of Commerce reported that researchers feel Mexico
poses less of a risk for frequent product liability suits
because it has a consumer complaint agency. In Brazil, said Mr.
Socorras, consumer class-action suits have been brought against
pharmaceutical companies for allegedly overcharging consumers on
drug purchases, banks for how they handle foreign exchange
convertibility and even the state of Rio de Janeiro for rising
toll road costs. "A lot of the rationale for adopting class
actions in Brazil was the impression that class actions were the
primary means by which American consumers were asserting their
rights against manufacturers and obtaining damages for defective
products," he said in the report, noting U.S. courts are
reluctant to allow class-action suits. "It is quite common to
see a legal writing referring to U.S. class actions as a model."

The Journal of Commerce noted that the study is expected to end
in February 2000.


PROTECTION ONE: Schubert & Reed File Complaint in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Schubert & Reed LLP filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf
of a class of purchasers of Protection One, Inc. common stock
(NYSE: POI) during the period 2/10/98 through 3/31/99. The suit
names as defendants Protection One, Inc., its former President
and CEO James M. Mackenzie, Jr., and former CFO John W. Hesse
for violations of the federal securities laws.

On April 1, 1999, Protection One Inc. announced that it would
restate its 1997 operating results and its results for the first
three quarters of 1998 after talks with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The restatement will decrease 1998 net
income by about $13 million, or $0.12 per share. Additionally,
other 1998 adjustments include a provision for expensing yard
signs previously capitalized and an increase in bad debt
expense. On news of the restatement, Protection One common stock
fell from its March 31, 1999, close of $6.25 to a close on April
1, 1999, of $4, losing 36% of its value in a single day's
trading.

To learn more, contact Robert C. Schubert or Juden Justice Reed
at 415-788-4220 or write mail@schubert-reed.com via email.


PROTECTION ONE: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Protection One, Inc. (NYSE: POI) securities
between April 23, 1998 and April 1, 1999 for violations of
federal securities laws. Defendants include Protection One,
Western Resources, Inc. (which owns an 85% equity stake in
Protection One) and certain of POI's 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, issuing false and misleading
statements regarding Protection One's financial results. On
April 1, 1999, Protection One disclosed that the Securities
Exchange Commission had ordered the Company to restate its
financial results for its 1997 and 1998 fiscal years. Pursuant
to the restatement announced on April 1, 1999, Protection One's
previously reported 1998 net income of $10.4 million will be
reversed, and the Company will instead report a net loss of
approximately $2.6 million for the 1998 fiscal year. In response
to this disclosure, the price of Protection One stock fell to $4
per share on April 1, 1999 from its previous day's close of $6-
1/4, losing approximately 36% of its value in a single day.

For more information, contact Leigh A. Parker at 800-437-7918 or
write wyinfo@wyca.com via email.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Directors Claim They Considered All Offers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: QSII) announced that it has been
served with a purported class action and derivative complaint
for breach of fiduciary duty, filed on March 23, 1999 in the
Superior Court of California for Orange County. The complaint,
which names Quality Systems and its Board of Directors as
defendants, alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the company by failing to maximize stockholder value
in not fully and fairly considering an alleged third party offer
involving a proposed sale of Quality Systems.

Quality Systems and its directors deny all allegations that
their fiduciary duties were breached, and specifically deny that
they have failed to fully and fairly consider any and all bona
fide third party offers to purchase the company. The defendants
also believe that they have additional meritorious defenses to
these claims, and will vigorously defend this action.

Quality Systems is a developer and provider of computer-based
practice management and electronic medical records systems for
medical and dental group practices with a customer base of
approximately 500 clients in 45 states, Canada and Saudi Arabia.


RITE AID: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Rite Aid Corporation (NYSE: RAD) between
December 14, 1998 and March 11, 1999.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of false
statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning the
Company's operating results and business prospects.

For more details, call Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman at
1-800-320-5081 or write endfraud@mwbhlny.com via email.


SOFTWARE AG: Berger & Montague File Complaint in Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. and The Olsen Law Firm on April 8, 1999,
filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal
securities laws in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against Software A.G. Systems, Inc.
(NYSE: AGS) on behalf of all persons who purchased Software A.G.
common stock between November 18, 1997 and April 2, 1999. The
complaint charges that Software A.G., certain of its officers
and directors and its largest shareholder, Thayer Equity
Investors, III, L.P., violated 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 financial statements and failed
to reveal that the Company was employing fraudulent accounting
methods which artificially inflated Software A.G.'s revenues and
earnings. On April 5, 1999, the Company announced that
preliminary first quarter results would be below analysts'
expectations. The complaint alleges that this shortfall in
revenues and earnings was a direct result of defendants'
deceptive practice of prematurely recognizing revenue that
artificially boosted AGS's financial results during the period.
The complaint further alleges that defendants utilized their
inside information regarding the artificial inflation of the
Company's stock price to sell massive amounts of their AGS
holdings, for proceeds exceeding $195 million.

For more information, contact Todd S. Collins, Esq. at 888-891-
2289 or 215-875-3000 or at InvestorProtect@bm.net via email, or
call Kurt Olsen, Esq. at 202-261-3553 or write
kurtolsen@sprintmail.com via email.


SOFTWARE AG: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on
April 8, 1999 filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of
purchasers of Software AG Systems, Inc. (NYSE: AGS) common stock
during the period November 18, 1997 and April 2, 1999.

The complaint alleges that defendants Software AG Systems,
certain of its officers and directors and its largest
shareholder, Thayer Equity Investors, III, L.P., violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading financial
statements and failing to reveal that the Company was employing
accounting methods which artificially inflated Software AG
System's revenues and earnings. On April 5, 1999, the Company
announced that preliminary first quarter results would be below
analysts' expectations. The complaint alleges that this
shortfall in revenues and earnings was a direct result of
defendants' deceptive practice of prematurely recognizing
revenue which artificially boosted the Company's financial
results. The complaint further alleges that defendants utilized
their inside information regarding the artificial inflation of
the Company's stock price to sell massive amounts of their
Company stock holdings, for proceeds of approximately $195
million. As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements and omissions, the price of AGS stock was
artificially inflated.

To learn more, call Daniel S. Sommers Cohen at 888-240-0775 or
202-408-4600, or write dsommers@cmht.com via email.


STEPHAN CO.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on April 9, 1999, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons
who purchased the common stock of the Stephan Co (AMEX: TSC)
between August 4, 1998, and April 1, 1999. The complaint charges
Stephan and certain officers with violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule
10b-5.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial condition and results of operations. Because
of the issuance of a series of materially false and misleading
statements the price of Stephan common stock was artificially
inflated.

To learn more, call Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman at
800-320-5081 or write endfraud@mwbhlny.com via email.


STEPHAN CO.: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit on April 9,
1999 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of The Stephan Co. (AMEX:TSC)
common stock between August 4, 1998 and April 1, 1999. The
defendants include Stephan and certain of its officers and
directors. The complaint alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10- b(5).

The complaint alleges that Stephan reported materially false and
misleading financial results for the second and third quarters
of 1998. Earnings for the second and third quarters of 1998 were
overstated because Stephan continued to use historical gross
profit percentages even though the product mix of the Company
was materially altered as a result of the Company's acquisition
of Morris-Flamingo LP, a hair products distributor, in March of
1998.

To learn more, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. by calling 1-800-337-
4983, or by writing SSBNY@aol.com via email.



                            *********

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  * * *