CAR_Public/990416.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, April 16, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 51

                            Headlines

APAC TELESERVICES: Motion to Dismiss New York Suit Pending
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Cases Consolidated, Class Not Yet Certified
BP AMOCO: Shareholders Claim Merger Didn't Reveal Cancer Claims
CARR GOTTSTEIN: Settlement Ends AKPIRG's Opposition to Merger
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Bernstein Liebhard Expands Defrauded Investors

COMPUTER CONCEPTS: Stull Stull Files Complaint in New York
ERNST & YOUNG: Lockridge Grindal Files Complaint in Minnesota
FVC.COM: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in California
FVC.COM: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
FVC.COM: Schubert & Reed File Complaint in California

MILBERG WEISS: Lawyers Pay $50 Million to Settle Lexecon Suit
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Greenfield Firm Files Complaint
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Yates Firm Files Complaint in California
OIL ROYALTIES: Companies Pay $200 Million to Settle Charges
PENNSYLVANIA LIFE: Association Owes Policyholders $16.5 Million

RITE AID: Hoffman & Edelson File Complaint in Pennsylvania
SECURE COMPUTING: Stull Stull Files Complaint in California
STEPHAN CO.: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in Florida
TOOTHBRUSH LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Need Labels to Avoid Abrasion
TRIARC COMPANIES: Securities Litigation Continues and Commences


                            *********


APAC TELESERVICES: Motion to Dismiss New York Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Apac Teleservices Inc. reports that the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and the lead underwriters of certain
public offerings of the Company's securities have been named as
defendants in three purported class action lawsuits. The suits
were filed in federal district court for the Southern District
of New York on December 11, 1997, December 19, 1997 and January
5, 1998, respectively. The lawsuits were consolidated in April
1998 into one lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's November 1996 Prospectus and other
public statements which are alleged to have omitted certain
disclosures with respect to the Company's agreement with a large
parcel delivery client. The complaint as amended seeks, among
other things, unspecified damages and an award of attorney's
fees, costs and expenses.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on September
10, 1998, which is pending. The Company denies all allegations
of wrongdoing and continues to believe that it has meritorious
defenses.


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Cases Consolidated, Class Not Yet Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apria Healthcare Group Inc. reported that the company and
certain of its present and former officers and directors are
defendants in a class action lawsuit, In Re Apria Healthcare
Group Securities Litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Southern Division (Case
No. SACV98-217 GLT). This case is a consolidation of three
similar class actions filed in March and April, 1998.

Pursuant to a court order dated May 27, 1998, the plaintiffs in
the original three class actions filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint on August 6, 1998. The amended complaint
purports to establish a class of plaintiff shareholders who
purchased Apria's common stock between May 22, 1995 and January
20, 1998. No class has been certified at this time.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false and/or misleading public statements
regarding Apria and its financial condition in violation of
federal securities laws. The amended complaint seeks
compensatory and punitive damages as well as other relief.

Two similar class actions were filed during July 1998 in
Superior Court of California for the County of Orange: Schall v.
Apria Healthcare Group Inc., et al. (Case No. 797060) and
Thompson v. Apria Healthcare Group Inc., et al. (Case No.
797580). These two actions were consolidated by a court order
dated October 22, 1998. The parties have agreed that a new and
first amended complaint will be filed. Apria anticipates that
allegations similar to those asserted in the amended complaint
in the federal action will be asserted in the consolidated state
action, although the claims will be founded on state law, as
opposed to federal law.

Apria believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
plaintiffs' claims, and it intends to vigorously defend itself
in both the federal and state cases. In the opinion of Apria's
management, the ultimate disposition of these class actions will
not have a material adverse effect on the company's financial
condition or results of operations.

Apria also reported on other legal issues: The company has
received nine subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice
requesting documents related to the company's billing practices.
Apria is also named as a defendant in at least one whistleblower
suit brought under the False Claims Act.


BP AMOCO: Shareholders Claim Merger Didn't Reveal Cancer Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The British publication Mail on Sunday reported that oil
industry giant BP did not tell shareholders about a potential
"multibillion pound legal liability" when it merged with Amoco
last August. According to the story, BP left shareholders in the
dark about an outbreak of rare brain tumors at Amoco's
Naperville chemical research center near Chicago.

The Mail on Sunday reports that about 8,000 people who worked
the site in the Seventies and Eighties have been screened and
about 20 cases of cancer identified, including seven of an
extremely rare form of brain cancer called glioma. The incidence
is eight times higher than in the general population, and 10
legal actions have already been filed.

In the story, BP says it did not disclose details in the merger
documents after deciding that the financial liabilities looked
insignificant against the value of the 67 billion deal. But
Grant Dixon, an Illinois lawyer representing the 10 people
claiming damages from BP Amoco, said that there is a direct
parallel to lung cancer and asbestosis cases that have created
massive liabilities for US firms. Dixon added, "It would be
conservative to say that BP Amoco is looking at hundreds of
millions of dollars in compensation and damages. It could go
into billions. This is a very big deal."

By the time of last year's approach from BP, Amoco had invested
millions in investigating the situation at the Naperville
research center. According to the Mail on Sunday, it sealed off
a laboratory identified as a common factor in a number of cases
and built models of the site to look at airflows. It also
drilled boreholes to test the ground and even used dummies with
nose and mouth sensors to test vapors. A report is due this
month after a two-year investigation by researchers from John
Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and the University of
Alabama at Birmingham. The story said that the Naperville center
has earned Amoco billions of dollars with developments that
include the raw material for making polyester, oil additives and
plastics used in car lights.

The Mail on Sunday quotes Jim Lowry, head of the BP Amoco
taskforce investigating the brain tumors, as saying, "We have a
very unusual pattern of brain cancer here." BP agreed that it
was told of the situation at Naperville during merger talks. But
a spokesman said that investigations had not found an
explanation for the deaths and illnesses. "We are awaiting the
outcome of the Alabama and John Hopkins studies," he said in the
story. The spokesman added that if the company was found liable
for the illnesses it would compensate victims or their families.
"Our lawyers took the view it was not likely to be significant
in terms of the merger - it is a judgment call. Amoco did not
make any separate financial provision for such possibility nor
has the merged group. It is quite common to have lots of legal
cases and not mention them."

The Mail on Sunday noted that the 10 cases already filed against
BP Amoco were combined to be heard by a single judge - a vital
step on the way preparing a class action. BP is also threatened
by possible legal action from alleged victims of Amoco refinery
pollution in the towns of Independence and Sugar Creek,
Missouri.

The story also cited a study issued last month by the Missouri
Department of Health that found 15 cases of brain cancer areas
allegedly affected by the refinery - more than double the number
expected. Again, class action suits are threatened.

According to the Mail on Sunday, BP's merger document reveals
only that BP faces cases from the Exxon Valdez oil disaster and
that Amoco is in a legal battle with US tax authorities. It
adds: "Nor so far as the directors are aware, are any
proceedings pending or threatened which may have a significant
effect on BP's financial position." Lawyer Tim Stocks of Taylor
Joynson Garrett said that the omission laid BP directors,
including chairman Sir John Browne, open to "possible criminal
and civil liabilities." He said, "If I was handling this, my
instinct would be to disclose. Even if the company was insured,
I would have set out the liability."

Still, the Mail on Sunday noted that a US law professor who
asked not to be named said the cancer victims might have
problems proving liability. "There are examples of cancers
appearing in clusters without explanation. Because of the
uncertainty, claims will probably be settled out of court for
substantial, but not crippling damages."


CARR GOTTSTEIN: Settlement Ends AKPIRG's Opposition to Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carr Gottstein Foods Co. reported on a settlement of litigation
arising from their Merger Agreement with Safeway. On August 6,
1998, the Company announced that it had signed a Merger
Agreement with Safeway Inc. and ACG Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Safeway, pursuant to which Safeway would
acquire by merger all outstanding shares of the Company's Common
Stock at a purchase price of $12.50 per share.

However, in late October 1998, an Alaska consumer group, Alaska
Public Interest Research Group ("AKPIRG"), and five individuals
filed a purported class action lawsuit in Alaska state court
seeking an injunction to prevent the Merger. In February 1999,
Safeway and the Company settled with AKPIRG and the individual
plaintiffs. The settlement provided that AKPIRG and the
individual plaintiffs no longer oppose the Merger or the Consent
Decree and dismiss the lawsuit.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Bernstein Liebhard Expands Defrauded Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, announced that they intend
to amend the securities class action involving Compaq Computer
Corporation (NYSE: CPQ) filed in March 1999 to include as
plaintiffs all who purchased or otherwise acquired Compaq
securities from January 27, 1999 through April 9, 1999.

After the close of trading on Friday April 9, 1999, Compaq
announced that it would post a first quarter profit of about
$0.15 per share, less than half of what analysts expected from
the Company. On Monday April 12, 1999, in response to this
shocking disclosure, the price of Compaq stock plummeted more
than 25% to as low as $23-1/8 per share from its previous close
of $30-15/16.

Additional information may be obtained from Sandy A. Liebhard,
Esq., or Robert J. Berg, Esq., at 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414
or write berg@bernlieb.com or liebhard@bernlieb.com via email.


COMPUTER CONCEPTS: Stull Stull Files Complaint in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a securities class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against Computer Concepts Corp. (NASDAQ: CCEE) and certain
of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who
acquired securities of Computer Concepts at artificially
inflated prices between January 9, 1998, and August 19, 1998.

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 Computer Concepts' financial
condition and operating performance. As a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements and omissions, the price of
Computer Concepts' securities was artificially inflated, such
that persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities were
damaged by overpaying for their securities.

Learn more by calling Tzivia Brody, Esq. at 1-800-337-4983, or
write to SSBNY@aol.com by email.


ERNST & YOUNG: Lockridge Grindal Files Complaint in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen & Holstein P.L.L.P. filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota on behalf of persons who purchased shares of stock
of Summit Medical Systems, Inc. pursuant to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus (Nasdaq: SUMT) in Summit's initial
public offering in August of 1995. The Company has since changed
its name to Celeris Corporation (Nasdaq: CRSC - news) and now
trades under the symbol "CRSC."

The Complaint names as defendant Ernst & Young LLP and charges
that E&Y violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, by
misleading investors through the dissemination of materially
false and misleading information to the investing public. Such
dissemination overstated Summit's financial information
contained in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection 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 that it had audited and
certified Summit's financial statements and opined that the
Company's consolidated financial position presented fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of
Summit. E&Y also opined that the Company's financial statements
were prepared "in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles." On March 3, 1997, Summit issued a press release
disclosing that it had materially overstated its reported
revenues and earnings dating as far back as 1994.

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

For more details, call Gregg M. Fishbein at 612-339-6900 or
write gmfishbein@locklaw.com via email.


FVC.COM: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in California
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on
April 9, 1999 filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of FVC.COM, Inc. (Nasdaq: FVCX)
during the period between Jan. 21, 1999, and April 6, 1999. The
complaint charges FVC.COM, Inc. and certain officers and
directors 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 materially false
and misleading statements concerning the company's financial
results for the fourth quarter of 1998. On April 6, 1999, after
the close of trading, the company issued a press release stating
that the company was reducing its previously announced fourth
quarter 1998 revenues of $12.3 million to approximately $4.7 -
$5.2 million and previously announced fourth quarter earnings
per share from a profit of $0.07 to a net loss of approximately
$0.20 - $0.22. On April 7, 1999, the stock fell $10-7/16 to $6-
15/16 on volume of over 4.85 million shares. The complaint
alleges that the Defendants were able to complete their scheme
through engaging in improper accounting practices involving
violations of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

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


FVC.COM: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of FVC.COM, Inc. (Nasdaq:
FVCX) common stock between January 21, 1999 and April 6, 1999.
The complaint charges FVC and certain officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that in order to inflate the price of FVC
stock, the Company and the Individual Defendants falsely
reported the Company's financial results for the fourth quarter
of fiscal year 1998 through improper revenue recognition,
thereby materially overstating FVC's revenue, income and
earnings per share in the fourth quarter of 1998, in violation
of GAAP. Furthermore, FVC's insiders sold 535,000 shares of
their FVC stock for proceeds exceeding $7.3 million.

However, on April 6, 1999, FVC disclosed that it was reducing
its previously announced revenues for the fourth quarter of 1998
by approximately $7.0 to $7.5 million to defer revenue on
inventory of the Company's products held by Nortel on December
31, 1998. Thus, sales for the fourth quarter of 1998 would only
be approximately $4.7 to $5.2 million (as opposed to the $12.3
million in revenues previously reported) and earnings per share
were being reduced from a profit of $.07 to a net loss per share
of approximately $0.20 to $0.22. Contemporaneously, FVC
announced that revenues for the first quarter of 1999 were
expected to be significantly below analyst expectations with a
significant loss for the quarter, revenues would be between $8.0
and $8.5 million, and the net loss per share between $0.20 and
$0.22. Upon these disclosures, the price of FVC stock fell $10-
7/16 to $6-15/16, nearly 60%, in trading of 4.85 million shares,
almost 18 times the three-month daily average.

For additional details about the suit, call William Lerach, Alan
Schulman or Darren Robbins at 800-449-4900 or write to them at
wsl@mwbhl.com via email.


FVC.COM: Schubert & Reed File Complaint in California
-----------------------------------------------------
On April 12, 1999, Schubert & Reed LLP filed a class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of a class of purchasers of FVC.COM, Inc.
common stock (Nasdaq: FVCX) during the period 1/21/99 through
4/6/99. The suit names as defendants FVC.COM, Inc., its
President and CEO Richard M. Beyer, Chairman Ralph Ungermann,
CFO James O. Mitchell and other officers and directors for
violations of the federal securities laws.

On April 6, 1999, after the close of trading, FVC.COM admitted
that previously announced revenues for the quarter ended
December 31, 1998 would be reduced by $7 - $7.5 million. The
company previously announced "record" revenues of "$12.3
million, a 61 percent increase over revenues of $7.6 million in
the fourth quarter of 1997." In fact, FVC.COM only had revenues
of approximately $4.7 - $5.2 million for the quarter ended
12/31/98, for a net loss per share of $.20-$.22, instead of the
previously announced $.07 net income per share. During the
period after the "record" results were announced and the time
the company admitted the truth about its quarterly earnings,
officers and directors of the company sold 537,500 shares of the
company's stock for proceeds in excess of $8,055,795. When the
market learned the truth, FVC.COM's stock price fell from
$17.375 on April 6, 1999, to $6.938 on April 7, 1999, losing 60%
of its value in a single day's trading.

For more details, call Robert C. Schubert or Juden Justice Reed
at 415-788-4220 or write mail@schubert-reed.com via email.


MILBERG WEISS: Lawyers Pay $50 Million to Settle Lexecon Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press (AP) reported that Daniel Fischel, the dean
of the University of Chicago's law school, and his former
partners won a $50 million settlement in their lawsuit accusing
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach, a top New York law firm,
of trying to destroy their reputation by including them in a
racketeering case. The settlement came a day after a U.S.
District Court jury awarded Fischel and his partners $45 million
in compensatory damages. If the lawsuit had not been settled,
the jury would have been asked to award punitive damages on top
of the $45 million.

Milberg Weiss is known for filing shareholder class-action suits
in which investors go against corporate management with big
money at stake, according to the AP report. Fischel and Lexecon,
which provided expert testimony on economics and the law, help
to defend big corporations from such lawsuits.

"Because he's the dean of the law school he just doesn't want to
fan the flames," his attorney, Alan N. Salpeter, told reporters.
"He's extremely pleased with the result; he thinks justice has
been done," Salpeter said in the AP report. Under the agreement,
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach of New York wired $50
million to the plaintiffs Tuesday, Salpeter said. The law firm
denied any wrongdoing, he said. The settlement allows no appeal
and ends the bitter seven-year legal feud, Salpeter said.

According to the Associated Press, Milberg Weiss included
Lexecon as one of many defendants in a $1.2 billion racketeering
lawsuit filed by shareholders in 1990 over the Lincoln Savings &
Loan collapse. Lexecon prepared financial reports for Lincoln
Saving and was dismissed from the racketeering lawsuit, which
also named Charles Keating, lawyers and accountants. Salpeter
said the only reason Milberg Weiss sued Lexecon was to try to
taint the three men by tying them to the unpopular Lincoln
Savings case. The motive, the lawsuit said, was revenge for
Fischel's work in a 1988 case that cost Milberg Weiss a $200
million verdict. "We will destroy you," one Milberg Weiss
partner was quoted as telling Fischel, according to the AP.
Another allegedly boasted that "we're going to put that little
... out of business."

The AP reported that Fischel smiled broadly and laughed with
friends in the courtroom after the agreement was announced.
Fishel and his partners sold Lexecon for $63 million in
December. Salpeter said the $50 million was paid to Lexecon
Enterprises, created by the ex-partners for the sake of pursuing
the lawsuit.

The Associated Press reported that attorney Jerold Solovy, who
represented Milberg Weiss, left the courthouse without
commenting but later said that he was shocked by the decision. A
receptionist at Milberg Weiss said that no one was available to
comment. Lawyers for Milberg Weiss contended Lexecon had been
sued for a legitimate reason: It had once been a consultant and
helped defraud investors of Lincoln Savings.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Greenfield Firm Files Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Network Associates, Inc.
(NASDAQ: NETA) securities between Jan. 20, 1998 and April 6,
1999 for violations of federal securities laws. Defendants
include Network Associates and certain 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. The complaint further alleges that 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 reinstate 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 more information, contact Harvey Greenfield, Esq. at 212-
949-5500 or 877-949-5500 or write hgreenf@banet.com via email.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Yates Firm Files Complaint in California
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr 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 a series of materially false
and misleading statements of its financial results and business
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule 10b-5.

To learn more, call Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. at 800-391-5164
or 412-391-5164, or write to yateslaw@aol.com via email.


OIL ROYALTIES: Companies Pay $200 Million to Settle Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Austin American-Statesman reported that a federal judge has
completed approval of almost $200 million worth of settlements
between oil companies and the royalty owners they were accused
of short-changing. U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack
approved seven settlements ranging from $350,000 to $11 million,
plaintiffs' lawyer Lee Godfrey said in the story.

The judge reportedly approved an agreement by several oil
companies to pay $164.2 million to tens of thousands of royalty
owners nationwide. Oil companies named as defendants in the
cases included Exxon, Union Pacific Resources, Amoco BP, Chevron
and Shell.

According to the Austin American-Statesman, a central accusation
in the lawsuits was that the oil companies paid royalty owners
on posted prices rather than on higher spot- market prices. The
class action grew from numerous lawsuits filed in various courts
in several states. A judicial panel consolidated the lawsuits
last year.


PENNSYLVANIA LIFE: Association Owes Policyholders $16.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 8, the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania ruled that approximately 15 thousand Pennsylvania
residents who held life and annuity policies issued by Executive
Life Insurance Company of California are entitled to additional
compensation from the Pennsylvania Life and Health Insurance
Guaranty Association. The decision arose in a class action filed
by Herbert A. Gersenson in April, 1994. The suit asserted that
the Guaranty Association had failed to fulfill its statutory
obligations to Pennsylvania residents in connection with
Executive Life's 1991 insolvency.

The Superior Court's decision affirmed a June, 1998, grant of
summary judgment by the Honorable Stephen E. Levin of the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, who ruled that the Guaranty
Association owed an additional 16.5 million dollars, with
interest, to Mr. Gersenson and the class.

To learn more, contact Eileen Rosenau at 215-735-5512 or James
R. Malone, Jr., Esq. at 610-642-8500.


RITE AID: Hoffman & Edelson File Complaint in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman & Edelson and Sheller, Ludwig & Badey, P.C. filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of persons who purchased the
common stock of Rite Aid Corporation (NYSE: RAD) between
December 14, 1998 and March 11, 1999. The complaint alleges that
Rite Aid and its Chairman and CEO, Martin L. Grass, violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint charges that Rite Aid issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning Rite Aid's
operating results and business prospects. Because of the
issuance of these false and misleading statements, the price of
Rite Aid common stock was artificially inflated. The Complaint
alleges defendants hid the fact that the costs of store openings
and closings were far greater than Rite Aid led the investing
public to expect, that there were software start up problems at
its new distribution center, that the implementation of a
revised merchandising strategy would lead to markdowns that
would negatively impact earnings, and that the early closing of
the PCS Health Systems acquisition would contribute to a fourth
quarter earning shortfall.

On March 12, 1999, Rite Aid shocked the market by announcing its
true operating results and business prospects, and that earnings
for the fourth quarter ended February 28, 1999 would be
approximately $.30 to $.32 per share, well below Wall Street
expectations of $.52 per share. This revelation caused the price
of Rite Aid common stock to plummet $14-7/16 per share to $22-
9/16 per share - a plunge of more than 39% - on an enormous
volume of 47 million shares.

For additional details, contact Marc H. Edelson at 877-537-6532
or via email at Hofedlaw@aol.com or call Jonathan Shub, Esquire
at 800-883-2299 or write jshub@sheller.com via email.


SECURE COMPUTING: Stull Stull Files Complaint in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Secure Computing Corp.
(Nasdaq: SCUR) common stock between November 10, 1998 and March
31, 1999. The defendants include Secure Computing 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: issuing false and misleading
statements representing that demand was strong, that backlog had
never been better and it was on track to report growing
revenues. Defendants' false and misleading statements were
issued in an effort to artificially inflate Secure Computing's
stock price, allowing insiders to sell stock valued at more than
$6 million. On April 1, 1999, just weeks after reiterating that
the Company was on target to report is usual revenue and
earnings growth, the defendants disclosed Secure Computing's
terrible operating results and diminishing prospects.

Secure Computing designs, develops, and sells network security
solutions, including web filters, authentication and firewalls.
To learn more about the lawsuit, call Patrice Bishop at 888-388-
4605 or write plbatssb@aol.com via email.


STEPHAN CO.: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against The Stephan Co. (AMEX: TSC) and
certain individuals associated with the Company was filed by
Weiss & Yourman in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of investors who
purchased Stephan shares during the period August 4, 1998
through 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, artificially inflating the
price of Stephan common stock.


TOOTHBRUSH LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Need Labels to Avoid Abrasion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United Press International (UPI) reported that a Chicago man
is "bristled" over toothbrushes and says toothbrush
manufacturers need to post labels, much like those appearing on
alcohol and tobacco products, to warn consumers of the potential
hazards. In a lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court, the
Park Ridge man claims "toothbrush abrasion" is a disease and
distinct clinical entity, and is a leading cause of receding
gums and can lead to sensitive teeth.

UPI says toothbrush makers Colgate-Palmolive Co., John O. Butler
Co. of Chicago and Walgreen Co., which sells toothbrushes, are
among the corporate defendants named in the suit. The class-
action suit reportedly seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
anyone who suffers from toothbrush abrasion.

The American Dental Association is also named in Mark Trimarco's
suit. According to the UPI story, the trade group, which
represents about 72 percent of U.S. dentists, is accused of
endorsing allegedly hazardous toothbrushes and dental products
and failing to require warning labels as a condition of granting
its Seal of Acceptance to toothbrush manufacturers.

Dr. Michael Applebaum, a radiologist who's also a lawyer
representing Trimarco, tells the Chicago Tribune that people
need instructions on how to properly use the toothbrush.
Applebaum said in the UPI report, "(Toothbrush abrasion) is a
preventative (sic) problem that had people known about it, they
may have behaved differently. People injure themselves using
toothbrushes and there should be warnings and there should be
instructions."

The Chicago-based American Dental Association denies the
allegations, according to UPI. A spokesman says the toothbrushes
that pass its "seal of acceptance program" are safe and
consumers are "responsible for correctly using the brush."

According to Dr. Applebaum, more information about the lawsuit
is available at www.toothbrushlawsuit.com on the web.


TRIARC COMPANIES: Securities Litigation Continues and Commences
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triarc Companies, Inc., reported that on June 25, 1997, Kamran
Malekan and Daniel Mannion, allegedly stockholders of the
Company, commenced an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
New Castle County against the directors and certain former
directors of the Company, and naming the Company as a nominal
defendant. The action purports to assert claims on behalf of the
Company and a class of all persons who held stock of the Company
on April 25, 1994.

In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated their fiduciary duties and duties of good
faith to the Company and its stockholders and violated
representations in the Company's 1994 Proxy Statement by
granting certain compensation to Nelson Peltz and Peter May in
1994- 1997, including special bonuses to Messrs. Peltz and May
in 1996. The plaintiffs further allege that the 1994 Proxy
Statement contained false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's compensation plans. The amended complaint seeks,
among other remedies, rescission of all option grants to Messrs.
Peltz and May that allegedly contravene the representations in
the 1994 Proxy Statement, an order directing Messrs. Peltz and
May to repay to the Company their 1996 special bonuses, an order
enjoining the defendants from awarding compensation to Messrs.
Peltz and May in violation of the representations in the 1994
Proxy Statement and damages. Discovery has commenced in the
action.

On August 13, 1997, Ruth LeWinter and Calvin Shapiro, both
allegedly Company stockholders, commenced a purported class and
derivative action against certain current and former directors
of the Company, and naming the Company as a nominal defendant,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The complaint asserts substantially the same claims,
and seeks substantially the same relief, as the amended
complaint in the Malekan action discussed above. The Company,
its current directors, and certain of its former directors have
moved to dismiss or stay the LeWinter action pending the
resolution of the Malekan action. That motion is pending.

On October 2, 1997, five former directors of the Company,
including the three former court-appointed directors, filed
cross-claims in the LeWinter action against the Company and
Nelson Peltz. The cross-claims alleged that Mr. Peltz violated
an undertaking given to a federal court in February 1993 by
failing to vote his shares to keep the former directors on the
Company's Board, and that he conspired with Steven Posner to
violate a court order prohibiting Mr. Posner from serving as an
officer or director of the Company. The former directors seek
indemnification in connection with the LeWinter action; damages
in an unspecified amount in excess of $75,000; and costs and
attorney's fees. The Company and Mr. Peltz have moved to dismiss
the cross-claims, and the former directors have moved for
specific enforcement of their claim for indemnification. By
order dated October 8, 1998, the court denied the motion for
specific enforcement as to the three former court appointed
directors, and granted the motion as to the other two former
directors. The Company's motion to dismiss the remaining cross-
claims is pending. There has been no discovery in the action to
date.

In connection with the Proposed Going Private Transaction,
various class actions had been brought on behalf of Triarc's
stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the offer by Messrs. Peltz and May. These class
actions name Triarc, Messrs. Peltz and May and directors of
Triarc as defendants. The class actions allege that consummation
of the offer by Messrs. Peltz and May would constitute a breach
of the fiduciary duties of Triarc's directors, that the proposed
consideration to be paid for the Triarc common stock in the
Proposed Going Private Transaction was unfair, and demand, in
addition to damages and costs, that consummation of the offer by
Messrs. Peltz and May be enjoined.

On March 26, 1999, four of the plaintiffs in the foregoing
actions filed an amended complaint alleging that the defendants
violated fiduciary duties owed to the Company's stockholders by
failing to disclose, in connection with the Company's Dutch
Auction self-tender offer, that the Special Committee had
allegedly determined that the Proposed Going Private Transaction
was unfair. The amended complaint seeks an injunction enjoining
consummation of the self-tender offer unless the alleged
disclosure violations are cured, and requiring the Company to
provide additional disclosure, together with damages in an
unspecified amount.

On March 23, 1999, Norman Salsitz, allegedly a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company,
Nelson Peltz, and Peter May. The complaint purports to assert a
claim for alleged violation of Section 14(e) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, on behalf of all persons who
held stock in the Company as of March 10, 1999. The complaint
alleges that the Company's tender offer statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
proposed Dutch Auction self-tender offer was materially false
and misleading in that, among other things, it failed to
disclose alleged recent valuations of the Company, which the
complaint alleges showed that the self-tender price was unfair
to the Company's stockholders. The complaint seeks damages in an
amount to be determined, together with prejudgment interest, the
costs of suit, including attorneys' fees, and unspecified other
relief.



                            *********

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  * * *