CAR_Public/990419.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, April 19, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 52

                            Headlines

ALLIED PILOTS: Sickout Claims May Ground AA Pilots Union
AMERICA WEST: Reinhardt & Anderson File Complaint in Arizona
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Gross Firm Files Complaint in Texas
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Law Firms Identify More Defrauded Victims
CURATIVE HEALTH: Berman DeValerio Files Complaint in New York

CURATIVE HEALTH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in New York
EVOLVING SYSTEMS: Shareholder Suits Settle For $10 Million
FVC.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in California
MONARCH DENTAL: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Texas
MOTT'S INC.: Apple Sweetener Controversy Settlement Pending

NETWORK ASSOCIATES Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in California
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Suit in California
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Wechsler Harwood Files Suit in California
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Savett Frutkin Files Suit in California
R.J. REYNOLDS: Tobacco Co. Glad Cigarettes Don't Kill Classes

SECURE COMPUTING: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in California
STAFFMARK INC.: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Arkansas
SUNBEAM: Kirby Mcinerney Files Complaint in Florida
Y2K LITIGATION: Firm Thinks Lucent Needs to Fix Telephone Bugs
ZONAGEN INC.: Consolidated Texas Securities Litigation Dismissed


                            *********


ALLIED PILOTS: Sickout Claims May Ground AA Pilots Union
--------------------------------------------------------
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that the union
representing 9,400 pilots at American Airlines, faced with a
multimillion-dollar court fine and lawsuits seeking hundreds of
millions more, is flying into a financial storm that could
threaten its existence. According to the story, the Allied
Pilots Association runs into its first squall this week, when
U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall is expected to levy a stiff
contempt-of-court fine for defying a back-to-work order he
issued during the pilots' February sickout. Kendall has already
ordered the union to make a $10 million down payment, and he
indicated that the actual award might be much larger.

The paper reported that the head winds could get even stronger
as the union encounters civil lawsuits filed on behalf of
travelers whose flights were disrupted by the sickout. The suits
seek damages of more than $200 million. The airline told the
Fort Worth Star-Telegram it was forced to cancel 6,700 flights
over 10 days; as many as 2,500 pilots called in sick.

In the story, union officials acknowledge that Kendall's fine
alone could empty the union's coffers and that they have given
some thought to filing for bankruptcy, although the union has
not hired bankruptcy counsel. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram
reported that in Kendall's court in February, officials
indicated that the union had about $38 million in net assets.
American estimated that it lost more than $50 million in the
three days the pilots defied the back-to-work order.

The civil suits raise the financial stakes, although it is
unclear how the plaintiffs would collect if they win. Because
the cases venture into largely uncharted legal territory -
consumers suing a union for damages - it's also difficult to
predict how a judge or jury might decide. But some experts
believe that the plaintiffs have a compelling case. Richard
Barsness, a professor of management and a labor expert at Lehigh
University in Bethlehem, Pa., told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
that the union leaders have put the union "between a rock and a
hard place." He reportedly said that if a judge or jury rules
that the sickout violates the Railway Labor Act, which sets
specific criteria to be met in airline labor disputes, the
plaintiffs in the civil suits would be entitled to damages. "The
whole premise of the Railway Labor Act is that strikes in the
transportation industries aren't in the public interest and the
parties have to follow all the steps laid out in the law before
they can strike or engage in other forms of self-help," Barsness
told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Bill Keller of Dallas, a former chairman of the labor employment
law section of both the Texas and American bar associations,
told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that the courts are likely to
favor the consumers because the "public policy interest" is to
prevent disruptions in the nation's commerce.

However, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram said that the union
contends that the Railway Labor Act will protect it from
liability in the lawsuits.

The paper explained that the dispute between the union and
American management flared over the airline's acquisition of
Reno Air late last year. The two sides met several times to try
and reach an agreement, but negotiations broke down on Feb. 5.
Pilots began calling in sick in unusual numbers the next day.

Union leaders reject assertions that the sickout was illegal.
They argue that pilots were within their rights because
American's management violated their contract. "Our position is
straightforward," wrote President Rich LaVoy in a letter to one
North Texas businessman who filed a claim in small-claims court
against the union. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote that the
businessman, Peter Conners, is seeking compensation for the
ticket he had to buy on Vanguard Airlines to get home from
Chicago after his American flight was canceled. LaVoy wrote: "We
believe that our pilots were legally entitled to self-help in
response to the unilateral abrogation by American Airlines of
the terms of our working agreement. ... Therefore, we recommend
that you direct your request for compensation to American
Airlines' management." Edgar James, the union's general counsel,
has argued forcefully in court, in filings and in communications
with union members that consumers are preempted by the Railway
Labor Act from receiving damages because of a labor-management
dispute that affects flights. In a formal response to one suit,
union lawyers cited 20 legal reasons why the plaintiffs lack
standing or otherwise aren't entitled to receive damages.

Brian Mayhew, a union vice president, told the Fort Worth Star-
Telegram that just because Kendall held the union in contempt
doesn't mean that he will ultimately rule that the sickout was
illegal from its outset. "Temporary restraining orders ordering
unions back to work are pretty standard stuff in the airline
business," said Mayhew in the report. "A judge is going to be
most concerned with getting the planes back in the air. So he'll
issue a back-to-work order and then try to push the parties into
settling their differences. That doesn't mean that the union was
acting illegally when it launched its job action."

Issuing the contempt citation on Feb. 13, the Fort Worth Star-
Telegram said Kendall referred to the pilots' actions as an
"illegal sickout" and that the union is "responsible for the
damages these passengers have suffered." Lawyers who filed the
civil suits for travelers will keep a close eye on Kendall's
hearing this week, which is expected to continue through
Tuesday. "Our case does not rise or fall based on the outcome of
the contempt damages hearing in Judge Kendall's court," Russel
H. Beatie Jr., a Manhattan lawyer who represents a group of New
Yorkers and Floridians suing the Allied Pilots in federal court
in Dallas, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "But one would
assume that Judge Kendall's rulings in the case before him would
hold a significant amount of weight in the eyes of the judge and
the jury in any civil lawsuits arising from the sickout."
Beatie's clients reportedly seek unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for themselves and for every consumer who held
a ticket for travel on American between Feb. 3 and Feb. 13, and
every shipper who contracted for freight services on American
between those dates.

Thomas Verticchio, a Chicago lawyer who filed a class-action
suit in Tarrant County on behalf of two Chicago-area travelers,
Steven Carli and Shon Prejean, echoes Beatie. The Fort Worth
Star-Telegram wrote that Verticchio said if Kendall or a jury
finds that the pilots violated the law when they launched their
sickout, "such a ruling would carry an enormous amount of weight
in the civil liability suits." Peter Catalano, a San Francisco
attorney representing six Chicago-area residents whose travel
was disrupted, goes further, the paper explained. Catalano said
flatly that when Kendall slapped the union with a contempt
ruling, he proved his case for him. "My burden," Catalano told
the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "is just to present the judge and
jury in our case with copies of Judge Kendall's ruling. ... Then
I have to convince the court that those affected travelers are
entitled to $200 per incident of delay or inconvenience. I don't
think it will be particularly hard to convince a judge or jury
of that."

According to the story, the plaintiffs' lawyers scoff at the
union's legal arguments. The union is claiming that the Railway
Labor Act is a "get out of jail free card," said John Malesovas
of Waco, whose suit on behalf of Fort Worth residents Jim and
JoEllen Cashion was originally filed in Tarrant County. "They're
saying our claim is over a labor dispute," he told the Fort
Worth Star-Telegram. "We're saying it is not. ... This is a
simple case of tortious interference by the pilots with the
contract of carriage between my clients and American Airlines."

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote that all but one of the suits
filed against the union have been moved, upon the union's
motion, to federal court in Dallas, where they are likely to be
consolidated into a single class-action suit before U.S.
District Judge Jorge Solis.


AMERICA WEST: Reinhardt & Anderson File Complaint in Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt & Anderson filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Class B common stock of
America West Holdings Corp. (NYSE: AWA) between November 19,
1997, and September 3, 1998.

The complaint charges America West and certain officers,
directors and controlling shareholders of the Company with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that by issuing
false statements about America West's supposed competitive
advantages due to its exceptionally low operating costs,
industry-leading aircraft utilization rates, cost savings
outsourced aircraft maintenance procedures, improving financial
results, record earnings per share together with prospects for
continued growth, and using $99 million of the Company's own
cash to repurchase 4.8 million shares on the open market,
defendants artificially inflated the price of America West stock
to an all time high of 31 5/16 on April 21, 1998. It is further
alleged that while the price of America West's stock was
artificially inflated, the insiders unloaded approximately 97%
of their own America West stock in just 90 days.

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


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Gross Firm Files Complaint in Texas
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross P.C. filed a class action
lawsuit on April 12, 1999 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of investors who
purchased common stock of Compaq Computer Corporation (NYSE:
CPQ) from January 27, 1999 through April 9, 1999. The Complaint
charges CPQ and certain officers 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 that failed to
disclose that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
material facts that sales to small and medium size businesses in
North America and Europe had slowed in January and such slowdown
would effect negatively Compaq's earnings and revenues. During
this time period, numerous officers of Compaq sold hundreds of
thousands of shares of Compaq common stock in advance of the
revelation of the truth.

To learn more, contact Susan Gross, Esq. or Christopher Reyna,
Esq. at 800-258-9349 or 215-561-3600, or write
susang@bernardmgross.com or chris@bernardmgross.com via email.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Law Firms Identify More Defrauded Victims
----------------------------------------------------------
Two law firms, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, and
Hoeffner, Bilek & Eidman, which commenced securities class
actions on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Compaq
Computer Corporation (NYSE: CPQ) in March 1999, intend to extend
the class period in an amended complaint to include those
acquiring the company's securities from January 27, 1999 through
April 9, 1999.

According to Hoeffner Bilek, 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.

According to Milberg Weiss, on April 9, 1999 Compaq announced
that its earnings for the first fiscal quarter, the three-month
period ended March 31, 1999, would be below analyst consensus
estimates by a shocking 50%. Following this announcement, Compaq
shares plummeted over 22% in value on volume of over 100 million
shares.

To learn more, contact Thomas E. Bilek, Esq., at Hoeffner Bilek
at 713-227-7720, or Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman, at
Milberg Weiss at 800-320-5081 or endfraud@mwbhl.com via email.


CURATIVE HEALTH: Berman DeValerio Files Complaint in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP, filed a class action lawsuits
against Curative Health Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: CURE) in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. The lawsuit is brought for violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of
Curative Health Service's common stock during the period June
26, 1996 through April 9, 1999.

"The action filed today charges that Curative Health engaged in
improper Medicare billings which caused the company's publicly
reported revenues and earnings to be materially overstated" said
Jeffrey C. Block, one of the partners at Berman DeValerio. On
April 7, 1999 it was announced that the United States Department
of Health and Human Services had issued a subpoena to Curative
Health Services seeking documents relating to its Medicare
billing practices. On April 9, 1999 it was revealed that the
United States Department of Justice had joined in a lawsuit
charging Curative Health Services with Medicare fraud. Curative
Health Service's common stock price plummeted in reaction to
this news falling from its closing price of $11 3/4 per share
before the disclosure of the subpoena to close at $4 11/16 on
April 12, 1999, a 60% decline.

To learn more, contact Kathryn A. McElroy, Esq., Jennifer L.
Finger, Esq., or Jeffrey C. Block, Esq., at bdplaw@bermanesq.com
via email, or call 800-516-9926.


CURATIVE HEALTH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased
Curative Health Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: CURE) stock between May
14, 1996, and April 12, 1999. The lawsuit charges Cure and
certain officers and directors with violations of the federal
securities laws and regulations of the United States.

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
concerning the Company's financial condition. Specifically,
defendants engaged in a concerted course of conduct to defraud
Medicare so as to increase the Company's reported revenues by:
(a) filing excessive charges with Columbia/HCA Healthcare
Corporation which were in turn paid by Columbia to Cure
following Columbia's reimbursement by Medicare; (b) shifting
costs from non-allowable services to allowable services to
assure payment by Medicare; (c) violating the "anti-kickback"
statute as a portion of the Company's fees was based on the
number of new patients seen in the Company's Wound Care Centers;
and (d) failing to disclose that the Company's illegal practices
were jeopardizing the Company's ability to remain a viable
entity and that, absent the illegal practices described below,
the Company would have been unable to recover substantial
payments from Medicare.

The Company's fraudulent practices were disclosed on or about
April 9, 1999, when the United States Department of Justice
joined a "whistle blower" lawsuit that had been filed against
Columbia. Specifically, the complaint filed in the "whistle
blower" action alleges that in 1993, after Medicare decided not
to pay for Procuren(R) (a drug used by the Company for the
treatment of serious wounds) Columbia and Cure agreed to amend
its contracts by increasing fixed management fees more than
400%, by cutting more than half the amount charged by Cure for
Procuren(R) and by adding a management fee of $400 per patient.
The lawsuit further alleges that the $400 fee violated the
Medicare Anti-kickback Act.

For additional details, contact Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq., Fred
Taylor Isquith, Esq., Shane T. Rowley, Esq. or legal assistant
Michael Miske by telephone at 800-575-0735 or write to them at
classmember@whafh.com or whafh@aol.com via email.


EVOLVING SYSTEMS: Shareholder Suits Settle For $10 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Evolving Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: EVOL) announced that it has
reached a settlement of the shareholder class action lawsuit
pending in the District of Colorado. The aggregate settlement
amount is Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000), in cash. The
settlement will be funded by insurance proceeds and by the
Company, with the Company paying Two Million Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000), plus legal fees and other
expenses incurred by the Company in connection with the lawsuit.
The $2,500,000 payment, legal fees and other expenses will be
paid out of the Company's cash balances. The settlement is
subject to approval by the Court.

Evolving Systems provides the telecommunications industry with
software products and systems integration for a full range of
business and operational support systems and network element
software. Since its start in 1985, Evolving Systems has
developed a variety of telecom products such as service-order
entry and automated provisioning systems, wireless data
applications, local number portability solutions and IP
telephony technology.

To learn more, call David R. Johnson at 303-802-2013, or Jo Ann
Washburn at 303-802-1123.


FVC.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------
On April 12, 1999, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors
who bought FVC.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: FVCX) stock between January
21, 1999 and April 6, 1999. The lawsuit charges FVC and several
of its top officers with violations of the securities laws and
regulations of the United States.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's fourth
quarter 1998 results. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company knowingly or recklessly overstated the Company's
results for the fourth quarters of 1998 by engaging in improper
accounting practices in violation of generally accepted
accounting practices ("GAAP"). The complaint further alleges
that certain defendants availed themselves of their inside
knowledge to take advantage of the Company's inflated share
price and sell 245,000 of their own shares for gross proceeds of
over $3 million. Upon the announcement that results for the
fourth quarter would be far below expectations, FVC common stock
plunged 59% on eight times average volume.

For more information, call Michael Miske, Gregory Nespole, Esq.,
Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. or Shane T. Rowley, Esq. at 800-575-
0735 or write classmember@whafh.com or whafh@aol.com by email.


MONARCH DENTAL: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Monarch Dental Corporation
(NASDAQ: MDDS) common stock between February 24, 1998 and
December 22, 1998. The complaint charges Monarch and certain of
its officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the defendants stated that Monarch
continued to make strategic acquisitions of quality practices
and experience solid internal growth as its business
fundamentals remained strong and would successfully execute its
growth plans for 1998 and beyond as they were pleased with
Monarch's financial performance and confident that Monarch would
earn $0.58 in 1998. These statements caused the price of
Monarch's common stock to increase to a high of nearly $20 per
share and permitted the defendants to use Monarch's artificially
inflated stock as a currency to acquire numerous dental
practices and permit Monarch's venture capital investor to
distribute one million Monarch shares to the limited partners of
the various entities it controlled who could then sell Monarch
shares before they collapsed in price.

However, internally at Monarch, the defendants knew that
Monarch's business fundamentals were anything but strong, as
Monarch had acquired low quality practices, three of its Houston
offices were running cash flow negative and its infrastructure
was insufficient to competently manage or synthesize the
numerous practices it had acquired and that, because of these
and other negative factors, Monarch would badly miss its
earnings projections of $0.18 and $0.58 for the fourth quarter
and year 1998 respectively. When the defendants revealed to the
securities markets on December 22, 1998 and March 11, 1999 that
Monarch would post a huge $0.38 loss in the fourth quarter as a
result of $7.7 million in charges that would nearly wipe out all
of Monarch's earnings for the entire year 1998, the price of
Monarch stock collapsed and traded below $3 per share,
approximately 90% below its recent highs.

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


MOTT'S INC.: Apple Sweetener Controversy Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Three actions are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury, in which the
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others, claim that
Cadbury Schweppes, P.L.C., Cadbury Beverages, Inc., Mott's
U.S.A. and Mott's, Inc., falsely advertised Mott's 100% Apple
Juice Products containing apple juice concentrate and violated
applicable laws. Plaintiffs charge that defendants failed to
disclose that certain of Mott's 100% Apple Juice Products
containing apple juice concentrate also contained sweeteners
from non-apple sources. Mott's vigorously denies any and all
liability for these claimed allegations.

Still, the parties have decided to settle these claims, and the
following Settlement Class has been conditionally certified for
the purpose of the proposed settlement: All persons in the
United States who purchased Mott's 100% Apple Juice Products
containing apple juice concentrate during the period from March
11, 1990 to October 1, 1997, excluding the Defendants, any
entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest, the
present and former officers, directors and affiliates of
Defendants, and the legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors or assigns of any such person.

Under the proposed settlement, which is awaiting Court approval,
Mott's shall distribute throughout the United States, at its
sole expense, coupons for future purchases of Mott's products
until a total value of $1,100,000.00 has been redeemed. In
addition, as part of this proposed settlement, Mott's has agreed
to pay Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses as ordered by
the Court in an amount not to exceed $375,000. Mott's will pay
all costs of publishing this notice of the proposed settlement
on the Internet for 65 days and one time in the national weekend
edition of USA Today.

More information about the settlement can be obtained from a
notice at http://www.motts.com/settlement.htmon the web.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 12, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of investors who
bought Network Associates, Inc.(Nasdaq: NETA) stock between
January 20, 1998 and April 6, 1999. The lawsuit charges Network
Associates and one of its top officers with violations of the
securities laws and regulations of the United States.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial
condition for fiscal years 1997 and 1998. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company knowingly or recklessly
overstated the Company's earnings by failing to conform to
generally accepted accounting practices ("GAAP") with respect to
its in-process research and development expenses. Upon the
announcement that the Company would restate downward its in-
process research and development write-offs for fiscal 1997 and
1998 by $13 million and $169 million respectively, the Company's
stock price plunged as much as 27% in heavy trading.

For more information, contact Michael Miske, Gregory Nespole,
Esq., Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., or Shane T. Rowley, Esq., by
telephone at 800-575-0735 or write classmember@whafh.com or
whafh@aol.com via email.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP filed a class action suit against
NETWORK ASSOCIATES, INC. (Nasdaq: NETA) and certain individuals
associated with the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. The suit is brought on
behalf of all who purchased Network Associates common stock
between January 20, 1998 and April 6, 1999.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
numerous false statements about Network Associates, its
financial results and its business prospects which artificially
inflated earnings. The Complaint further alleges that the price
of Network Associates stock was also artificially inflated as a
result of defendants' conduct which included, downplaying the
significance of a letter from the Securities and Exchange
Commission questioning the Company's accounting practices. In
addition, the Complaint alleges that the individual defendants
and other Network Associates executives reaped millions of
dollars in proceeds from stock sales while in possession of
material adverse and non-public information.

To learn more, call Frederic S. Fox, Esq., Janine Azriliant,
Esq., or Donald R. Hall, Esq., at 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980,
or write to lawkkf@aol.com via email.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Wechsler Harwood Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP, filed a class action
lawsuit on April 12, 1999, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons
who purchased the common stock issued by 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 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, respectively. 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.

It was only after these stock sales occurred, however, 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. 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, contact Robert I. Harwood, Esq., Mathew
M. Houston, Esq., or Jeffrey B. Silverstein, Esq. by email at
mhouston@whhf.com or jsilv@whhf.com or call 877-935-7400.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Savett Frutkin Files Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of Networks Associates
Inc. (NASDAQ: NETA) common stock during the period January 20,
1998 through 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) (EASDAQ: SOLL), in connection with Networks
Associates' acquisition of Doctor Solomon's on August 13, 1998.

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

It was only after these stock sales occurred that the defendants
revealed that Networks Associates' accounting procedures may be
improper. On January 6, 1999, Networks Associates revealed that
it had received a letter from the Securities and Exchange
Commission questioning the Company's accounting practices in the
Company's SEC filings made during 1998. In stark contrast to the
defendants' statements during the Class Period, the defendants
admitted after the close of the market on April 6, 1999 that, in
connection with the SEC's investigation, Networks Associates had
determined that: its in-process research and development
expenditures were overstated by $169 million in 1998; its
amortization expenses were materially understated in 1998; and
its amortization expense for 1Q99 would increase to $58 million
from planned expense of $22 million.

To learn more, call Barbara A. Podell, Esquire at 800-993-3233
or write sfprpc@op.net via email.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Tobacco Co. Glad Cigarettes Don't Kill Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. announced "another positive legal
development for the tobacco industry," in that a lawsuit filed
against the industry alleging that the industry tried to deceive
and addict smokers to cigarettes was denied class certification.
In denying class certification for the case (Judith E.
Chamberlain, et al., v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et
al.), Judge Patricia A. Gaughan (U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division) wrote that "the plaintiffs'
claims in this case are permeated with individual issues of
reliance, causation and damages." Judge Gaughan also noted:
"Because there are so many individual issues, it is this Court's
view that trying this case as a class action would require an
overwhelming number of 'mini-trials' on the numerous individual
issues involved."

Daniel W. Donahue, senior vice president and deputy general
counsel for Reynolds Tobacco, applauded the ruling, saying,
"Courts continue to recognize that claims by individuals who
used a similar product at different times, for different reasons
and with different results simply cannot be certified as a
class." Donahue noted: "Since the landmark opinion decertifying
the Castano class several years ago, no federal court has
certified a smoking and health case as a class action. We
believe that the minority of opinions from state courts
certifying them will be overturned on appeal."

To learn more, call Seth Moskowitz at 336-741-7698.


SECURE COMPUTING: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on
April 12, 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 Secure Computing Corp.
(Nasdaq: SCUR) between November 10, 1998 and March 31, 1999. The
complaint charges Secure Computing 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 Secure Computing's business
operations and earnings growth and its ability to continue to
achieve profitable growth. By issuing these allegedly false and
misleading statements, defendants artificially inflated Secure
Computing's stock price from $14 1/8 on November 9, 1998 to a
high of $28 in January 1999, allowing Secure Computing's top
insiders to sell 366,001 shares of their Secure Computing stock
worth more than $6 million, before the true facts about Secure
Computing's troubled operations, large losses and failed sales
strategy were revealed and Secure Computing's stock collapsed to
as low as $5 9/16 per share.

To learn more, call 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.


STAFFMARK INC.: Stull Stull Files Complaint in Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a securities class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas against StaffMark Inc. (NASDAQ: STAF) and certain
officers and directors on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of StaffMark at artificially inflated prices between
July 6, 1997, and March 2, 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 StaffMark's financial condition and
operating performance. As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements and omissions, the price of StaffMark's
securities was artificially inflated, such that persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired StaffMark's securities were
damaged by overpaying for their securities.

For additional details, call Tzivia Brody, Esq. at 1-800-337-
4983, or write to SSBNY@aol.com via email.


SUNBEAM: Kirby Mcinerney Files Complaint in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
On April 13, 1999, Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
persons who purchased zero coupon convertible debentures after
the initial offering, between March 20, 1998 and June 30, 1998,
inclusive, except for securities acquired in the offering.

The complaint asserts that Sunbeam made material omissions and
misrepresentations that had the effect of inflating the market
price of the debentures. Offered at about $37.24, their trading
price toward the end of the class period was less than $23.00.
The complaint names as defendants the issuer, its auditor Arthur
Andersen, and two former Sunbeam principals, Messrs. Dunlap and
Kersh. The plaintiff is an institution, which acquired in excess
of $150 million, face amount, of the debentures during the class
period, and was damaged thereby.

To learn more, call Randall K. Berger, Esq. or Ms. Barrett
Godsey at 212-317-2300 or 888-529-4787, or write kms@kmslaw.com
via email.


Y2K LITIGATION: Firm Thinks Lucent Needs to Fix Telephone Bugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia publication the Sunday Gazette-Mail reported
on a Charleston law firm contemplating a class action against
Lucent Technologies, formerly AT&T. According to the story, the
firm is trying to find others whose phone systems may falter at
the end of the year. Depending on response to a current
newspaper ad, a class action suit could be in the works.

According to the report, at the heart of the matter is the
firm's purchase in 1995 of a $42,000 telephone system. Jim
Peterson, a lawyer with the firm, told the Sunday Gazette-Mail
that he's heard it will cost $15,000 more to make all aspects of
the system Y2K compatible. Unless the firm lays out more money,
some functions of the system may not work when the calendar
rolls to 2000, he said. Peterson said he doubts his firm - Hill,
Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler - is alone in the dilemma. So
he's running a newspaper ad to solicit calls from other
companies that may find themselves in the same boat.

The Sunday Gazette-Mail reported that the ad is aimed at
customers of Lucent who may have been "snookered." "Did Lucent
recently tell you that your phone system is not Y2K
compatible?," the ad asks. "Worse yet, did Lucent tell you that
you must pay to fix the system they sold you? If so, you may
have legal rights (after all, when you bought it, they said it
would work)."

Peterson told the Sunday Gazette-Mail that potential problems
with the phone system came to his firm's attention when Lucent
sent a letter saying two of the firm's features may not be Y2K
compatible. "We searched high and low to get the type system we
needed and eventually settled on the system manufactured at that
time by AT&T. It's called the Merlin System. "There are various
features that come with that phone. "We purchased call
accounting and voice messaging, two of the more frequently
purchased add-ons to a phone system." At the time, he said his
firm was assured that the system would operate without a hitch
well past the year 2000. "Lo and behold, in February of this
year we received a letter from Lucent Technologies explaining
that two of the features of our phone were not Y2K compatible.
The cost to upgrade the voice messaging system and call
accounting that we had would require new software and new
hardware totaling approximately $15,000."

Peterson told the Sunday Gazette-Mail that it isn't fair for the
company to try to extract more money for a system that's paid
for and was supposed to work. So he's thinking of a class action
suit if other firms are having the same problem. "We've had
numerous calls from banks, attorneys' offices and car
dealerships," he said. "They received the same letters." When
the system was sold, the company should have anticipated turn-
of-the-century problems, he said. "Clearly, in the 1990s any
computer person knew that a computer-driven package was going to
have a problem unless software or computer chips were
upgraded... . They had a duty to explain that, come the year
2000, they were going to have a problem. At a minimum, they had
a duty to inform people of that."

Lynn Newman, a spokeswoman for Lucent Technologies, told the
Sunday Gazette-Mail that cases of Y2K incompatibility make up
only about 5 percent of the firm's systems. "The most important
thing is that more than 95 percent of the products business
communication systems are using are currently compliant. For the
vast majority of our customers, the year 2000 isn't an issue."
Newman reportedly said if products made available on or after
Sept. 30, 1996, aren't in compliance, they will be adjusted at
no cost to the customer. When asked about systems sold before
that date, she told the Sunday Gazette-Mail, "What we've been
doing is contacting each of our customers who may have a Y2K
issue and talking with them about upgrading or adjusting. Some
may stay with what they have. Others may choose to upgrade. It's
really going to vary... . Each customer among that small
minority is going to be different. We've found some customers
who, when we tell them how the Y2K issue may affect their
system, say, 'That's fine. We'll stay with what we have.' It's
on an individual case basis. That's how we're approaching it."


ZONAGEN INC.: Consolidated Texas Securities Litigation Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zonagen Inc. (Nasdaq: ZONA) (Pacific: ZNG) announced that the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas has dismissed
with prejudice the class action lawsuits filed against the
Company which had been consolidated on May 29, 1998. The
lawsuits alleged that the Company and certain of its directors
and officers violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements about the patents and patent
applications relating to Vasomax(R) and ImmuMax, and about the
Company's clinical trials of Vasomax(R). The Court ruled that
the lawsuits failed to state a claim under the federal
securities laws.

Zonagen Inc. develops pharmaceutical products for the
reproductive system, treating sexual dysfunction, urology,
contraception and infertility.

For more details, call Jean Anne Mire at 281-719-3491.



                            *********

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  * * *