CAR_Public/990421.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 21, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 54

                            Headlines

AMERICAN STORES: Egg Price Fixing Trial to Start in July 1999
BASSETT FURNITURE: Mattress Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: 1980 Wheat & Barley Rate Case Ends
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Shareholder Litigation Rolls on Slow Track
CARNIVAL CORP.: Anticipates 2 Years to Resolve Settlement Appeal

CHS ELECTRONICS: Schubert & Reed File Complaint in Florida
CRIIMI MAE: Maryland Dist. Ct. Consolidates Shareholder Actions
CURATIVE HEALTH: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in New York
ELBIT MEDICAL: Shareholders Seek Distribution or Redemption
ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit

FEDERAL EXPRESS: One Customer Excise Tax Suit Remains in Alabama
FVC.COM: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Complaint
ILLINOIS SCHOOLS: East St.Louis Kids & ACLU Win Some Lose Some
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Suit in California
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in California

OHIO JUDGES: Federal Court Rejects Voting Discrimination Claim
ORACLE CORP.: Defense of California Shareholder Suits Continues
PARACELSUS HEALTHCARE: Shareholder Settlement Revamps Management
SECURE COMPUTING: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in California
STAFFMARK INC.: Finkelstein & Krinsk File Complaint in Arkansas

TRISTAR CORP.: IRS Balks at Class Action Settlement Deductions


                            *********


AMERICAN STORES: Egg Price Fixing Trial to Start in July 1999
-------------------------------------------------------------
On September 13, 1996, a class action lawsuit captioned
McCampbell et al. v. Ralphs Grocery Company, et al. was filed in
the San Diego Superior Court of the State of California against
the Company and two other grocery chains operating in southern
California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
AMERICAN STORES CO. and others conspired to fix the retail price
of eggs in southern California. The plaintiffs claim that the
defendants' actions violate provisions of the California
Cartwright Act and constitute unfair competition.

Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount purportedly
sustained by the class and have produced a damages study which
purports to support damages of approximately $56 million
attributable to the Company. If damages were to be awarded, they
may be trebled under the applicable statute. Plaintiffs also
seek an injunction against future actions in restraint of trade
or unfair competition.

The Company has filed an answer denying plaintiffs' allegations
and setting forth several defenses. On October 3, 1997, the
Court issued an order certifying a class of retail purchasers of
white chicken eggs sold in the one-dozen pack from defendants'
stores within Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernadino, San Diego,
Imperial and Orange Counties during the period from September
13, 1992 to the present. It is currently expected that trial
will commence during July 1999. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims, disputes the
accuracy of plaintiffs' damages study, and plans to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.


BASSETT FURNITURE: Mattress Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A suit was filed in June, 1997, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles against
BASSETT FURNITURE INDUSTRIES INC., two major retailers and
certain current and former employees of the Company. The suit
sought certification of a class consisting of all consumers who
purchased certain mattresses and box springs from the major
retailers that were manufactured by a subsidiary of the Company,
E.B. Malone Corporation, with different specifications than
those originally manufactured for sale by these retailers.

The suit alleged various causes of action, including negligent
misrepresentation, breach of warranty, violations of deceptive
practices laws and fraud. Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages
of $100 million and punitive damages. In 1997, the Superior
Court twice sustained the Company's demurrers to several of
plaintiffs' causes of action, but granted the plaintiffs leave
to amend. In February, 1998, the Superior Court sustained the
Company's demurrers to many of the individual claims, this time
without granting plaintiffs leave to amend. The Superior Court
also sustained the Company's demurrer to the class action
allegations in plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, without
granting leave to amend, and transferred the entire action out
of the class action department.

Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal from the class action
ruling. Plaintiffs also filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
or other extraordinary relief seeking immediate review of the
other demurrer rulings, which petition was denied. The suit was
subsequently transferred from the Superior Court for the County
of Los Angeles to the Superior Court for Orange County. After
the case was transferred to Orange County, the plaintiffs
stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of all individual
defendants. Additionally, all remaining claims against the
Company were stayed by the Court pending Plaintiffs' appeal of
the dismissal of their class action allegations.

Although it is impossible to predict the ultimate outcome of
this litigation, the Company intends to vigorously defend this
suit because it believes that the damages sought are unjustified
and because this case is inappropriate for class action
treatment. Because the Company believes that the two major
retailers were unaware of the changes in specifications, the
Company has agreed to indemnify the two major retailers with
respect to the above.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: 1980 Wheat & Barley Rate Case Ends
-------------------------------------------------------
In September 1980, a class action lawsuit was filed against BNSF
Railway in United States District Court for the District of
Montana challenging the reasonableness of BNSF Railway's export
wheat and barley rates. The class consisted of Montana grain
producers and elevators. The plaintiffs sought a finding that
BNSF Railway single car export wheat and barley rates for
shipments moving from Montana to the Pacific Northwest were
unreasonably high and requested damages in the amount of $64
million. In March 1981, the Montana District Court referred the
rate reasonableness issue to the ICC. Subsequently, the State of
Montana filed a complaint at the ICC challenging BNSF Railway's
multiple car rates for Montana wheat and barley movements
occurring after October 1, 1980.

The ICC issued a series of decisions in this case from 1988 to
1991. Under these decisions, the ICC applied a revenue to
variable cost test to the rates and determined that BNSF Railway
owed $9,685,918 in reparations plus interest. In its last
decision, dated November 26, 1991, the ICC found BNSF Railway's
total reparations exposure to be $16,559,012 through July 1,
1991. The ICC also found that BNSF Railway's current rates were
below a reasonable maximum and vacated its earlier rate
prescription order.

BNSF Railway appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") those portions
of the ICC's decisions concerning the post-October 1, 1980 rate
levels. BNSF Railway's primary contention on appeal was that the
ICC erred in using the revenue to variable cost rate standard to
judge the rates instead of Constrained Market Pricing/Stand
Alone Cost principles. The limited portions of decisions that
cover pre-October 1, 1980 rates were appealed to the Montana
District Court.

On March 24, 1992, the Montana District Court dismissed
plaintiffs' case as to all aspects other than those relating to
pre-October 1, 1980 rates. On February 9, 1993, the D.C. Circuit
served its decision regarding the appeal of the several ICC
decisions in this case. The court held that the ICC did not
adequately justify its use of the revenue to variable cost
standard as BNSF Railway had argued and remanded the case to the
ICC for further administrative proceedings.

On July 22, 1993, the ICC served an order in response to the
D.C. Circuit's February 9, 1993 decision. In its order, the ICC
stated it would use the Constrained Market Pricing/Stand-Alone
Cost principles in assessing the reasonableness of BNSF Railway
wheat and barley rates moving from Montana to Pacific Coast
ports from 1978 forward. The ICC assigned the case to the Office
of Hearings to develop a procedural schedule. On October 28,
1994, plaintiffs filed their opening evidence arguing that the
revenue received by BNSF Railway exceeded the stand alone costs
of transporting that traffic and that BNSF Railway rates were
unreasonably high. BNSF Railway filed its evidence March 29,
1995, showing that the stand alone costs of transporting the
traffic exceeded the revenue derived by BNSF Railway on that
traffic and that consequently, its rates were not unreasonably
high. The parties filed briefs simultaneously on August 16,
1995. In a decision served August 14, 1997, in McCarty Farms,
Inc. et al. v. Burlington Northern Inc., No. 37808, the STB,
successor to the ICC, ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to
demonstrate that BNSF Railway rates charged to transport export
wheat and barley from Montana to West Coast ports were
unreasonable. The STB dismissed the proceeding in its entirety.

The plaintiffs filed petitions to review the STB's decision
before the D.C. Circuit and the Montana District Court. In an
October 20, 1998 decision, McCarty Farms, Inc. et al. v. Surface
Transportation Board (No. 97-1632), the D.C. Circuit affirmed
the STB's decision in all respects for those claims as to which
it had jurisdiction (i.e., all claims except those relating to
single-car wheat shipments moving before September 12, 1980).
The plaintiffs' appeal of the STB decision as to single-car
wheat shipments moving before September 12, 1980 was dismissed
by the Montana District Court on November 23, 1998.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Shareholder Litigation Rolls on Slow Track
---------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous complaints were filed arising out of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated June 29, 1994, as amended, between
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD CO. and Santa Fe Pacific. On June
30, 1994, shortly after announcement of the proposed BNI-SFP
merger, two purported stockholder class action suits were filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Miller v.
Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13587; Cosentino v. Santa
Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13588). On July 1, 1994, two
additional purported stockholder class action suits were filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Fielding v.
Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13591; Wadsworth v. Santa
Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13597).

The actions named as defendants SFP, the individual members of
the SFP Board of Directors, and BNI. In general, the actions
variously alleged that SFP's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger
for allegedly "grossly inadequate" consideration in light of
recent operating results of SFP, recent trading prices of SFP's
common stock and other alleged factors, by allegedly failing to
take all necessary steps to ensure that stockholders will
receive the maximum value realizable for their shares (including
allegedly failing to actively pursue the acquisition of SFP by
other companies or conducting an adequate "market check"), and
by allegedly failing to disclose to stockholders the full extent
of the future earnings potential of SFP, as well as the current
value of its assets.

The Miller and Fielding cases further alleged that the proposed
Merger was unfairly timed and structured and, if consummated,
would allegedly unfairly deprive the stockholders of standing to
pursue certain pending stockholder derivative litigation.
Plaintiffs also alleged that BNI was responsible for aiding and
abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty committed by the
SFP Board. The actions sought certification of a class action on
behalf of SFP's stockholders. In addition, the actions sought
injunctive relief against consummation of the Merger and, in the
event that the Merger was consummated, the rescission of the
Merger, an award of compensatory or rescisionary damages and
other damages, including court costs and attorneys' fees, an
accounting by defendants of all profits realized by them as a
result of the Merger, and various other forms of relief.

On October 6, 1994, shortly after Union Pacific Corporation
(UPC) issued a press release in which it announced a proposal
for UPC to acquire SFP (the UPC Proposal), plaintiffs in the
four lawsuits described above filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware a Consolidated Amended Complaint (Miller
v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13587). In their
Consolidated Amended Complaint, plaintiffs repeated the
allegations contained in their earlier lawsuits and further
alleged that, in light of the UPC Proposal, SFP's directors had
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to fully inform
themselves about and to adequately explore available
alternatives to the merger with BNI, including the alternative
of a merger transaction with UPC, and by failing to fully inform
themselves about the value of SFP. The Consolidated Amended
Complaint sought the same relief sought in plaintiffs' earlier
lawsuits and, in addition, requested that SFP's directors be
ordered to explore alternative transactions and to negotiate in
good faith with all interested persons, including UPC.

Also, on October 6, 1994, five additional purported stockholder
class action suits relating to SFP's proposed participation in
the Merger with BNI were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (Weiss v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A.
No. 13779; Lifshitz v. Krebs, C.A. No. 13780; Stein v. Santa Fe
Pacific Corporation, Lewis v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A.
No. 13783; Abramson v. Lindig, C.A. No. 13784). On October 7,
1994, three more purported stockholder class action suits
relating to SFP's proposed participation in the Merger with BNI
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(Graulich v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13786;
Anderson v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13787; Green
v. Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 13788). All of these
lawsuits named as defendants SFP and the individual members of
the SFP Board of Directors; the Lifshitz case further named BNI
as a defendant. In general, these actions variously alleged
that, in light of SFP's recent operating results and the UPC
Proposal, SFP's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders by purportedly not taking the necessary steps to
ensure that SFP's stockholders would receive "maximum value" for
their shares of SFP stock, including purportedly refusing to
negotiate with UPC or to "seriously consider" the UPC Proposal
and failing to announce any active auction or open bidding
procedures. The actions generally sought relief that is
materially identical to the relief sought in the Miller case,
and in addition sought entry of an order requiring SFP's
directors to immediately undertake an evaluation of SFP's worth
as a merger/acquisition candidate and to establish a process
designed to obtain the highest possible price for SFP, including
taking steps to "effectively expose" SFP to the marketplace in
an effort to create an "active auction" in SFP. The Weiss case
further sought entry of an order enjoining SFP's directors from
implementing any poison pill or other device designed to thwart
the UPC Proposal or any other person's proposal to acquire SFP.

The Anderson lawsuit was subsequently withdrawn. On October 14,
1994, the Chancery Court entered an order consolidating the
remaining 11 purported stockholder class action suits under the
heading In Re Santa Fe Pacific Corporation Shareholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 13587 (the Shareholder Litigation).

On October 26, 1994, BNI filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated and Amended Complaint.

On March 6, 1995, plaintiffs in the Shareholder Litigation filed
a Revised Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint, which
superseded their previously filed complaints. The Revised Second
Consolidated and Amended Complaint generally repeated many of
the same allegations, and requested relief similar to that
requested in plaintiffs' earlier complaints. In addition, the
Revised Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint alleged that
SFP's directors breached their fiduciary duties: by proceeding
with and completing the joint SFP-BNI Tender Offer; by approving
and implementing the Shareholder Rights Plan, which purportedly
resulted in a "premature ending" of the "bidding process" by
allegedly deterring and defeating UPC's acquisition overtures,
exempting BNI from its provisions, and "coercing" SFP
stockholders to vote in favor of the Merger; by approving the
termination fee and expense reimbursement provisions of the
Merger Agreement by authorizing the stock repurchase provisions
of the Merger Agreement, which allegedly were designed to "lock-
up" the Merger by providing stockholders with an "illusory
promise" that the Merger Agreement exchange ratio would
increase, while reserving SFP's right not to repurchase such
stock; and by purportedly failing to disclose all material facts
necessary for SFP's stockholders to evaluate in an informed
manner and vote on the Merger, including purportedly failing to
fully disclose the risks that the ICC would not approve the
Merger and purportedly failing to fully disclose SFP's
intentions with respect to the repurchase of SFP stock, as
permitted by the Merger Agreement, as well as whether there will
be a fair opportunity for all SFP stockholders to "participate"
in any SFP stock repurchases, and on what basis. As additional
relief to that requested in the earlier complaints, plaintiffs
requested injunctive and other relief: enjoining consummation of
the Merger; ordering SFP, SFP's directors, and BNI to make
unspecified supplemental disclosures to stockholders; requiring
SFP to conduct a new vote on the Merger subsequent to such
disclosures; enjoining SFP from improperly or discriminatorily
implementing the Shareholder Rights Plan or any other
"defensive" tactic; ordering SFP's directors to take all
appropriate steps to enhance SFP's value and attractiveness as a
merger or acquisition candidate, including "effectively
exposing" SFP to the marketplace by means of an active auction
on a "level playing field"; and declaring the termination fee
and expense reimbursement provisions of the Merger Agreement
invalid and unenforceable.

On March 13, 1995, SFP and SFP's directors filed a motion to
dismiss the Shareholder Litigation on the grounds that the
Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action upon which relief
may be granted. BNI also filed a motion to dismiss the Revised
Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint. On May 31, 1995, the
Delaware Chancery Court rendered its decision granting the
motion to dismiss that was filed by SFP and SFP's directors on
March 13, 1995 and the motion to dismiss filed by BNI. The
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court.

On November 22, 1995, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an
opinion that affirmed in part and reversed in part the May 31,
1995 decision of the Delaware Chancery Court. The Delaware
Supreme Court reversed the Chancery Court's dismissal of
plaintiffs' claims that, in taking the alleged "defensive"
actions identified in the Revised Second Consolidated and
Amended Complaint, including approval and implementation of the
Shareholder Rights Plan, SFP's directors violated their
fiduciary duties to stockholders. The Delaware Supreme Court
affirmed the Chancery Court's dismissal of all other claims
asserted by plaintiffs in the litigation, including all claims
against BNI.

On December 11, 1995, the SFP defendants filed with the Delaware
Chancery Court a motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs'
remaining claims in the Shareholder Litigation, which motion is
pending. On December 29, 1995, the SFP defendants filed their
Answer to plaintiffs' Revised Second Consolidated and Amended
Complaint.

In its annual report, BNSF Railway tells investors that it
believes this lawsuit is meritless and continues to oppose it
vigorously.


CARNIVAL CORP.: Anticipates 2 Years to Resolve Settlement Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several Passenger Complaints have been filed against Carnival
Cruise Lines or Holland America Westours on behalf of purported
classes of persons who paid port charges to Carnival or Holland
America Line, alleging that statements made in advertising and
promotional materials concerning port charges were false and
misleading. The Passenger Complaints allege violations of the
various state consumer protection acts and claims of fraud,
conversion, breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages or, alternatively, refunds
of portions of port charges paid, attorneys' fees, costs,
prejudgment interest, punitive damages and injunctive and
declaratory relief. These actions are in various stages of
progress and are proceeding.

Holland America Westours has entered into a settlement agreement
for the one Passenger Complaint filed against it. The settlement
agreement was approved by the court on September 28, 1998. Five
members of the settlement class have appealed the court's
approval of the settlement. The appeal is likely to take between
one and two years to be resolved. Unless the appeal is
successful, Holland America will issue travel vouchers with a
face value of $10-$50 depending on specified criteria, to
certain of its passengers who are U.S. residents and who sailed
between April 1992 and April 1996, and will pay a portion of the
plaintiffs' legal fees. The amount and timing of the travel
vouchers to be redeemed and the effects of the travel voucher
redemption on revenues is not reasonably determinable, Holland
America says. Accordingly, the Company has not established a
liability for the travel voucher portion of the settlements and
will account for the redemption of the vouchers as a reduction
of future revenues. In 1998 the Company established a liability
for the estimated distribution costs of the settlement notices
and plaintiffs' legal costs.

Several complaints were filed against Carnival and/or Holland
America Westours on behalf of purported classes of travel
agencies who had booked a cruise with Carnival or Holland
America, claiming that advertising practices regarding port
charges resulted in an improper commission bypass. These
actions, filed in California, Alabama, Washington and Florida,
allege violations of state consumer protection laws, claims of
breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, unlawful business practices and common law fraud,
and they seek unspecified compensatory damages (or
alternatively, the payment of usual and customary commissions on
port charges paid by passengers in excess of certain charges
levied by government authorities), an accounting, attorneys'
fees and costs, punitive damages and injunctive relief. These
actions are in various stages of progress and are proceeding.


CHS ELECTRONICS: Schubert & Reed File Complaint in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
On April 15, 1999, Schubert & Reed LLP filed a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, on behalf of a class of purchasers of CHS Electronics,
Inc. common stock (NYSE: HS) during the period 6/19/98 through
3/22/99. The suit names as defendants CHS Electronics, Inc., its
CEO and Chairman Claudio Osorio, CFO Craig Toll and Pasquale
Giordano, head of the company's European operations, for
violations of the federal securities laws.

On March 22, 1999, CHS Electronics, Inc. announced that
financial results for the fourth fiscal quarter of 1998 would be
lower than previously announced just February 24, 1999, and that
the company had overstated vendor rebates for the second, third
and fourth quarters of 1998. The company admitted that some of
the overstated vendor rebates were supported by "invalid
documentation" and that all overstated rebates had been
reversed. The company stated that "as a consequence" a senior
executive of the company's European headquarters had resigned.
Claudio Osorio, Chairman and CEO, said that "the restatement
shows a reduced level of profitability of which we had not
previously been aware." The company's stock price fell 34.3% on
the news, closing at $3.938 down from its prior day's close of
$6, and down 79.2% from its class period high of $19. On April
15, 1999, the company's stock closed at $2-7/8.

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


CRIIMI MAE: Maryland Dist. Ct. Consolidates Shareholder Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have filed 20 separate class action civil lawsuits
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
against certain officers and directors of CRIIMI MAE, INC.,
between October 7, 1998 and November 30, 1998. Two additional
complaints filed in other Federal Courts have been dismissed
without prejudice. The Complaints name as defendants William B.
Dockser, as Chairman of the Board of Directors of CRIIMI MAE,
and H. William Willoughby as a member of the Board of Directors
and/or an officer of CRIIMI MAE. In addition, a majority of the
Complaints name Cynthia O. Azzara as a defendant as an officer
of CRIIMI MAE. Several of the Complaints also name Garrett G.
Carlson, Sr., G. Richard Dunnells and Robert J. Merrick as
defendants as members of both the Board of Directors and the
Audit Committee of CRIIMI MAE.

Although CRIIMI MAE and CM Management -- reorganizing under
chapter 11 -- have not been named as defendants, both companies
are subject to indemnity obligations to the defendants under the
provisions of their respective constituent documents and
applicable state law and, with respect to Messrs. Dockser and
Willoughby and Ms. Azzara, their employment contracts. CRIIMI
MAE has directors and officers liability insurance policies that
have a combined coverage limit of $20 million.

Each Complaint alleges generally that the named defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended by, among other things, making false statements
of material facts and failing to disclose certain material facts
concerning, among other things, CRIIMI MAE's ability to meet the
earnings estimates of analysts and to meet collateral calls from
lenders. The Complaints also generally allege that the named
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because
each named defendant was allegedly a "controlling person" as
that term is defined under Section 20(a).

The relief sought in each Complaint includes all or
substantially all of the following: (i) certification of a class
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (ii)
certification of the named plaintiff as a class representative
and/or as lead plaintiff and its counsel as lead counsel and/or
class counsel; (iii) entry of a finding that the defendants
violated federal law, including federal securities laws; (iv)
award of monetary damages, including compensatory and
rescissionary damages against all defendants jointly and
severally, including punitive damages where appropriate, and
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest running from the date of
the wrongs alleged to the date of judgment; (v) award to the
plaintiff of costs, expenses and disbursements incurred in the
action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees;
(vi) award to the plaintiff of extraordinary, equitable and/or
injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity, and federal
statutory provisions and state law remedies to attach, impound
or otherwise restrict the defendants' assets; (vii) award to the
plaintiff of such other relief as the District Court deems just
and proper or as the District Court otherwise requires; and
(viii) trial by jury.

A group of putative members of the class of individuals who
allegedly suffered damages, as described in the Complaints,
filed a motion requesting the District Court to appoint a group
of 13 individual Plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Motion also
requests the District Court, to approve, among other things,
certain law firms as counsel to the lead plaintiffs and the
consolidation of the twenty (20) pending law suits into a single
action. Defendants Dockser, Willoughby and Azzara have opposed
the Motion to the extent that it seeks appointment of lead
plaintiffs and approval of their selection of counsel. On March
9, 1999, the District Court ordered the consolidation of the
Complaints. The District Court deferred a decision on the
Motion, to the extent that it seeks the appointment of lead
plaintiffs and approval of their selection of counsel, until a
later date.

CRIIMI MAE and the defendants are continuing to investigate the
allegations in the Complaints. The defendants intend to defend
vigorously the claims asserted in the Complaints. CRIIMI MAE
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome
of such litigation.


CURATIVE HEALTH: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curative Health
Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: CURE) in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit was
filed by the law firm of Wolf Popper LLP on behalf of persons
who purchased Curative securities in the open market during the
period June 28, 1996 through April 9, 1999.

The Complaint charges that defendants violated the U.S.
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and by omitting material facts required to be
disclosed so as to make the statements issued not materially
false and misleading. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Curative created the materially false and misleading impression
that the Company was in substantial compliance with applicable
laws, rules and regulations when in fact Curative has been
engaged in a systematic scheme to violate numerous Medicare
regulations by: (i) improperly billing medical services at
inflated prices; (ii) improperly shifting costs from Medicare
non-allowable services to allowable services, including charges
for advertising costs that were not allowable to hospitals
claiming reimbursements from the Medicare program; and (iii)
receiving kickbacks of approximately $400 per patient for
referrals to Columbia/HCA. Plaintiffs further allege that
defendants misconduct caused the price of Curative securities to
become and remain artificially inflated and that class members
were damaged when they purchased such securities without
knowledge of defendants' wrongdoing.

To learn more, call Paul 0. Paradis, Esq. or Michael A.
Schwartz, Esq. at 212-451-9676 or 877-370-7703, or write
pparadis@wolfpopper.com or mschwart@wolfpopper.com via email.


ELBIT MEDICAL: Shareholders Seek Distribution or Redemption
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: EMITF) received a notice on
April 14th, 1999 that a lawsuit was filed against the Company
and nine directors and former directors alleging discrimination
against the Company's minority shareholders. The plaintiffs also
proposed that the lawsuit be treated as a Class Action. The
remedies sought by the plaintiffs include a distribution of
additional cash dividends to shareholders or, alternatively,
either redemption by the Company of all shares held by the
plaintiffs or a tender offer of all the shares held by the
public. In addition, the plaintiffs asked the court to restrain
the Company's directors from using the Company's funds in any
way not connected directly in the field of medical imaging.

The Company cannot at this stage assess the results of the
lawsuit and its effects on the Company, if any. Mr. Oded Tamir,
Vice President Finance and Company Secretary, said: "The Company
believes that the claims raised in this suit are without merit,
and we will vigorously oppose them".

To learn more, contact Dr. Kobi Vortman, President at
kobi@emitf.com via email.


ENGINEERING ANIMATION: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Engineering Animation, Inc. (Nasdaq: EAII)
securities between February 19, 1998 through April 6, 1999 for
violations of federal securities laws. Defendants include
Engineering Animation, Inc. 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 misleading statements
regarding Engineering Animation's financial condition as well as
its present and future business prospects.

To learn more, contact Mark Levine at wyinfo@wyca.com or call
800-437-7918.


FEDERAL EXPRESS: One Customer Excise Tax Suit Remains in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx customers have filed four separate class-action lawsuits
against FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. generally alleging that FedEx has
breached its contract with the plaintiffs in transporting
packages shipped by them. These lawsuits allege that FedEx
continued to collect a 6.25% federal excise tax on the
transportation of property shipped by air after the tax expired
on December 31, 1995, until it was reinstated in August 1996.
The plaintiffs seek certification as a class action, damages, an
injunction to enjoin FedEx from continuing to collect the excise
tax referred to above, and an award of attorneys' fees and
costs.

Three of those cases were consolidated in Minnesota Federal
District Court. That court stayed the consolidated cases in
favor of a case filed in Circuit Court of Greene County,
Alabama. The stay was lifted in July 1998. Summary judgment was
granted to FedEx dismissing all claims in all three consolidated
cases in Minnesota. The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal,
which is now final. The complaint in the Alabama case also
alleges that FedEx continued to collect the excise tax on the
transportation of property shipped by air after the tax expired
on December 31, 1996.

A fifth case, filed in the Supreme Court of New York, New York
County, containing allegations and requests for relief
substantially similar to the other four cases was dismissed with
prejudice on FedEx's motion on October 7, 1997. The court found
that there was no breach of contract and that the other causes
of action were preempted by federal law. The plaintiffs appealed
the dismissal. This case originally alleged that FedEx continued
to collect the excise tax on the transportation of property
shipped by air after the tax expired on December 31, 1996. The
New York complaint was later amended to cover the first
expiration period of the tax (December 31, 1995 through August
27, 1996) covered in the original Alabama complaint. The
dismissal was affirmed by the appellate court on March 2, 1999
and is now a final decision.

The air transportation excise tax expired on December 31, 1995,
was reenacted by Congress effective August 27, 1996, and expired
again on December 31, 1996. The excise tax was then reenacted by
Congress effective March 7, 1997. The expiration of the tax
relieved FedEx of its obligation to pay the tax during the
periods of expiration. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, signed
by President Clinton in August 1997, extended the tax for 10
years through September 30, 2007.

FedEx intends to vigorously defend itself in the remaining
Alabama case, which is still pending. No amount has been
reserved for this contingency.


FVC.COM: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of FVC.COM, Inc. (Nasdaq: FVCX) securities between
January 21, 1999 and April 6, 1999 for violations of federal
securities laws. Defendants include FVC 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 misleading statements
regarding FVC's financial condition as well as its present and
future business prospects and engaging in trading FVC securities
while in possession of material inside information.

For additional details, contact Behram V. Parekh via email at
wyinfo@wyca.com or call 1-800-437-7918.


ILLINOIS SCHOOLS: East St.Louis Kids & ACLU Win Some Lose Some
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court recognized the right of school
children to secure the basic components of education provided by
the Illinois School Code, although it rejected the claim that
Illinois children have the right to a minimally adequate
education under the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions. The
decision was issued in Lewis E. v. Spagnolo, a class action
brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois on
behalf of students at the East St. Louis schools, considered
among the worst in the nation.

Some of the specific allegations in the case include:
-- Students lack instructional equipment and textbooks.
-- The school district is chronically short staffed, with
  teachers often absent or disengaged from students. Some
  students have no permanent teacher.
-- In winter, students sit through classes wearing heavy coats
  because broken windows and faulty boilers go unrepaired.
-- Some school libraries are locked; others have been destroyed
  by fire.
-- Fire alarms malfunction and firefighters have found emergency
  exits chained shut as they have attempted to rescue children
  from burning schools.
-- Classrooms have been sealed because of asbestos and dangerous
  structural flaws.
-- Backed-up sewers flood school kitchens, boilers, and
  electrical systems resulting in student evacuations and
  canceled classes.
-- Bathrooms are unsanitary and water fountains are dry or spew
  brown water.

The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU that school
children can enforce their right to the "rudimental elements of
education" provided in the Illinois School Code, including the
right to certified teachers, basic instructional materials and
reasonably safe buildings. But the court, with two justices
dissenting, rejected the children's argument that the Illinois
Constitution's guarantee of a free public education requires
state and local school officials to provide at least a minimally
adequate education and safe conditions in public schools. The
court also rejected the children's challenge under the federal
constitution to safe and adequate conditions and educational
services when students are forced by law to attend school.

"We are pleased that the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the
right of school children to enforce the School Code, providing a
vital weapon in the battle for improving educational conditions
in substandard schools," said Benjamin Wolf of the ACLU, who
argued the case before the Court. "We are disappointed, however,
that the Court did not also acknowledge that the constitutional
right to free public education requires schools to meet minimum
standards as well."

The Illinois Supreme Court decision permits the children to go
back to the trial court and pursue their claims involving
specific violations of the School Code. The trial court had
dismissed the case in its entirety with prejudice, but the
Illinois Appellate Court in 1997 ruled that the children should
have the right to assert possible claims involving violations of
the state and federal constitutions and the school code.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced by Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Network Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA) between January
20, 1998 and April 6,1999 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. The complaint charges
Network Associates and certain officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b- 5.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
facts in the Company's public filings and public statements. As
a result of these misrepresentations and omissions, the price of
Network Associates' common stock was artificially inflated.

To learn more, call Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq., or Michael S. Egan,
Esq., at 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or write to them at
egan@bernlieb.com via email.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Cohen Milstein Files Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on
April 15, 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 Network Associates Inc.
(Nasdaq: NETA) between Jan. 20, 1998, and April 6, 1999.

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, among other things, the price of Network Associates
common stock was artificially inflated.

On April 6, 1999, Network Associates shocked the market by
announcing that first quarter profits would fall short of
estimates as a result of a slowdown in demand and concerns that
it would have to restate fourth quarter earnings downward after
a review by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of
write-offs taken by Network Associates in connection with its
1997 and 1998 acquisitions. These acquisitions include: Trustee
Information Systems Inc., Secure Networks Inc., Dr. Solomon's
Group PLC, and Cybermedia. As a result of the SEC review,
Network Associates decreased its write-offs for acquired in-
process research and development by $169 million in 1998 and $45
million in 1997.

For additional details, call 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.


OHIO JUDGES: Federal Court Rejects Voting Discrimination Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cincinnati Post reported that a federal appeals court has
rejected a class action suit that claimed that Ohio's at-large
system of electing judges in urban counties is unfair to African
Americans, is unconstitutional and violates the Voting Rights
Act. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
6th Circuit in Cincinnati said in a published opinion that the
state's at-large system does not unfairly prevent blacks from
getting elected to judicial posts.

The Cincinnati Post reported that the appeals court judges,
Ronald Gilman, Eugene Siler Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey,
upheld a 1997 decision by U.S. District Court Judge George C.
Smith in Columbus. Smith ruled that African Americans failed to
prove that they were denied the equal opportunity to elect
judges of their choice. The suit dates back five years, to 1994,
when it was filed by Cincinnati's former State Rep. William
Mallory Sr. and 11 other black voters who wanted elections by
districts. Their suit also questioned the constitutionality of
the at-large system.

According to The Cincinnati Post, the suit challenged the at-
large system of electing appellate and trial court judges in
eight of Ohio's most populous counties. The suit charged that
the system unfairly dilutes the voting strength of African-
Americans.

The Cincinnati Post noted that Hamilton County municipal judges
are now elected by district, rather than countywide, the result
of a similar lawsuit brought by Mallory and other black voters
in the late 1980s. In Hamilton County, the 1st District Court of
Appeals has no African Americans among six white judges, and
only one black judge holds a Common Pleas Court seat, compared
to 19 whites.

James Hardiman, a Cleveland lawyer representing the class
action, told The Cincinnati Post that he would consider
appealing to the full appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
"There still is no question in my mind that race is a
significant factor," Hardiman said. "Apparently, the appeals
court did not accept that truism. They apparently feel that the
playing field is level."


ORACLE CORP.: Defense of California Shareholder Suits Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corp. reminds investors in its latest annual report that
three related lawsuits arising out of the same events are
currently pending.

Shareholder class actions were filed in the California Superior
Court for the County of San Mateo against the Company and its
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer on and after
December 18, 1997.

The same law firms that filed these actions also filed a nearly
identical action against the same defendants in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
December 7, 1998. The class actions are all brought on behalf of
purchasers of the stock of the Company during the period April
29, 1997 through December 9, 1997. Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants made false and misleading statements about the
Company's actual and expected financial performance, while
selling Company stock, in violation of federal and state
securities laws. Plaintiffs further allege that the individual
defendants sold Company stock while in possession of material
non-public information.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these
actions and intends to vigorously defend them. The Company is
seeking a stay of the state court class actions pending
resolution of the federal action.

A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Mateo on November 17,
1998. The derivative suit was brought by Company stockholders,
allegedly on behalf of the Company, against certain of the
Company's officers and directors. The derivative plaintiffs
allege that these officers and directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company by making or causing to be made
alleged misstatements about the Company's revenue, growth, and
financial status while certain officers and directors sold
Company stock and by allowing the Company to be sued in the
shareholder class actions. The derivative plaintiffs seek
compensatory and other damages, disgorgement of compensation
received, and temporary and permanent injunctions requiring the
defendants to relinquish their directorships. On January 15,
1999, the Court entered a stipulation and order staying the
action until further notice.


PARACELSUS HEALTHCARE: Shareholder Settlement Revamps Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported, PARACELSUS HEALTHCARE CORP. is a
defendant in multiple class and derivative actions arising out
of or related to the August 1996 Merger between the Company and
Champion Healthcare Corporation:

  * In re Paracelsus Corp. Securities Litigation, Master
    File No. H-96-3464 (S. D. Tex.) (EW);

  * Essex Imports v. Paracelsus Healthcare Corp. et
    al., No. 96-51864 (Dist. Ct. Harris Cty. Texas);

  * Caven v. Miller et al., No. H-96-4291 (S.D. Tex.) (EW);

  * Orovitz v. Miller, No. H-97-2752 (S.D. Tex.) (EW);

  * Caven v. Ernst & Young, LLP et al., No. 98-38338
    (Dist. Ct. Harris Cty. Texas); and

  * Molinari v. Miller et al., No. 14945 (Del. Ch. Ct.).

With the exception of the two Caven cases, Orovitz, and
Molinari, these complaints assert putative class actions on
behalf of current and former holders of the Company's securities
for claims under federal and state statutes and the common law
relating to the exchange offer for Champion stock in connection
with the Merger, the August 1996 public offerings by the Company
of common stock and subordinated notes, and trading in the
Company's securities in the period between the Merger and
October 9, 1996. In summary, the complaints allege that the
Merger and public offerings proceeded on the basis of materially
misleading disclosures and omissions by the Company and
Champion, as well as certain of the Company's and Champion's
officers, directors, and underwriters. The claims asserted
include claims under section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
and under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

In March 1998, the federal district court dismissed claims
relating to the subordinated notes. The Caven, Orovitz, and
Molinari cases assert claims derivatively on behalf of the
Company or Champion against the Company, Champion, various
current or former officers and directors of the Company and
Champion, Park-Hospital GmbH (the "Majority Shareholder"), and
the Company's independent auditors.

On March 24, 1999, the Company, the affected current and former
officers and directors, the underwriters, the Majority
Shareholder, the representatives of the plaintiff class, the
derivative plaintiffs, and a number of separately represented
former Champion shareholders that received the Company's stock
in connection with the Merger entered into three separate but
interrelated agreements providing for a proposed global
settlement of substantially all claims in these class and
derivative actions. These former Champion shareholders could be
deemed to be a group for purposes of Section 13(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The settlement agreements require the parties to draft certain
settlement documents for submission to the Court. Once
completed, and after the Court grants preliminary approval of
these documents, notice of the settlements will be given to
class members and shareholders to enable putative class members
to opt out of the class and to allow all others to comment on or
object to the terms of the proposed settlements. Depending on
the number of opt-outs, the Court then will hold a hearing to
consider the settlements, which will not be final until a Court
order granting approval of the settlements becomes final and not
subject to appeal. The Company currently is not aware of a
reason to indicate that the Court will not approve the
settlements; however there can be no assurance that the Court
will do so.

The terms of the settlements will be set forth fully in the
notice provided to class members and shareholders after the
Court has preliminarily approved the settlement documents.

Based on the agreements, the Company will be required to pay in
cash $14.0 million and issue approximately 1.5 million new
shares of the Company's common stock to a class settlement fund
for purposes of the class action settlement. Additionally, the
Company will pay expenses and legal fees incurred by the
separately represented former Champion shareholders and by the
lawyers for the derivative plaintiffs. The Company expects all
or nearly all of these cash contributions to be covered by
directors and officers liability insurance. The agreements also
require the Majority Shareholder to transfer approximately 1.2
million shares of the Company's common stock that it currently
owns to the class members and approximately 8.7 million shares
to the former Champion shareholders. The lead underwriter in the
Company's equity offering completed at the time of the Merger
will make a $1.0 million cash contribution to the class
settlement fund.

In addition, the Company will be required to make a payment of
$1.0 million in cash and 1.0 million newly issued shares of
common stock to terminate a contract with Dr. Manfred G.
Krukemeyer, who is the ultimate legal owner of the parent of the
Majority Shareholder and a former Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the Company, (the "Former Chairman"). The
settlement agreement also provides for the recommencement of
payment of principal in accordance with the stated terms of a
note payable by the Company to the Majority Shareholder. The
agreements include terms reducing the Company's existing and
future obligations to certain former officers and directors by
approximately $12.0 million and terminating options held by
certain current and former officers and directors to purchase
approximately 1.3 million shares at $0.01 per share granted in
connection with the Merger (the "Value Options").

The proposed global settlement modifies the Executive Agreement
with the Company's three senior executives (Mr. Charles R.
Miller, Mr. James G. VanDevender, and Mr. Ronald R. Patterson).
The senior executives have agreed to remain in their current
management positions with the Company at least until June 30,
1999 and have waived their rights to certain additional payments
under the Executive Agreement upon the settlement of the
Shareholder Litigation. Mr. Miller will resign his position as a
director shortly and is the only executive who has expressed an
intent to leave the Company immediately after June 30, 1999. Mr.
VanDevender will be designated as interim CEO effective July 1,
1999.

The proposed global settlement also gives the Majority
Shareholder and the former Champion shareholders each the right
to designate three members of the Company's Board of Directors.
As part of that arrangement, on March 24, 1999, the current
directors elected Mr. Peter Schnitzler as director. His
appointment will become effective on the earlier of the Board of
Directors meeting on May 13, 1999 or the resignation of a
current director. The Company has entered into a new shareholder
agreement, to become effective upon the final settlement of the
Shareholder Litigation, containing provisions governing
restrictions on the Majority Shareholder's transfer of shares,
limiting the Majority Shareholder's response to acquisition
proposals, governing the composition of the Board of Directors
and outlining the Majority Shareholder's registration rights
with respect to its shares. The Company will terminate the
Shareholder Protection Rights Agreement, an anti-takeover device
adopted at the time of the Merger and the current shareholder
agreement with the Majority Shareholder, as of the date that all
the settlements become effective.

When the proposed global settlement is approved by the Court and
becomes final, the Company, all class members who do not opt
out, the derivative plaintiffs, the separately represented
former Champion shareholders, the Majority Shareholder, the
underwriter, and the affected current and former officers and
directors will provide mutual releases of all claims arising out
of or related to the Merger and the related public offerings.
All pending actions against all released parties will be
dismissed. Additionally, the released parties have agreed to
assign any claims they have against the Company's independent
auditors to the Majority Shareholder. The settlement requires
the Company to indemnify current and former officers and
directors, the Majority Shareholder, and certain separately
represented former Champion shareholders against (i) liability,
costs and expenses arising from any Merger-related claims
brought by current or former Company security holders who are
not parties to the settlement or members of a class certified
for settlement purposes and (ii) reasonable costs and expenses,
excluding monetary sanctions, incurred in connection with any
ongoing or future governmental investigation relating to the
Merger and public offerings.

The Company's current Board of Directors unanimously approved
the settlement agreements. All five of the directors remaining
after the recent resignation of two independent directors could
be deemed to be interested in the settlement agreements because
they are direct participants in the settlement or because they
have a relationship with one of the settling parties.


SECURE COMPUTING: Weiss & Yourman File Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced by Weiss & Yourman in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all those who purchased the common stock
of Secure Computing Corp. (Nasdaq: SCUR) between November 10,
1998 and March 31, 1999. The Complaint alleges that the
defendants, consisting of Secure Computing and certain of its
officers and directors, violated the federal securities laws by
issuing false and misleading statements which caused Secure
Computing's stock price to be artificially inflated.

The Complaint alleges that, in order to allow the Company's top
insiders to dispose of their stock valued at more than $6
million, the defendants artificially inflated Secure Computing's
stock price to a high of $28 in January 1999 before the true
facts about Secure Computing's dismal operating results and
diminishing prospects became known to the public and the stock
plummeted to as low as $5 9/16 per share.

For additional details, call Elizabeth P. Lin, Esq. at 800-437-
7918, or write wyinfo@wyca.com via email.


STAFFMARK INC.: Finkelstein & Krinsk File Complaint in Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
StaffMark Inc. (Nasdaq: STAF) was accused in a class action
lawsuit of fraudulently misrepresenting the Company's expansion
capacity and business success. Misleading the investment
community caused StaffMark stock to collapse and decimated
shareholders investment. Moreover, before the true facts
surfaced and just one month prior to the stock's collapse,
insiders at StaffMark sold more than $4 million of stock. The
complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District Arkansas Western Division, represents all
persons and institutional investors who acquired the securities
of StaffMark Inc. between October 8, 1998 and March 2, 1999.

According to the complaint, filed by Finkelstein & Krinsk,
during 1998 executives of StaffMark reported record revenues, a
strong pipeline of acquisitions and portrayed the stock as
undervalued. In reality, StaffMark eventually revealed that its
key Intellimark division had zero growth and that StaffMark's
earnings for the first quarter and for the full year of 1999
would be well below expectations. StaffMark common stock traded
as high as over $42.00 per share. In the days following the
March 2, 1999 announcement of the Company's predicament the
price of StaffMark stock plunged to $8.50 a share, losing
approximately 80 percent of its value.

StaffMark Inc. was incorporated in 1996 and is an international
provider of diversified staffing and information technology sold
along with consulting and solution services for businesses and
governmental agencies. The company offers its services through
over 300 branches located in 31 states and 12 countries.

To learn more, contact Jeffrey R. Krinsk at 1-877-493-5366 or
write fk@class-action-law.com via email.


TRISTAR CORP.: IRS Balks at Class Action Settlement Deductions
--------------------------------------------------------------
In February 1997 the Internal Revenue Service concluded their
examination of tax returns submitted for fiscal years 1993, 1994
and 1995, by Tristar Corp. The IRS proposed adjustments
disallowing the deductions of payments made in the settlement of
the class action litigation and certain related legal and
professional fees. In April 1998, the Company filed a protest
letter with the IRS. In a letter dated August 17, 1998, the IRS
rejected the Company's response.

The Company has raised this issue with the Dallas Appeals office
and has scheduled a hearing for later this year. If the Company
is unsuccessful in its discussions or ultimately in an appeal,
it could be required to pay taxes from prior years and related
interest thereon exceeding $1,800,000, and it could lose a
significant amount of its existing net operating loss
carryforward benefits.



                            *********

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  * * *