CAR_Public/990426.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, April 26, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 57

                            Headlines

CHS ELECTRONICS: Gross Firm Files Complaint in Florida
CHS ELECTRONICS: Obstfeld Firm Files Complaint in Florida
CROSS TIMBERS: Everything's Not OK with OK Oil Royalties
EXECUTIVE TELECARD: Announces Cost to Settle Securities Suits
GREENWASTE FIRE: Toxic Aftermath Follows Waste Dump Blaze

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Accused of Spreading "FUD" in Inkjet Market
HOME DEPOT: Gender Discrimination Claims Cost $104 Million
IDM ENVIRONMENTAL: Insurance Settlement Makes Case Go Away
INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION: $1.5 Million Provided for Settlement
LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Plaintiffs Complain After Financing Expired

LYCOS INC: Deal with USA Networks Draws Multiple Complaints
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Officers Deceived by Vanishing Premiums
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Lockridge Grindal Files Suit in Washington
RELIABLE INSURANCE: Arkansas Women Know the Difference is "4"
REMEC, INC.: Reinhardt & Anderson File Complaint in California

RITE AID: Johnson Firm Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
SAMSONITE CORP: Insurance Covers Claims for $7 Million Premium
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Patients Sue for Slightly Used Needles
UNITED FOODS: Tankersley Family Offer Prompts Shareholder Suit


                            *********


CHS ELECTRONICS: Gross Firm Files Complaint in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. on April 20, 1999 filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of investors who
purchased the common stock of CHS Electronics, Inc (NYSE: HS)
from June 19, 1998 through March 22, 1999.

The Complaint charges CHS Electronics with violations of Section
10(b) and certain of its officers and directors with violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The complaint alleges that
defendants issued a series of false statements and failed to
disclose material facts concerning, among others, the Company's
business, operating results and its future prospects. The false
and misleading statements caused the price of CHS' common stock
to be artificially inflated.

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


CHS ELECTRONICS: Obstfeld Firm Files Complaint in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Harold B. Obstfeld, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of all who purchased CHS Electronics Inc.
(NYSE: HS) common stock or call options between June 19, 1998
and March 19, 1999 and on behalf of all who sold put options on
the common stock of CHS during this time. The Complaint charges
CHS and its chief executive officer with violations of federal
securities laws.

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements regarding
CHS's earnings for the second, third and fourth quarters of
1998, which caused the price of CHS stock to be artificially
inflated.

To learn more, call Harold B. Obstfeld, Esq. at 212-696-1212 or
888-896-0347 or write hobsd@erols.com via email.


CROSS TIMBERS: Everything's Not OK with OK Oil Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------
Cross Timbers Oil Co. reported on the status of a class action
lawsuit involving the company. On April 3, 1998, a class action
lawsuit, styled Booth, et al. v. Cross Timbers Oil Company, was
filed against the Company in the District Court of Dewey County,
Oklahoma. The action was filed on behalf of all persons who, at
any time since June 1991, have been paid royalties on gas
produced from any gas well within the State of Oklahoma under
which the Company has assumed the obligation to pay royalties.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company has reduced royalty
payments by post-production deductions and has entered into
contracts with subsidiaries that were not arms-length
transactions, which actions reduced the royalties paid to the
plaintiffs and those similarly situated, and that such actions
are a breach of the leases under which the royalties are paid.
The plaintiffs are seeking an accounting and payment of the
monies allegedly owed to them.

The Company filed motions to dismiss the action due to lack of
proper venue, which motions were denied. This decision denying
the motions is being appealed. A hearing on the class
certification issue has not been scheduled.

Management believes it has strong defenses against this claim
and intends to vigorously defend the action. Management's
estimate of the potential liability from this claim has been
accrued in the Company's financial statements.


EXECUTIVE TELECARD: Announces Cost to Settle Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Telecard Ltd. reported that the Company, its former
auditors, certain of its present and former directors and others
are defendants in a consolidated securities law class action,
which alleges that certain public filings and reports including
Forms 10-K for the 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 fiscal years (i)
did not present fairly the financial condition of the Company
and its earnings; and (ii) failed to disclose the role of
Richard Bertoli as a consultant to the Company.

On April 2, 1998 the parties entered into a formal settlement
agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement the plaintiffs
agreed to release the Company and the other defendants from all
obligation or liability and we agreed, on behalf of the Company
and the other defendants, to deliver to a settlement
administrator a total of 350,000 shares of our Common Stock and
to pay the settlement administrator up to $50,000 in actual
reasonable charges and expenses incurred in connection with
providing notice to the expenses incurred in connection with
providing notice to the plaintiffs and administering the
settlement. A charge of $3.5 million was recorded in the fourth
quarter of the year ended March 31, 1998 and represents the
value assigned to the 350,000 shares of Common Stock referred to
above, which have been valued at a maximum possible value of
$10.00 per share pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement. Such value relates to our obligation to issue
additional stock or cash if the market price of our stock is
less than $10.00 per share during the relevant periods, as
defined. We have obligation to issue additional stock if our
share price is above $10.00 per share for fifteen consecutive
days during the two year period after all shares have been
distributed to the class. The settlement is subject to Court
approval. The shares of the Company's Common Stock have been
issued. The actions have gone to final judgment and all appeal
periods have expired.

During the year ended March 31, 1998, the Company incurred proxy
related litigation expense of $3.9 million arising from the
class action lawsuit. Of this amount, $3.5 million related to
the escrow of 350,000 shares of the Company's common stock,
which was valued at $10.00 per share pursuant to the terms of
the settlement agreement. Such value related to the Company's
obligation to issue additional stock or cash if the market price
of the Company's stock is less than $10.00 per share during the
defined periods.

As a result of the above action and related matters, the Company
recorded $0.1 million, $3.9 million and $0.5 million in costs
and expenses during the nine months ended December 31, 1998 and
the years ended March 31, 1998 and 1997. Included in the March
31, 1998 amount, is a charge of $3.5 million which represented
the value assigned to the 350,000 shares of common stock
referred to above, which were valued at $10.00 per share
pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.

The Company has no obligation to issue additional stock if its
share price is above $10.00 per share for fifteen consecutive
days during the two year period after all shares have been
distributed to the Class. As of December 31, 1998, all of the
shares have not been distributed to the Class and therefore the
start of the two year window has not commenced.

Additionally, the Company settled with another stockholder
related to the same securities class action in May 1998 and
issued that stockholder 28,700 shares of common stock at the
market price at the date of settlement for a total value of
$0.08 million.



GREENWASTE FIRE: Toxic Aftermath Follows Waste Dump Blaze
---------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Daily News reported that dozens of firefighters
who battled a blaze at a waste dump last summer are suffering
from breathing problems and chronic fatigue, and people who work
and live near the site are complaining of various maladies as
well. Los Angeles County health officials who examined the site
have told the LA Daily News that the dangerous chemicals found
in the fire's aftermath were well within federal safety levels
and didn't threaten the health of anyone nearby.

But others who claim they are sick have filed a class-action
lawsuit against the county. "People need to know," Manny
Santana, a resident who filed the suit last week, told the LA
Daily News. "This fire is a major disaster."

According to the report, a least five firefighters have not
returned to work, their blood found laced with lead, arsenic and
a dozen other poisons. Fifty-four others have filed workers'
compensation claims, complaining of breathing problems and
chronic fatigue. The fire at Santa Clarita Greenwaste was
reported to authorities at 7:39 p.m. on Aug. 28. More than 200
firefighters battled the blaze over the next two weeks. None
used a self-contained breathing apparatus, which would have been
required in a house fire or a chemical fire. Firefighters soon
complained of chronic headaches, prompting concern by top county
Fire Department officials in October, records show.

"There were a lot of people exposed, and I want to make sure
that those who need treatment get it. However, I want to avoid a
mass testing if possible," wrote Marguarite Jordan, the Fire
Department's chief nurse. The LA Daily News noted that within a
month, however, the department decided on wider testing. Out of
more than 170 firefighters and county jail inmates who battled
the Greenwaste blaze, 20 firefighters had abnormally high
arsenic levels in their urine, 14 had signs of damaged livers,
and one person had both symptoms. County health officials
decided the results weren't cause for alarm, telling the LA
Daily News that such abnormalities could be expected in any
testing of a large population.

But Dr. Gary Ordog, who has treated more than 100 people
affected by the fire, told the LA Daily News that his tests have
shown extremely high levels of numerous toxic substances,
including arsenic, lead and phenol. "When I get 100 people with
a similar range of chemicals, and they match chemicals found at
the fire site, I have to say there's something going on," said
Ordog, head of the department of toxicology at Henry Mayo
Newhall Memorial Hospital. "This could be a serious public
health threat." His concerns are shared by state officials,
toxicologists and environmental health specialists who
criticized the county's testing as being incomplete and
insufficient. "At the moment the tests were taken, it was safe,
but that doesn't tell you what was happening there before," said
Jim Cone, head of occupational health for the state's Department
of Health Services, in the LA Daily News report.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Accused of Spreading "FUD" in Inkjet Market
------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action suit filed against Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE:
HWP) in state court in San Francisco accuses H-P of using
anticompetitive measures and conspiring with other manufacturers
to charge monopolistic prices for the replaceable inkjet
cartridges used in printers for personal computers and in fax
machines. The suit, which seeks to certify a class of all
consumers of these products, requests an injunction against H-P
and damages based on overcharges on each cartridge sold in the
past four years. The class that the suit seeks to certify
includes purchasers of replacement inkjet cartridges compatible
with Hewlett-Packard 500, 600, 700 and 2000 Series inkjet
printers, copiers and fax machines, including Hewlett-Packard's
51608A, 51625A, 51626A, 51633A, 51633M cartridges.

"The market for these cartridges exceeds $1 billion per year and
affects most personal computer owners," said Ronald S. Katz, an
antitrust attorney at the international law firm, Coudert
Brothers, who filed the suit on behalf of the class. "Anyone who
has purchased a replacement inkjet cartridge for their H-P
printer knows how much they pay for how little they get. The
financial press has reported that H-P has 67 percent gross
margins on these products."

According to the complaint, H-P has spread "fear, uncertainty
and doubt," referred to as "FUD" at H-P, among consumers about
buying cartridges competitive with H-P's cartridges. The
complaint also alleges that H-P's practice of integrating the
printhead and the cartridge is an illegal tying arrangement.
"This practice is the equivalent of requiring a purchaser of
gasoline to buy a new gas tank with every fill-up," said Mr.
Katz.

H-P's inkjet cartridges are removable plastic containers of ink
that fit into a compartment in the printer of a personal
computer or fax machine. When the plastic container runs out of
ink, a consumer must buy an H-P replacement cartridge, which H-P
says should be used only once. H-P completely dominates the
market for new cartridges compatible with H-P printers. There
are many companies, however, which collect used H-P cartridges,
refill them, and sell them at a substantial discount.

The class representative is Ron L. Jones, an entrepreneur whose
company, Colossal Graphics, recently won a $363,000 judgment
from H-P for fraud and breach of contract. The breach of
contract portion of the judgment is being appealed by H-P, but
not the fraud. "I am pleased to have the opportunity to
represent consumers against H-P's monopolistic, environmentally
unsound practices," said Mr. Jones.


HOME DEPOT: Gender Discrimination Claims Cost $104 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Home Depot Inc. announced that, in fiscal 1997, it settled,
without admitting wrongdoing, a class action lawsuit and three
other lawsuits seeking class action status, each of which
involved claims of gender discrimination. In connection with
these settlements, the company expedited the implementation of
certain programs and practices to ensure that hiring, assigning,
promoting and paying associates was done in a non-discriminatory
manner. These programs and practices include using minimum
objective and job-related criteria for filling certain
positions, implementing training for managers and supervisors
and developing a system to allow qualified applicants and
associates to register their interest in certain positions.

The company is also monitoring and reporting to plaintiffs'
counsel the progress of the implementation of these programs and
practices.

Accordingly, operating expenses for fiscal 1997 included a $104
million non-recurring charge related to the settlements of a
class action gender discrimination lawsuit and three other
gender discrimination lawsuits.


IDM ENVIRONMENTAL: Insurance Settlement Makes Case Go Away
----------------------------------------------------------
IDM Environmental Corp. reported that in November of 1996, a
shareholder filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and
certain directors and officers of the Company. The suit, filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, as
subsequently amended in June 1997, alleged that the Company
disseminated false and misleading financial information to the
investing public between March 8, 1996 and November 18, 1996 and
sought damages in an unspecified amount to compensate investors
who purchased the Company's securities, as well as the
disgorgement of profits allegedly received by some of the
individual defendants from sales of common stock.

A written settlement agreement was executed by plaintiffs
counsel on behalf of the class and was approved by the Court.
The matter was settled and finally resolved with the payment of
$1,125,000 to the class. The entire settlement sum was paid by
the Company's directors and officers (D&O) insurance policy
carrier pursuant to the obligations owed by the carrier under
the Company's existing D&O policy. The settlement covered the
class period March 8, 1996 to June 5, 1997.

The settlement, as expressly reflected in the settlement
documents, has been made as a business accommodation only, and
neither the Company, nor any director, officer or employee of
the Company has admitted or will admit any wrong doing of any
kind. With the closing of the settlement, the action was
dismissed with prejudice and the Company and each of the
individuals who have been named as defendants were released from
any and all claims for the entire class period.


INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION: $1.5 Million Provided for Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
When announcing the company's results for the year ended
December 31, 1998, Integrated Transportation Network Group Inc.
(OTC: ITNG) also reported charges in the aggregate amount of
approximately $3 million, consisting of a $1,500,000 (not
including legal fees) provision for settlement of a class action
lawsuit. The $1,500,000 provision for settlement of the class
action lawsuit is based on settlement discussions with respect
to the class action. If these discussions do not form the basis
for any settlement, the liability and expense arising out of the
class action could materially exceed such provision.

The Company intends to pay for any settlement by issuance of
shares of its common stock, although the Company may end up
being required to pay for such settlement in cash. The Company's
future net income will be reduced to the extent that any actual
liability related to the class action (including the Company's
future attorney's fees) exceeds $1,500,000, but does not include
the Company's legal fees and expenses which are being expensed
as incurred.


LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Plaintiffs Complain After Financing Expired
---------------------------------------------------------------
Little Switzerland reported that on March 22, 1999, a class
action complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware against the Company, certain of its
existing and former officers and directors, Destination Retail
Holdings Corporation (DRHC) and Stephen G.E. Crane.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by failing to disclose that DRHC's financing
commitment to purchase the Company's shares expired on April 30,
1998, before the Company's stockholders were scheduled to vote
to approve the merger between the Company and DRHC at the May 8,
1998 special meeting of stockholders.

The Company currently is in the process of reviewing this
complaint and intends to defend these claims vigorously.


LYCOS INC: Deal with USA Networks Draws Multiple Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lycos Inc. reported on a variety of securities class action
complaints following the company's announced transaction with
USA Networks, Inc.

Eight purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County,
by shareholders of the Company allegedly on behalf of all common
stockholders of the Company (except defendants and their
affiliates), entitled Jacob Horowitz v. David S. Wetherell et
al., Civil Action No. 16933-NC (filed Feb. 9, 1999); Robert
Johnson v. Robert J. Davis et al., Civil Action No. 16937-NC
(filed Feb. 9, 1999); Debra Mayer v. David S. Wetherell et al.,
Civil Action No. 16947-NC (filed Feb. 11, 1999); Ellis
Investment Co., Ltd v. David S. Wetherell et al., Civil Action
No.. 16951- NC (filed Feb. 11, 1999); Frederick Sheehan v. David
S. Wetherell et al., Civil Action No. 16952-NC (filed Feb. 11,
1999); Yorkshire Group, Inc. v. David S. Wetherell et al., Civil
Action No. 16955-NC (filed Feb. 12, 1999); Warren Ciafardini v.
David S. Wetherell et al., Civil Action No. 16956-NC (filed Feb.
12, 1999); Martin Lewkowicz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Lycos, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
16976-NC (filed Feb. 23, 1999). The complaints name as
defendants the directors of the Company individually, as well as
the Company and, in the Horowitz, Mayer, Ellis Investment,
Sheehan, Yorkshire Group and Ciafardini complaints, USA
Networks, Inc.

The complaints allege that the directors of the Company violated
their state law fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs and the
purported class by agreeing to enter into the announced
transaction with USA Networks, Inc. The complaints request that
the Court declare them to be proper class actions, enjoin the
announced transaction, rescind the announced transaction if it
is consummated prior to a final judgment or award rescissionary
damages to the purported class, direct the Company to make an
accounting to plaintiffs and the purported class for all damages
and for all profits or special benefits obtained by the
defendants, and award to plaintiffs all costs and fees,
including attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intends to contest them vigorously.

Between February 22, 1999 and March 10, 1999, a series of
purported securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
entitled Kenneth R. Levine v. Lycos, Inc., et al., CA No. 99-
10394(EFH), Thomas Lynch v. Lycos, Inc., et al., CA No. 99-
10426(EFH), Mary Jane Crescente v. Lycos, Inc., et al., CA No.
99-10467(EFH), Arnold Silverstein v. Lycos, Inc., et al., CA No.
99-10476(EFH), Warren Ciafardini v. Lycos, Inc., et al., CA No.
99-10494(EFH), Michelle Penfold v. Lycos, Inc., et al., CA No.
99-10495(EFH), Carol Lewkowicz v. Lycos, Inc., et al., CA. No.
99-10501 (EFH), Joel Kofsky v. Lycos, Inc., et al., CA No. 99-
10502(EFH), Mark Zito v. Lycos, Inc., et al., CA No. 99-
10518(EFH), Marc Berger v. Lycos, Inc., et al., CA No. 99-
10519(EFH) and Salvatore Bendetto v. Lycos, Inc., et al., CA No.
99-10524(EFH). Each suit names as defendants the Company and
Robert J. Davis, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and
President. The Lewkowicz complaint also names as a defendant
Edward M. Philip, the Company's Chief Operating Officer and
Chief Financial Officer.

The complaints allege, among other claims, violations of United
States federal securities law through alleged misrepresentations
and omissions relating to the Company's agreement to enter into
an announced transaction with USA Networks, Inc. and certain
affiliated companies. Each complaint seeks an unspecified award
of damages. The plaintiffs in the Levine, Lynch, Silverstein,
and Berger actions purport to represent a class of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between January 25,
1999 and February 9, 1999. The plaintiff in the Zito action
purports to represent a class of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between January 21, 1999 and February 9,
1999. The plaintiffs in the Crescente, Ciafardini, Penfold,
Kofsky and Bendetto actions purport to represent a class of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between January
8, 1999 and February 9, 1999. The plaintiff in the Lewkowicz
action purports to represent a class of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between January 7, 1999 and
February 9, 1999.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intends to contest them vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Officers Deceived by Vanishing Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------
Present and former police officers of the Cohoes, New York
Police Department and various members of the officers' families,
have filed a lawsuit against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
alleging fraud and other acts of deception in the sale of life
insurance. The lawsuit was filed in Supreme Court in Albany, New
York, on April 20, 1999.

The complaint alleges that the policyholders were defrauded by
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company when they were misled into
purchasing life insurance through representations that the
policies would only require payment of premiums for a certain
number of years before the policies would be paid up and would
not require the payment of any additional premiums. This scheme
is commonly known as the "vanishing premium" scheme. The
complaint alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
engaged in this scheme on a nationwide level to defraud its
policyholders.

John Yanchunis, an attorney with the Tampa, Florida law firm of
James, Hoyer, Newcomer, Forizs & Smiljanich, P.A., stated that
"the claims which are the subject of this suit are similar to
those which are presently the subject of investigation by
insurance regulators of several states, including New York."
Yanchunis said that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is under
investigation by insurance regulators of several states,
including New York. Mr. Yanchunis stated that as recently as
1998, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company paid a fine of
$800,000 and agreed to make restitution to policyholders in
Connecticut who were defrauded through churning and vanishing
premium sales schemes.

For more information, call John Yanchunis at 813-286-4100 or
write to JohnYanch@aol.com via email.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Lockridge Grindal Files Suit in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen & Holstein P.L.L.P. filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on behalf of persons who acquired
securities issued by Network Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA) in
the open market from January 20, 1999, and April 6, 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 Network Associates
improperly took merger related charges in an effort to manage
future earnings. The lawsuit also alleges that the financial
statements artificially inflated the price of the stock and
permitted certain officers and directors of Network Associates
to sell over $30 million worth of their personal stock holdings
at prices as high as $50 per share. The suit claims that it was
only after these sales that the defendants revealed that the
Network Associates accounting was improper. When Network
Associates disclosed the accounting questions on April 6-7,
1999, the price of its stock fell from $29-15/16 to $16-15/16 on
two-day volume of over 60 million shares.

To learn more, telephone Karen M. Hanson at 612-339-6900 or
write to kmhanson@locklaw.com via email.


FVC.COM: Milberg Weiss Assists Scott & Scott with Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott & Scott, LLC filed a lawsuit against FVC.COM, Inc.(Nasdaq:
FVCX) alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The
lawsuit was brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities from January 21, 1999 to April 6, 1999. The complaint
alleges that defendants issued false financial reports for the
fourth fiscal quarter of 1998, causing the stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices. During that time, insiders sold
stock worth more than $7.3 million. On April 6, the Company
announced that it had to reduce its previously announced
revenues and the stock plunged.

Scott & Scott, LLC filed its complaint with the law firm of
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad Hynes & Lerach, the nation's foremost
specialist in such litigation. Scott & Scott report that
shareholders who purchased common stock between January 20, 1998
and April 6, 1999 are represented in this action. The complaint
alleges that during the class period, defendants made numerous
false and misleading statements about the Company's financial
results and business prospects, causing the stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices as high as $67 per share. During
that time, certain executive officers of the Company unloaded
shares valued at almost $33 million. On April 6, 1999, the
defendants announced that in 1997 and 1998, certain expenditures
were overstated by millions of dollars and that certain expenses
were materially understated.

To learn more, write Neil Rothstein nrothstein@scott-scott.com
via email.


RELIABLE INSURANCE: Arkansas Women Know the Difference is "4"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United Press International reports that two Arkansas women
are suing their life insurance company, saying they have been
overbilled every year since 1990. According to UPI, the lawsuit
says the company collected 52 premiums per policy year. However,
the policies say that only 48 premiums would have to be paid
every year.

UPI says that Mattie Reynolds and Barbara Meriweather are asking
a federal district court to allow their lawsuit against Reliable
Insurance Co. and United Insurance Co. to be certified as a
nationwide class action.


REMEC, INC.: Reinhardt & Anderson File Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt & Anderson filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of REMEC, Inc. (Nasdaq: REMC) common stock during
the period between Dec. 1, 1997 and June 12, 1998. The complaint
charges REMEC and certain of its officers and directors and its
underwriters with violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges that defendants' false statements about
continuing strong demand for REMEC's microwave electronic
products (especially for the commercial market), its growing
backlog of orders (especially for commercial products), the
success of REMEC's Q-bit Corp. acquisition and REMEC's prospects
for strong continuing revenue, profit margin and net income
growth for the next several years, which would result in EPS of
$.89-$.91 and $1.21-$1.22 for F99-F00 to end 1/31/99 and
1/31/00, respectively, and 30%-40% EPS growth going forward,
artificially inflated REMEC's stock to $30 on 2/17/98 from $19-
1/2 on 12/1/97. On 2/25/98, REMEC and its insiders sold
2,990,000 shares of REMEC stock, in a secondary offering at
$26.50 per share for $79.2 million. REMEC stock went on to reach
its Class Period high of $30-1/4 on 4/6/98.

But then, between 5/28/98 and 6/12/98, REMEC's stock dropped on
a series of adverse revelations. First, on 5/28/98, when REMEC
revealed adjustments to orders from its largest customers,
REMEC's stock plunged by $7.72, 36%, to $13-13/16 on huge volume
of over four million shares, the largest one-day percentage
price decline on the largest one-day trading volume in REMEC's
history as a public company. Then, on 6/12/98, when REMEC
revealed that its 2ndQ F99 revenues would decline from its 1stQ
F99 revenues and that its F99-F00 EPS would be much worse than
earlier forecast, REMEC's stock fell to $9 and then continued to
decline to as low as $7 by 7/98.

To learn more, call Randall H. Steinmeyer at 888-253-5139 or
651-227-9990 or write A.Hogan@ralaw.com via email.


RITE AID: Johnson Firm Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Dennis J. Johnson filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Rite Aid Corp. (RAD)
common stock and call options during the period October 5, 1998
through March 30, 1999.

The complaint alleges that RAD and certain of its officers or
directors violated federal securities laws by overstating the
Company's earnings and understating its costs during the period.
As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and
omissions, the prices of RAD common stock and call options were
artificially manipulated.

To learn more, contact Dennis J. Johnson, Esq. or Jacob B.
Perkinson, Esq. at 888-459-7855 or at LODJJ@aol.com via email.


SAMSONITE CORP: Insurance Covers Claims for $7 Million Premium
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Samsonite Corp. reported that certain parties related to the
company have been the subject of various purported shareholder
class action lawsuits and a purported derivative action filed
between March 13, 1998 and March 9, 1999 in various courts,
including Colorado State District Court, City and County of
Denver; United States District Court for the District of
Colorado; and the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On April 9, 1999, the Company entered into an insurance
agreement with a major insurance carrier whereby the carrier
assumed responsibility for the defense and ultimate resolution
of the litigation. In connection with the insurance agreement,
the Company entered into certain agreements and releases and
agreed to make a cash premium payment, net of potential future
reimbursements, to the insurer ranging from an estimated minimum
payment of $7.0 million to a maximum payment of $17.5 million
depending on the ultimate cost to defend and resolve the pending
litigation. The Company is responsible for paying all legal
defense costs prior to the effective date of the insurance
agreement, but expects that substantially all costs incurred
subsequent to the effective date to defend and resolve the
Shareholder Litigation will be covered by the insurance
agreement. The Company believes that substantially all costs it
will incur to defend and resolve the litigation have been
accrued in the accompanying consolidated financial statements as
of January 31, 1999.


SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Patients Sue for Slightly Used Needles
----------------------------------------------------------
The United Press International reported on a class action
lawsuit filed in Santa Clara County, California against
SmithKline Beecham and a Palo Alto blood clinic where a worker
was accused of reusing needles. According to the report, the
needles were used to take blood from several patients at the
Welch Road clinic between June 1997 and April 1999.

UPI explained that the lawsuit was filed after a phlebotomist
allegedly admitted reusing needles after washing them with
peroxide. SmithKline Beecham has established a hotline - 1-800-
871-6045 - for those who had their blood drawn at the clinic
during the specified time.


UNITED FOODS: Tankersley Family Offer Prompts Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Foods Inc. (AMEX: UFDA) (AMEX: UFDB) reported on a class
action against the company. In March 1999, a complaint was filed
against the company and its directors by a stockholder of the
company in a Delaware Chancery Court. The complaint seeks class
action status and requests injunctive and other relief with
respect to the pending proposal by the Jim Tankersley Family.

On Sept. 16, 1998, the company received an offer from its
chairman and chief executive officer, James I. Tankersley, and
his family to acquire the remaining shares of the company's
common stock that are not already owned by Mr. Tankersley, his
wife or their children in a merger in which the stockholders
would receive $3.00 per share in cash. On receiving the
proposal, the board of directors of the company appointed two
outside directors to a special transaction committee. The board
designated the committee for the purpose of evaluating and
making recommendations with respect to the proposal.

The company believes the complaint to be without merit.



                            *********

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  * * *