CAR_Public/990504.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Tuesday, May 4, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 63

                            Headlines

BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Delaware Complaint Dismissed by Stipulation
DTE ENERGY: Faces Discrimination Claim, Arbitrates Michigan Case
FIREARM MANUFACTURERS: States Consider Banning Class Actions
GOODYS FAMILY: Employees Claim Discrimination and Harassment
IRIDIUM WORLD: Weiss & Yourman File Suit in District of Columbia

KEYSPAN ENERGY: $7.9 Million Settles Pay Dispute After Merger
MCKESSON HBOC: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in California
MCKESSON HBOC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Complaint in California
MCKESSON HBOC: Chitwood & Harley File Complaint in California
MCKESSON HBOC: Earnings Restatement Attracts Brualdi Firm

MCKESSON HBOC: Entwistle & Cappucci File Complaint in California
MCKESSON HBOC: Hoffman & Edelson File Complaint in California
MCKESSON HBOC: Lowey Dannenberg Files Complaint in California
MCKESSON HBOC: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
MCKESSON HBOC: Rabin & Peckel File Complaint in California

MCKESSON HBOC: Restatement Attracts Whittington von Sternberg
MCKESSON HBOC: Schoengold & Sporn File Complaint in California
MCKESSON HBOC: Spector & Roseman File Complaint in California
MCKESSON HBOC: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in California
OSICOM TECHNOLOGIES: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California

SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY: Antitrust and Laser Surgery Litigation Update
SUN HEALTHCARE: Facing Securities Suits, Settles RCA Claims


                            *********


BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Delaware Complaint Dismissed by Stipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 29, 1999, the complaint in the action Shakerdge v.
Martinelli, et al., a putative class action against BUCKEYE
PARTNERS L P, pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, was
dismissed without prejudice by stipulation among the parties.


DTE ENERGY: Faces Discrimination Claim, Arbitrates Michigan Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a lawsuit filed in January 1999 in the Circuit Court for
Wayne County Michigan (Cook, et al v. Detroit Edison), a number
of individual plaintiffs have claimed employment-related sex,
gender and race discrimination, as well as harassment. The suit
seeks certification as a class action. Detroit Edison believes
the claims are without merit.

Detroit Edison and plaintiffs in a class action pending in the
Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan (Gilford, et al v.
Detroit Edison), as well as plaintiffs in two other pending
actions which make class claims (Sanchez, et al v. Detroit
Edison, Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan; and Frazier v.
Detroit Edison, United States District Court, Eastern District
of Michigan), are preparing for binding arbitration to settle
these matters.

A July 1998 Consent Judgement has received preliminary Court
approval. A Fairness Hearing with respect to the terms of the
settlement was held in August 1998, and no objections to the
settlement were raised. A second Fairness Hearing is
contemplated following the results of the arbitration. The
settlement agreement provides that Detroit Edison's monetary
liability is to be no less than $17.5 million and no greater
than $65 million after the conclusion of all related
proceedings. Detroit Edison has accrued an amount considered to
be probable.


FIREARM MANUFACTURERS: States Consider Banning Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that state senators in Florida and
North Carolina shelved bills banning class action lawsuits
against gunmakers, saying debate would be unseemly after the
shooting at Columbine High School. Meanwhile, House lawmakers in
North Carolina and South Carolina approved similar measures.

According to AP, the Florida bill appeared headed for passage
before the massacre in Littleton, Colo., where two teen-agers
used shotguns and semiautomatic weapons to kill 13 people and
then themselves. "In light of the Colorado situation last week,
I think the discussion of the bill would not be on the merits of
the bill but on the emotional aspect of the tragic killings of
the students and the teacher," Florida Senate President Toni
Jennings told the Associated Press.

The Florida House canceled debate on the bill last week, AP
reports. The action came as legislatures in other states have
been pulling gun proposals from debate. Meanwhile, cities
including Miami, Chicago, New Orleans and Detroit have sued
gunmakers in efforts to recover damages for crimes involving
firearms. But, according to the AP story, there was some support
for the gun industry in the Carolinas. In North Carolina, the
House approved a bill Tuesday blocking class-action lawsuits
against gun manufacturers.

However, the Senate decided to pull its version of the plan from
consideration. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Fountain Odom, remained
confident it would be approved. "It's fairly limited in scope,"
the Democrat told the Associated Press. "It just deals with what
political subdivisions should be allowed to take an action."

In South Carolina, a bill banning local governments from suing
gun manufacturers received approval in the House on Tuesday. The
Associated Press wrote that the bill would allow only the state
to sue the gun industry in cases involving design, marketing or
sale of firearms. Gov. Jim Hodges, a Democrat, has said he would
sign such a bill into law.


GOODYS FAMILY: Employees Claim Discrimination and Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------
On February 25, 1999, a lawsuit was served on Goodys Family
Clothing Inc. and Robert M. Goodfriend, its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, by 20 named plaintiffs, generally alleging
that the Company discriminated against a class of African-
American employees at its retail stores through the use of
discriminatory selection and compensation procedures and by
maintaining unequal terms and conditions of employment. The
plaintiffs further allege that the Company maintained a racially
hostile working environment. The plaintiffs' claims are being
brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, and under the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The plaintiffs
are seeking to have this action certified as a class action.

In February 1999, another lawsuit was served on the Company. The
lawsuit was filed by nine individual plaintiffs at one of the
Company's retail stores, who generally allege discrimination
with respect to employment opportunities, including, among other
things, discrimination through their constructive discharge,
failure to be promoted and failure to be paid wages equal to
white employees.

By way of damages, the plaintiffs in these actions are seeking,
among other things, injunctive relief, back pay and other
monetary relief. The Company disputes these claims and intends
to defend these matters vigorously. It is too early to estimate
the effect, if any, these two lawsuits may have on the Company's
financial position or results of operations.


IRIDIUM WORLD: Weiss & Yourman File Suit in District of Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of
all persons who purchased the securities of Iridium World
Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: IRID) between September 9, 1998
and March 29, 1999. The lawsuit charges Iridium, certain
officers and directors of Iridium, and Motorola, Inc.
("Motorola") with violations of the federal securities laws and
regulations of the United States.

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
concerning the Company's ability to fully launch the Iridium
System. Specifically, defendants falsely reported achievable
subscriber numbers and revenue figures, failed to disclose the
serious technical problems with the Iridium System, failed to
disclose delays in handset production which resulted in a
shortage of the necessary handsets which were required to
operate the Iridium System, and that, absent achieving the
requisite subscriber numbers and revenue figures, the Company
would violate covenants between itself and its lenders.

The Company's fraudulent practices were disclosed on March 29,
1999 when, for the first time, the Company disclosed that it
would not meet its necessary subscriber numbers and that as a
direct consequence would not be able to satisfy its Secured
Credit Facility covenants. Accordingly, the Company's common
stock dropped approximately 73% since its May 1998 high.

For more information, call Jordan L. Lurie or Leigh A. Parker at
800-437-7918 or write to wyinfo@wyca.com via email.


KEYSPAN ENERGY: $7.9 Million Settles Pay Dispute After Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
KeySpan Energy (NYSE: KSE) has agreed to settle 13 class action
lawsuits and two derivative actions initiated by shareholders of
the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and Brooklyn Union
after the merger of the two companies in May 1998. The lawsuits,
which had been filed in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau
County, against each of the former officers and directors of
LILCO and KeySpan, arose from compensation payments made to
LILCO executives at the time of the merger.

Under the proposed settlement, $7.9 million will be distributed
(less plaintiffs' attorneys' fees) to the former LILCO and
Brooklyn Union shareholders. KeySpan will provide specific
details to its shareholders after the Court has approved the
settlement. The company's insurance carrier will cover the
entire $7.9 million settlement. In addition, KeySpan Energy has
agreed to implement certain corporate governance and executive
compensation procedures.

If the Court approves the settlement, the parties will apply in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York,
for an order and final judgment dismissing three related federal
actions, based on the binding effect of the state court
judgment.

The New York State Attorney General has also concluded his
investigation of the executive compensation matter, and has
decided to take no action against the former officers and
directors. The Attorney General recommended that the Court
approve the settlement of the shareholder action. KeySpan and
its insurance carrier will evenly divide the $1.5-million cost
of the State's investigation.

KeySpan Energy operates two utilities that distribute natural
gas under the Brooklyn Union name to approximately 1.6 million
customers in New York City and on Long Island. Other KeySpan
companies market energy-related services in the Northeast,
operate electric-generation plants on Long Island, and provide
operating and customer services to one-million electric
customers of the Long Island Power Authority. KeySpan's
unregulated energy activities focus on three principal lines of
business: gas exploration and development, primarily through The
Houston Exploration Company; domestic pipelines and storage; and
international activities, including gas-processing in Canada,
and gas pipelines and local-distribution in Northern Ireland.

For more information, call Michael J. Taunton at 718-403-3265.


MCKESSON HBOC: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed by Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri,
LLP. on April 28, 1999, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of McKesson
Corporation or McKesson HBOC, Inc. (NYSE: MCK), between October
18, 1998 and April 27, 1999. The Complaint charges McKesson HBOC
and certain officers and directors of the Company during the
relevant time period with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by, among other things,
issuing to the investing public false and misleading financial
statements and press releases concerning McKesson HBOC's
financial condition.

On April 28, 1999, McKesson HBOC announced that to do the
improper recognition of revenue from its software sales it would
have to restate earnings for its fourth quarter and year end.
Because of the issuance of a series of false and misleading
financial statements and press release concerning McKesson
HBOC's financial results, the price of McKesson HBOC's
securities were previously artificially inflated.

To learn more, call James Jay Seirmarco, Esq. at 415-538-3725 or
write to jseirmarco@a-g-s.com via email, or call James S. Notis
or Nancy Kaboolian at 800-889-3701 or 212-889-3700 or write to
nkaboolian@a-g-s.com via email.


MCKESSON HBOC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced by Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock and call options and sellers of put options of McKesson
HBOC, Inc. (NYSE: MCK) between October 18, 1998 and April 27,
1999, inclusive in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. Additionally, if you held
McKesson securities at the time of the merger with HBO & Company
("HBOC") (NYSE: HBOC) or if you purchased the common stock of
HBOC at any time since April 22, 1998 you may have claims
against the defendants in this lawsuit.

The complaint charges McKesson and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading financial statements in the
Company's press releases and filings with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission. As a result, McKesson will be forced to
restate its previously issued financial statements. On April 28,
1999, when it was disclosed that the Company would have to
restate its financial results, the price of McKesson stock
dropped more than 47%, plunging from $65-3/4 to $34-1/2.

To learn more, call Mel E. Lifshitz Esq., or Michael S. Egan,
Esq., at 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or write to them at
mckesson@bernlieb.com via email.


MCKESSON HBOC: Chitwood & Harley File Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of persons who acquired the stock of McKesson HBOC, Inc.
and its predecessors McKesson Corp. and HBO & Company, between
October 19, 1998, and April 27, 1999. The complaint alleges that
McKesson and certain of its top officers violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements
regarding McKesson's business, earnings growth, financial
stability and its ability to continue to achieve profitability.

The complaint alleges that defendants artificially inflated
McKesson's stock price to a high of $89-3/4 by issuing these
false and misleading statements. However, when defendants
released the true facts surrounding McKesson's troubled
operations, diminished profitability and false financial
statements, McKesson's stock plunged to as low as $32 per share.

For more information, call Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at 888-973-3999
or 404/873-3900 or write to mdc@classlaw.com via email.


MCKESSON HBOC: Earnings Restatement Attracts Brualdi Firm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Richard B. Brualdi is investigating a suit
against McKesson HBOC Inc. (NYSE: MCK) on behalf of McKesson
investors who purchased their shares on the open market between
July 28, 1998 and April 27, 1999 or who acquired their shares in
conjunction with McKesson's acquisition of HBO & Co. ("HBOC").
This interest arises out of McKesson's disclosure, as reported
in the Wall Street Journal, that it improperly recorded sales
from HBOC, that it is restating its earnings and that it may
make further revisions to its earnings as it continues an audit.

To learn more, call 212-952-0602 or write rbrualdi@earthlink.net
via email.


MCKESSON HBOC: Entwistle & Cappucci File Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP filed a class action lawsuit for
violations of the federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
McKesson HBOC, Inc. (NYSE: MCK) and certain officers and
directors of McKesson and the former HBO & Co. ("HBOC"). The
lawsuit was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of McKesson, or its predecessor, McKesson
Corporation, between October 18, 1998 and April 27, 1999. The
complaint charges McKesson and the individual defendants
described above with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued
materially false and misleading financial statements, which
overstated the Company's assets, retained earnings,
stockholders' equity, gross profit, income and earnings per
share due to the overstatement of revenues from HBOC's software
sales. Because of the issuance of such false and misleading
financial statements, the price of McKesson common stock was
artificially inflated. Indeed, on April 28, 1999, the Company
announced that, due to its improper recognition of revenue, it
would have to restate its 1999 fiscal year's earnings. As a
result of that announcement, the Company's stock price dropped
almost 50% from $65-3/4 on April 27, 1999 to as low as $33-1/8
on April 28, 1999.

For more information, call Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. at 212-894-
7200 or write to kviana@entwistle-law.com via email.


MCKESSON HBOC: Hoffman & Edelson File Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman & Edelson filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of investors who purchased both the common stock of
McKesson HBOC Inc. (NYSE: MCK) between Oct. 19, 1998, and April
28, 1999 and all persons who owned shares of HBOC & Company
("HBOC") and whose shares of HBOC were converted into shares of
McKesson following McKesson's acquisition of HBOC. The lawsuit
charges that McKesson and certain of officers and directors of
the Company violated the federal securities laws and regulations
of the United States.

On April 28, 1999 the Company announced that it was reducing
previously reported annual earnings per share by 4.4 percent,
saying it improperly recorded sales from the software business
it acquired in January, 1999.

To learn more, call Marc H. Edelson, Esq., at 877-537-6532 or
write to hofedlaw@aol.com via email.


MCKESSON HBOC: Lowey Dannenberg Files Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C. filed
a class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of HBO &
Company (NASDAQ: HBOC) common stock during the period April 14,
1998 through January 12, 1999. The complaint charges McKesson
HBOC, Inc. (as the successor by merger with HBOC) and certain
officers with issuing false and misleading financial statements
in violation of the federal securities laws, which inflated the
market price of HBOC shares. HBOC shares were exchanged for
shares of McKesson at the time of the merger of McKesson and
HBOC on January 12, 1999.

On April 28, 1999, McKesson announced that it was restating its
earnings for the quarter ended March 31, 1999, the prior three
quarters, and the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999. The
restatement resulted from the improper recording of software
sales which were subject to certain unsatisfied contingencies,
but were treated as completed sales, which inflated reported
earnings for those periods. Following the announcement of the
downward restatement of earnings, McKesson stock dropped from
$64.75 to under $35, a loss of nearly 50% in one day.

For more information, call Thomas M. Skelton, Esq. at 877-777-
3581 or write to ldbs@westnet.com via email.


MCKESSON HBOC: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss filed a class action in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those
who acquired the common stock of McKesson HBOC, Inc. and its
predecessors McKesson Corp. and HBO & Company (NYSE: MCK) during
the period between Oct. 19, 1998 and April 27, 1999.

The complaint charges McKesson and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws by
making misrepresentations about McKesson's business, earnings
growth and financial statements and its ability to continue to
achieve profitable growth. By issuing these allegedly false and
misleading statements, defendants artificially inflated
McKesson's stock price to a high of $89-3/4 in January 1999,
before the true facts about McKesson's troubled operations,
diminished profitability and false financial statements were
revealed and McKesson's stock collapsed to as low as $32 per
share.

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


MCKESSON HBOC: Rabin & Peckel File Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rabin & Peckel LLP filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of McKesson HBOC, Inc. (NYSE: MCK) between
July 28, 1998 and April 27, 1999, including purchasers of HBO &
Company securities who received McKesson stock as a result of
the merger between the two companies.

This action, based on violations of section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arises out of a series of false
and misleading statements made by Defendants McKesson and two of
its senior officers concerning the Company's reported financial
results, which were materially inflated as a result of
McKesson's improper accounting of HBOC-related software
transactions as sales when they were still subject to
contingencies, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"). It was only on April 28, 1999 that the
Company disclosed that "software sales transactions aggregating
$26.2 million in the company's fourth quarter ended March 31,
1999, and $16.0 million in the prior quarters of the fiscal
year, were improperly recorded because they were subject to
contingencies, and have been reversed. The audit process is
ongoing and there is a possibility that additional contingent
sales may be identified." As a consequence, the Company further
reported that it will have to restate its financial statements
for the fourth quarter and year ended March 31, 1998, and for
the entire fiscal year ended March 31, 1999.

The Complaint alleges that defendants' false and misleading
financial statements violated GAAP and artificially inflated the
price of McKesson securities.

To learn more, call Joseph V. McBride at 800-497-8076 or 212-
682-1818 or write to email@rabinlaw.com via email.


MCKESSON HBOC: Restatement Attracts Whittington von Sternberg
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whittington, von Sternberg, Emerson & Wilsher is investigating
potential securities fraud claims against McKesson HBOC, Inc.
(NYSE: MCK) and those of the HBOC predecessor, arising from the
disclosure that revenues recorded in the prior financial year
have been improperly reported, and that earnings will have to be
restated. Following this announcement, the trading price of
McKesson shares fell by more than 45% from $65 per share to
below $31. These claims involve investors who purchased their
shares on the open market between July 28, 1998 and April 27,
1999 or in connection with McKesson's acquisition of HBOC & Co.

To learn more, call John G. Emerson, Jr. or Craig von Sternberg
at 713-798-8850 or write je-mlaw@worldnet.att.net via email.


MCKESSON HBOC: Schoengold & Sporn File Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced by Schoengold & Sporn,
P.C. and an international labor union pension fund in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of McKesson HBOC, Inc.
(NYSE: MCK) between July 28, 1998 and April 28, 1999 including
all HBOC & Company ("HBOC") shareholders who tendered their
shares which were then converted into McKesson common stock in
connection with McKesson's acquisition of HBOC. The securities
class action complaint charges the defendants with violations of
the federal securities laws, by among other things,
misrepresenting and/or omitting material information concerning
the Company's improper recording of revenue from its software
sales.

On April 28 1999, the Company announced that due to its improper
recognition of revenue from its software sales, it would have to
restate its fiscal 1999 earnings. Upon the release of this
devastating news, the Company's stock price dropped from its
closing price of $65.75 on April 27, 1999 to close at $33.125 on
April 28, 1999, with over 40 million shares changing hands.

To learn more, call 800-232-8092 or write SCHOENGOLD@AOL.COM via
email.


MCKESSON HBOC: Spector & Roseman File Complaint in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced by Spector & Roseman,
P.C., on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
McKesson HBOC, Inc. (NYSE: MCK) between July 28, 1998 and April
28, and all persons who owned shares of HBOC & Company ("HBOC")
and whose shares of HBOC were converted into shares of McKesson
following McKesson's acquisition of HBOC. The complaint filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California charges McKesson and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws,
alleging that defendants failed to disclose material facts
concerning the Company's improper recording of revenue from its
software sales. As a result, the Company announced on April 28,
1999 that due to its improper recognition of revenue from its
sales of software, it would have to restate its revenues. As a
result, shares of McKesson plunged close to 50 percent.

To learn more, contact Ellen Gusikoff Stewart at 619-338-4514 or
at Egusikoff@aol.com via email, or call Robert M. Roseman at
888-844-5862 or write to classaction@spectorandroseman.com via
email.


MCKESSON HBOC: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------
McKesson HBOC, Inc. (NYSE: MCK) and three of its senior officers
have been named in a securities fraud lawsuit filed by Wolf
Popper LLP in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all who
purchased the common stock and options of McKesson HBOC, Inc. or
its predecessor, McKesson Corporation, on the open market, from
November 27, 1998 through April 27, 1999, who were damaged by
defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.

The lawsuit alleges that McKesson Corporation and HBO & Company
("HBOC") filed a Registration Statement and Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus in connection with the merger transaction
between McKesson Corporation and HBOC into McKesson. The
Prospectus contained, on a pro forma basis, the condensed
balance sheet of McKesson and the pro forma condensed balance
sheet of HBOC, along with, on a combined pro forma basis, the
condensed statements of income of McKesson and the pro forma
combined condensed statements of income of HBOC. On January 12,
1999, the shareholders of McKesson and HBOC approved the
Transaction, and the Transaction closed that day. For a period
of time, defendants published combined financials reporting
strong growth in revenue and earnings, especially in what had
formerly been the software business of HBOC.

Defendants knew or were reckless in failing to know that the
combined financials of McKesson published during this time were
materially false and misleading because defendants improperly
recognized revenues from software sales in fiscal 1999 which
were subject to contingencies. As later admitted by the Company,
as a result of the Company's improper accounting for software
transactions in violation of generally accepted accounting
principles ("GAAP"), the Company was required to restate it's
annual and quarterly financials for fiscal year 1999. As a
consequence of the restatement, the Company was compelled to,
among other things, remove in excess of $42 million in revenue
from the Company's previously reported financial statements.

To learn more, call Paul 0. Paradis, Esq. or Michael A.
Schwartz, Esq. at 877-370-7703 or 212-451-9676 or 212-451-9668,
or write pparadis@wolfpopper.com or mschwart@wolfpopper.com via
email.


OSICOM TECHNOLOGIES: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Osicom
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: FIBR) between July 2, 1998 and April
20, 1999. The complaint charges Osicom and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations about Osicom's
business and its ability to achieve profitable growth.

Defendants represented to the investment community that Osicom
had a $90 million contract to sell wireless communication
products in Japan. Ultimately, defendants admitted that the
contract was only worth $175,000 and that the products it was
attempting to sell were not really wireless. As a result,
Osicom's stock price was artificially inflated to as high as
$28-3/4 per share. When Osicom ultimately admitted to its prior
false statements, its stock collapsed to as low as $9-5/8 on
volume of 3.2 million shares before trading was halted.

To learn more, call Maxine S. Goldman at 800-417-7305 or 215-
963-0600, or write to msgoldman@barrack.com via email.


SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY: Antitrust and Laser Surgery Litigation Update
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summit Technology Inc. released an update on the federal and
state litigation involving the company.

In June, 1996, a Texas ophthalmologist, Robert G. Burlingame,
sued Pillar Point, VISX, Summit Technology Inc. and certain
affiliates in the Federal District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that the defendants have
violated and are violating federal and state antitrust laws and
alleging fraud in connection with certain of the Company's sales
and marketing activities. The plaintiff seeks, things, antitrust
damages of at least $30 plus $2 to $3 per month until the date
of judgment, trebling of those damages, compensatory and
punitive damages on the fraud claim against Summit Technology
Inc. of at least $500 plus $2 to $3 per month until the date of
judgment, attorney's fees, and a permanent injunction against
future violations.

On September 5, 1996, a Nevada ophthalmologist, John R.
Shepherd, through his professional corporation, commenced a
similar lawsuit against the same parties, in the same court,
alleging substantially similar antitrust claims and seeking
substantially similar relief, including damages before trebling
of at least $125 plus $12 per month until the date of judgment.
Summit Technology Inc. has denied the substantive allegations in
these actions. Plaintiff's counsel in the Shepherd case has
indicated that he intends to seek certification of the case as a
class action.

In May, 1998, The Eye Professionals, P.A. of Millville, New
Jersey commenced an action in the Federal District Court for the
District of New Jersey against Summit Technology Inc. and VISX.
The case purports to be a class action on behalf of all
individuals or entities that have paid a per-procedure fee
directly to either defendant for use of a Summit or VISX laser
to perform laser vision correction surgery. The complaint
alleges, inter alia, price-fixing in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act. The action seeks, inter alia, treble damages,
costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and various forms of declaratory
and injunctive relief.

Similar actions were also filed in May, 1998 by Metropolitan Eye
Center and Outpatient Surgical Facility, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Summit Technology Inc., VISX, Summit Partner, Inc., and VISX
Partner, Inc., and by New England Laser Vision, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and VISX.

In August, 1998, David R. Shapiro, M.D., filed another similar
purported class action against the Company and VISX in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Plaintiffs in each of these cases have agreed to consolidation
of the four purported class actions and filed and served a
single consolidated amended complaint. It purports to be a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities (excluding
governmental entities, defendants, subsidiaries and affiliates
of defendants) in the United States who paid a per-procedure
royalty to any defendant or any alleged co-conspirator or any
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, at any time after September
1995. The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified treble damages on behalf of plaintiffs and
the alleged class, along with attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive and declaratory relief.

In September, 1998, Laser Eye Center of Texas, L.L.P. and Warren
D. Cross, M.D., filed a purported class action against the
Company, Summit Partner, Inc., VISX, VISX, Partner, Inc., and
Pillar Point Partners in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. The suit purports to be a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who have paid money
to defendants, or any of their subsidiaries, on a per procedure
basis for the ability to use defendants' laser equipment or
technology to perform laser vision correction surgery.
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, violations of Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act. They seek, among other things, treble
damages on behalf of the alleged class, costs of suit, including
attorneys' fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief. This
case has now been transferred to the District of Arizona.

In late March, 1998, Janice Camp of Atlanta, Georgia commenced
an action in Federal District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company and VISX. As amended in April,
1998, the complaint adds as a named plaintiff Jon Singer of
Congers, New York. The case has been transferred to Federal
District Court for the District of Arizona for consolidated
pretrial proceedings. The case purports to be a class action on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals who have undergone
laser vision correction surgery. The complaint alleges, inter
alia, price-fixing, monopolization, conspiracy to monopolize,
violations of the Clayton Act, violations of the RICO Act, and
violations of state consumer protection statutes. The action
seeks, inter alia, treble damages, punitive or exemplary
damages, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and various forms of
equitable relief, including disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and
restitution. In response to defendants' motion to dismiss,
plaintiffs have abandoned their federal antitrust claims. A
Magistrate Judge has recommended that defendants' motion to
dismiss the RICO and state law claims be granted.

Beginning in late March, 1998, a number of actions brought by
individuals under the Cartwright Act and California unfair
competition laws were commenced against Summit Technology Inc.,
VISX, and related defendants in Superior Court of Santa Clara
County. In May, 1998, these actions were consolidated as IN RE
PRK/LASIK CONSUMER LITIGATION. In June, 1998, plaintiffs B.J.
Snyder, Donna McMahan, Paula Mobsby, Helen Thomas, Carmen
Ocariz, Martin Hermans, Ken Bartlett, Jackie Kirk, Grace
Geniusz, Jocelyn Joseph, Andrew Stoddard, and Cynthia Brubecker
filed an Amended Consolidated Master Complaint for Damages
("Amended Complaint") in this matter against the Company, Summit
Partner, Inc., VISX, and VISX Partner, Inc.

The Amended Complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a
nationwide class of persons who have undergone excimer laser
surgery with a laser manufactured by the Company or VISX. The
Amended Complaint seeks, inter alia, unspecified compensatory
damages, restitution and/or disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten
gains, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, costs of suit, and
attorneys' fees, as well as various forms of declaratory and
injunctive relief, including an order permitting any person or
entity with which the Company or VISX or both have entered into
any agreement since June 3, 1992, for the purchase, license, or
use of any of the Pillar Point Patents to withdraw from such
agreement without penalty or obligation.

Summit Technology Inc. and Summit Partner, Inc. have filed an
answer denying generally the allegations of the Amended
Complaint in this litigation. James Ballard filed a similar suit
against the Company, Summit Partner, Inc., VISX, VISX Partner,
Inc., Pillar Point Partners, and other individual defendants in
Superior Court of San Diego County. This suit has been
transferred to Santa Clara County and consolidated as part of IN
RE PRK/LASIK CONSUMER LITIGATION.

In April, 1998, Penny Marks, an individual who allegedly has had
laser vision correction surgery performed, commenced an action
in Florida state court against the Company and VISX. The case
purports to be a class action on behalf of all individuals
similarly situated in the State of Florida. The complaint
alleges various violations of the Florida Deceptive Trade and
Unfair Practices Act. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking class
certification.

In June, 1998, Barbara Worcester, an individual who allegedly
has had laser vision correction surgery performed, filed an
action in Wisconsin state court against Summit Technology Inc.,
Summit Partner, Inc., VISX, VISX Partner, Inc., and Pillar Point
Partners. The case purports to be a class action on behalf of
all Wisconsin purchasers of refractive laser surgery procedures.
The complaint alleges violations of Chapter 133 of the Wisconsin
Statutes. The complaint seeks unspecified treble damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and declaratory and injunctive
relief. Defendants removed this action to federal court, and it
has been transferred to the District of Arizona.

In January, 1999, Karen Frankson, Virginia Harmes, and Beth
Luetschwager, three individuals who allegedly have had laser
vision correction surgery performed, filed a similar purported
class action in Wisconsin state court. Defendants have removed
this action to Federal District Court in Wisconsin and are
seeking to have it transferred to Federal District Court in
Arizona.


SUN HEALTHCARE: Facing Securities Suits, Settles RCA Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
In March 1999 and through April 19, 1999, several stockholders
filed class action lawsuits against Sun Healthcare Group Inc.
and three officers of the Company in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico. The lawsuits allege, among
other things, that the Company did not disclose material facts
concerning the impact that PPS would have on the Company's
results of operations. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages
and other relief for stockholders who purchased the Company's
common stock during the class-action period.

Although the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this
matter, there can be no assurance that the outcome of this
matter will not have a material adverse effect on the results of
operations and financial condition of the Company.

On June 30, 1998, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
merged with Retirement Care Associates, Inc. ("RCA"), an
operator of 98 skilled nursing facilities and assisted living
centers in eight states primarily in the southeastern United
States. Between August 25, 1997 and October 24, 1997, 10
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
persons who purchased RCA Common Stock, naming RCA and certain
of its officers and directors as defendants. The complaints have
overlapping defendants and largely overlapping (although not
identical) class periods.

The complaints allege violations of Federal securities laws by
the defendants for disseminating allegedly false and misleading
financial statements for RCA's fiscal year ended June 30, 1996
and its first three quarters of fiscal year 1997, which the
plaintiffs allege materially overstated RCA's profitability.
Generally, each of the Actions seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs and other equitable and injunctive relief.

On November 25, 1997, RCA, the Company and representatives of
the plaintiffs in the Actions entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU"). Pursuant to the MOU, the Company paid $9
million into an interest-bearing escrow account maintained by
the Company (the "Escrow Account") to settle the Actions (the
"Settlement"). RCA also agreed to assign coverage under its
directors' and officers' liability insurance policy for these
specific claims to the plaintiffs. All of the parties have
signed the Settlement Agreement and it will become final upon
court approval. Upon court approval of the Settlement, all
claims by the class that were or could have been asserted by the
plaintiffs against RCA or any of the other defendants in the
Actions will be settled and released, and the Actions will be
dismissed in their entirety with prejudice in exchange for the
release of all funds from the Escrow Account to the Plaintiffs.
No assurance can be given that the Settlement will become final.



                            *********

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  * * *