CAR_Public/990507.MBX            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, May 7, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 66

                          Headlines

ANADIGICS, INC.: Amended Complaint Due May 14, 1999
AMERICAN GENERAL: Insurance Affiliates Settle Pay $5.5 Million
COCA-COLA: CEO Ivester Charged with Communicating With Plaintiffs
CURATIVE HEALTH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in New York
FIRST UNION: $150 Million Former Signet Employee Suit Filed

FORD MOTOR: Alameda County Suit, if Successful, Will Take Toll
IRIDIUM WORLD: Yates Firm Files Complaint in District of Columbia
J. CREW: Motion to Dismiss Saipan Worker Claims Sub Judice
MCKESSON HBOC: Rabin & Peckel Amends California Complaint
MCKESSON HBOC: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California

MCKESSON HBOC: Donovan Miller Files Complaint in California
MCKESSON HBOC: Liebenberg & White File Complaint in California
MITCHAM INDUSTRIES: Motion to Dismiss Briefed & Awaiting Ruling
MONARCH DENTAL: Awaiting Consolidation of Securities Complaints
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California

OSICOM TECHNOLOGIES: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit in California
OSICOM TECHNOLOGIS: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California
OSICOM TECHNOLOGIES: Tells Investors it will Defend Against Suits
PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in Washington
PAYDAY LOANS: Edelman & Combs Continues Crusade Against Lenders

SIGMA DESIGNS: Suit Hinges on 9th Cir. Silicon Graphics Decision
TCSI CORPORATION: Announces Settlement of Shareholder Litigation
VOLKSWAGEN A.G.: Cohen Milstein Files Infanticide Complaint

                          *********

ANADIGICS, INC.: Amended Complaint Due May 14, 1999
---------------------------------------------------
In March and April 1998, there were filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey seven proposed
class action lawsuits, captioned Assuncao v. Anadigics, Inc., et
al., No. 98-917; Office and Professional Employees International
Union Local 153 Pension Fund v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 98-
919; Kotler v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 98-923; Gray v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 98-1337; Mirpuri v. Anadigics,
Inc., et al., No. 98-1811; Grayson v. Rosenzweig, et al., No. 98-
1688; and Morgante v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 98-2024. The
Complaints filed in the Class Action Lawsuits (each of which
names a combination of the following directors and officers of
the Company: Ronald Rosenzweig, George Gilbert, Harry
T. Rein, John F. Lyons, Charles Huang, Javed Patel, Sheo Khetan
and Robert Bayruns) seek unspecified damages in connection with
claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and,
as set forth in the Union Local 153, Kotler, Gray and Mirpuri
Complaints, claims alleging common law fraud and negligent
misrepresentation.  

The Complaints allege that, as a result of certain material
misstatements and omissions made by the Company in connection
with its business, the price of the Company's common stock was
artificially inflated during the proposed class periods. The
longest proposed class period alleged by the plaintiffs in the
Class Action Lawsuits is the period from July 17, 1997 through
January 30, 1998.  On December 20, 1998, the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey entered an Order
consolidating the Class Action Lawsuits into one action,
captioned In re Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 98-CV-
917, and appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.
The parties to the Consolidated Class Action Lawsuit have
jointly requested the Court to extend to May 14, 1999 the
deadline by which plaintiffs must file their Amended Consolidated
Complaint.  

On or about August 3, 1998, a shareholders derivative lawsuit,
captioned Deegan v. Rosenzweig, et al., No. 98-CV-3640, was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company (as nominal defendant) and the
following officers and directors thereof: Charles Burton, Paul
Bachow, Robert Bayruns, Ronald Rosenzweig, George Gilbert, John
Lyons, Harry Rein, Sheo Khetan, Javed Patel, Charles Huang and
Phillip Wallace. The Complaint in the Derivative Lawsuit alleges
claims, which are predicated upon the Class Action Lawsuits,
seeking damages, contribution, indemnification and equitable
relief. On October 28, 1998, the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey stayed the Derivative Lawsuit
pending the earlier of (1) the disposition of any motion to
dismiss the Complaint (or any Consolidated Amended Complaint) in
the Class Action Lawsuits or (2) the commencement of discovery in
the Class Action Lawsuits.  As a result, on October 29, 1998, the
Court administratively dismissed the Derivative Lawsuit without
prejudice.  


AMERICAN GENERAL: Insurance Affiliates Settle Pay $5.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eight insurance companies owned by American General Corp. agreed
Tuesday to  pay a $5.5-million fine to the state to settle
charges of deceptive sales  practices, including "churning" old
policies for new ones.    

Up to 207,000 Floridians were duped into buying policies from the
Houston  insurer and its units between 1982 and 1997, according
to the Florida  Department of Insurance.    

American General admitted no wrongdoing in the agreement.  The
deal was part of a broader investigation of how customers
unwittingly  bought new life insurance financed by the cash value
of their current policies.  The practice, known as churning, has
prompted class-action lawsuits in addition  to regulatory
scrutiny.    MetLife's Tampa offices were the focus of a class-
action suit that resulted  in a $135-million fine. Two other
giant life insurance companies, Prudential  Insurance Co. and
John Hancock, have paid state fines of $15-million and $6-
million, respectively.    

The case against American General began in February 1998 after
the state  became alarmed that a relatively small insurer,
Franklin Life Insurance of  Illinois, had the fourth-highest
number of churning complaints from Florida  consumers. Because
Franklin was a subsidiary of American General, the  investigation
was expanded to include American General Life and Accident  
Insurance Co., which is based in Nashville, Tenn., and six other
subsidiaries of American General. The other companies involved
are American Franklin Life  Insurance Co., the United States Life
Insurance Co. in New York, All American  Life Insurance Co., Old
Line Insurance Co. of America, American General Life  Insurance
Co. and American General Life Insurance Co. in New York. (St.
Petersburg Times 05-May-1999)


COCA-COLA: CEO Ivester Charged with Communicating With Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Atlanta has set an expedited hearing for May
13 in the racial discrimination suit against Coca-Cola Co.
U.S. District Judge Richard Story granted the plaintiffs'
emergency request for the hearing to determine if Coca-Cola chief
M. Douglas Ivester violated a court rule when he sent e-mail
messages to salaried black employees about the lawsuit.  
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs --- four current or former
African-American employees --- contend Ivester violated a rule
that prevents communication with potential members of a class-
action suit without court approval.  Coca-Cola has said the
motion is a typical legal maneuver with no validity.  The judge
ordered the company to file its response by Tuesday.

The plaintiffs in the underlying suit seek class-action status,
so 1,500 salaried black employees can be included in the suit
alleging discrimination in pay, promotions, performance
evaluations and terminations.  (The Atlanta Journal and
Constitution 06-May-1999)


CURATIVE HEALTH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
suit against Curative Health  Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: CURE) and
certain of its  officers.  The case was filed in the United
States District Court for the  Eastern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of  Curative during the
period between June 26, 1999 and April 12, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Curative and certain of its officers
violated  Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by issuing  materially false and misleading statements
concerning Curative's operations and  financial condition,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Curative's  stock.  
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a
scheme  to defraud the Medicare reimbursement system and thereby
inflated its publicly  reported revenues and earnings.  The
Complaint further alleges that Curative  falsely portrayed itself
as operating in compliance with Medicare regulations,  when, in
fact, throughout the Class Period, Curative had improperly (i)  
disguised non-allowable fees as "management fees" and (ii)
accepted illegal  kickbacks in exchange for patient referrals in
connection with services  rendered to Columbia/HCA, which itself
has been charged with widespread  Medicare fraud.

On April 9, 1999, the United States Department of Justice
announced that it had  joined a "whistleblower" action which
accused Curative of Medicare fraud.  The  market's reaction to
the news was disastrous, causing Curative's common stock  to
close at $4-11/16, a decline of nearly 75% from the price prior
to earlier  announcements of adverse developments.

Contact Julian P. Carr or Mildred C.  Frazzitta, Esq. of the
Pomerantz firm at 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll-free, or
at mcfrazzitta@pomlaw.com by e-mail.  


FIRST UNION: $150 Million Former Signet Employee Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sprenger & Lang, on behalf of former Signet Banking Corporation
employees, filed a $150 million class action lawsuit against
First Union  Corporation. The suit, filed in federal district
court in Richmond, Virginia, claims that First Union illegally
raided Signet's 401(k) retirement plan for its own profit,
costing employees approximately $150 million in lost retirement  
savings. First Union, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina,
took over  Richmond-based Signet in November 1997.  

The suit contends that First Union, following the acquisition,
illegally  divested Signet employees of $100 million of
investments in commercially  popular mutual funds and stock.
First Union then transferred the proceeds into  First Union-owned
and controlled mutual funds, allowing it to charge fees for  
managing that money. Under the federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA"), companies  who set up 401(k) or other
pension plans for their employees cannot run them  for their own
profit and must administer them solely in the interests of the  
employees. The suit goes on to allege that First Union has a
long-standing policy of  stripping the 401(k) plans of companies
it acquires to boost corporate profits. Contending that First
Union saw the Signet Plan as a profit-center, the suit  states
that employees' retirement accounts suffered tens of millions of
dollars  in losses because the investments available under
Signet's 401(k) plan have  skyrocketed in value while the First
Union-controlled funds (into which First  Union forced the
employees) have stagnated.

Attorneys for the employees, Sprenger & Lang (Washington, D.C.)
and Hirschler,  Fleischer, Weinberg, Cox & Allen (Richmond) are
asking the court to  "reconstitute" the Signet 401(k) plan.
Michael D. Lieder, a partner with Sprenger & Lang, says that
First Union's  attempt to merge the two plans was "tainted with
self-interest" and First Union  failed to seek or obtain the
proper authority for such a merger.

"As far as we can tell, the decision to raid the Signet Plan was
never formally  presented to or approved by the First Union Board
of Directors, which was  required to approve any such action in
writing beforehand," said Lieder. According to the complaint,
First Union exacerbated its self-serving actions by  failing to
give many former Signet employees, who had the right to opt-out
of  the merger and "rollover" their retirement savings to an
Individual Retirement  Account ("IRA"), notice of the merger or
their right to opt-out of the proposed  changes in the plan.

For more information and to view the complaint, please visit  
http://www.legalnewsnet.comon the Web. Contact Mike Lieder or  
Eli Gottesdiener of Sprenger & Lang at 202/265- 8010.


FORD MOTOR: Alameda County Suit, if Successful, Will Take Toll
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co., accused of trying to hide a potentially dangerous
stalling problem in  millions of cars and trucks in a class-
action lawsuit that seeks $3  billion in damages, denies the
claims, saying that the defect was limited to a small  number of
cars and that the cars did not stall more than other models.  But
Ford's attempts to have the suit dismissed have failed. The case
is to go to trial next week in Alameda County (Calif.) Superior
Court.    

The lawsuit contends Ford withheld information about a defective
ignition  module that could have caused some 22 million cars and
truck to stall on the road. Rather than seeking personal injury
damages, the suit demands that Ford  give up profits it gained in
the alleged cover-up -- an amount that could account for 1.5
percent of Ford's worldwide revenue for 1998.    


IRIDIUM WORLD: Yates Firm Files Complaint in District of Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr  announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States  District
Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of all purchasers of
the  common stock of Iridium World Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq:
IRID) between  September 9, 1998 and March 29, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Iridium, certain officers of Iridium and
Motorola, Inc.  with issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning  the Company's financial
condition and failure to disclose material facts  concerning its
ability to fully launch the Iridium System in violation of  
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 as well as  Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages on behalf of all class members.

Contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. toll free  at 800-391-5164 or
at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.


J. CREW: Motion to Dismiss Saipan Worker Claims Sub Judice
----------------------------------------------------------
Named as one of the defendants in two lawsuits relating to its
purchasing of products from independent garment manufacturers in
Saipan (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).  On
January 13, 1999, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, by a group of unidentified
Asian garment workers against 17 U.S. clothing retailers,
including J. CREW OPERATING CORP., and 11 Saipan garment
manufacturers. The unidentified worker plaintiffs seek class
action status and allege, among other things, violations of
Federal racketeering and other laws in connection with labor
practices and treatment of foreign workers in the defendant
manufacturers' Saipan factories. The plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief and unspecified monetary damages, including treble and
punitive damages.

A second complaint was filed on January 13, 1999 in Superior
Court in San Francisco, California, by a labor union and three
nonprofit groups against the same 17 U.S. clothing retailers,
including the Company, one additional retailer and other unnamed
defendants alleging violations of California law for allegedly
unlawful and unfair business practices and misleading advertising
in connection with labeling of products and labor practices
regarding foreign workers in Saipan. The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts for restitution,
disgorgement of profits and other damages. A third action, in
which the Company is not named as a defendant, was filed on or
about January 13, 1999, by a group of unidentified Asian garment
workers represented by some of the same law firms that brought
the Federal Action. This action is a purported class action
lawsuit against 22 Saipan garment manufacturers (10 of whom were
named defendants in the Federal Action) alleging violations of
Federal labor statutes and other laws.

All the defendants in the Federal Action, including the Company,
jointly moved to (i) change the venue of the Federal Action to
the United States District Court in the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, where the related action against
certain manufacturing defendants is pending, and (ii) dismiss the
Federal Action for failure to state a claim. All the defendants
in the State Action, including the Company, jointly moved to
dismiss the State Action for failure to state a claim.


MCKESSON HBOC: Rabin & Peckel Amends California Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP announces that an amended class action
complaint has been filed in the United States District  Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or  
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
HBO & Company  between April 14, 1998 and January 12, 1999,
and/or the securities of  McKesson HBOC, Inc. or its predecessor
McKesson Corp. (NYSE: MCK) between October 19, 1998, and April
27, 1999, all dates  inclusive.  Included in the putative Class
are all shareholders of US Servis, IMNET  Systems, Inc., and
Access Health, Inc. who acquired HBOC common stock as a  result
HBOC's acquisitions of those companies.  

The Complaint alleges that McKesson and certain of its officers
violated the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series
of materially false and  misleading statements concerning HBOC
and McKesson's reported financial results  during the Class
Period. In particular, it is alleged that these reported  
financial results are not presented in conformity with generally
accepted  accounting principles and require restatement as a
result of the improper  recording $42.2 million in software
transactions that were subject to  contingencies as sales. The
Complaint alleges that as a result of these false  and misleading
statements the price of HBOC and McKesson securities were  
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period causing
plaintiff and the  other members of the Class to suffer damages.  

Contact Joseph V. McBride or Donald J. Wallace,  Rabin & Peckel
LLP, by telephone at  (800) 497-8076 or at email@rabinlaw.com via
e-mail.


MCKESSON HBOC: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the  Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased the  securities
of McKesson HBOC, Inc. (NYSE:MCK) between October 19, 1998 and
April 27, 1999, inclusive.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of McKesson  publicly traded securities during the
Class Period.

Contact Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager at
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Counsel, at 800-417-7305 by telephone or
msgoldman@barrack.com via e-mail.


MCKESSON HBOC: Donovan Miller Files Complaint in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Donovan  Miller, LLC announces that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United  States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of  purchasers of
McKesson HBOC Inc. (NYSE:MCK) common stock from Oct. 18, 1998  
through April 28, 1999, including persons who received MCK stock
as a result of  the merger of McKesson and HBOC effective as of
Jan. 12, 1999.  

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, MCK, and
certain of its  officers and directors (collectively, the
"Defendants"), violated Sections  10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things,  issuing
materially false and misleading statements to the investing
public  regarding MCK's financial results.  

Contact Michael D. Donovan at Donovan Miller, LLC, at 800/619-
1677 by phone or mdonovan@dmlaw.com by e-mail.


MCKESSON HBOC: Liebenberg & White File Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liebenberg & White has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States  District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of McKesson HBOC, Inc. (NYSE: MCK) common
stock  from November 27, 1998 through April 27, 1999 inclusive.  

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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 34-1/2 on April 28, 1999, a decline of almost 50%,  on
exceptionally heavy volume of over 40 million shares.  

Contact Ann D. White, Esquire, Natalie A. Finkelman,  Esquire or
Mark J. Dorval, Esquire at Liebenberg & White by e-mail at
lawyers@liebenberg.com or by telephome at 1-877-481-0272 (toll
free).


MITCHAM INDUSTRIES: Motion to Dismiss Briefed & Awaiting Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
On or about April 23, 1998, several class action lawsuits were
filed against MITCHAM INDUSTRIES, INC., and its chief executive
officer and then chief financial officer in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The
first-filed complaint, styled Stanley Moskowitz V. Mitcham
Industries, Inc., Billy F. Mitcham, Jr. and Roberto Rios, alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933. On or about September 21, 1998, the complaints were
consolidated into one action. On November 4, 1998, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint ("CAC"), which seeks class
action status on behalf of those who purchased the Company's
common stock from June 4, 1997 through March 26, 1998, and
damages in an unspecified amount plus costs and attorney's fees.
The CAC alleges that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in public filings and
announcements concerning its business and its allowance for
doubtful accounts.  

On or about March 30, 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the CAC. The motion is now fully briefed and the Company is
awaiting a ruling by the Court.


MONARCH DENTAL: Awaiting Consolidation of Securities Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
On or about April 26, 1999, Monarch Dental Corporation was served
with a putative class action complaint against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, captioned Robert O.
Neibert, et al., v. Monarch Dental Corp., Warren F. Melamed, Gary
W. Cage, and Roger B. Kafker, Civil No. 3-99-CV-0762-X. The class
action complaint, which was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleges that the
Company and certain of its officers and directors violated the
federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations and
omissions in certain public disclosures during the period between
February 24, 1998 and December 22, 1998.

The public disclosures relate to, among other things, acquired
dental practices, the Company's internal growth and growth
prospects, and the Company's past and future financial
performance. The Company has been advised that two
similar putative class actions have been filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, although service of process has not been
effected with respect to these additional lawsuits.

The Company anticipates that all three class action complaints
eventually will be consolidated into a single action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The Company is currently reviewing the allegations made in the
class action lawsuits and intends to defend the claims
vigorously.  The Company believes that the defense of the claims
could involve significant litigation-related expenses. The
outcome of this matter is uncertain and, as a result, at this
time the Company is not able to quantify any related financial
exposure.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, filed a class action suit in the United
States District Court for the  Northern District of California on
behalf of all persons who purchased the  common stock of Network
Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA) between January 20, 1998 and
April 19, 1999, inclusive.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Network  Associates common stock during the Class
Period.  

Contact Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager at
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Counsel, at 800-417-7305 by telephone or
msgoldman@barrack.com via e-mail.


OSICOM TECHNOLOGIES: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP announced that a class action
has been commenced in the  United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf  of purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of Osicom Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:
FIBR) during the period between July 1, 1998 and April 20, 1999.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all  purchasers
of Osicom publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  
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, products  
and its ability to achieve profitable  growth.  During the Class
Period, defendants represented to the investment  community that
Osicom had a $90 million contract to sell cutting edge,  
technologically advanced wireless PDA products in Japan.
Ultimately, defendants  admitted that the contract was only worth
$175,000 and that the wireless PDA  did not have the capabilities
that Osicom had previously represented.  As a  result, Osicom's
stock price was artificially inflated during the Class Period  to
as high as $28-3/4 per share.

Contact Richard A. Speirs or Paul C. Whalen at Zwerling,  
Schachter, at 800-721-3900 by phone or zlaw96@ix.netcom.com by e-
Mail.


OSICOM TECHNOLOGIS: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine initiated a class action proceeding 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, inclusive.

Contact Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager at
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Counsel, at 800-417-7305 by telephone or
msgoldman@barrack.com via e-mail.


OSICOM TECHNOLOGIES: Tells Investors it will Defend Against Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>From Osicom Technologies, Inc.'s latest annual report filed with
the SEC:

     On April 23, 1999, a securities class action lawsuit
entitled Lehavi v. Osicom Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
99-04408, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against us and our former Chief
Financial Officer. This lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf
of all persons who purchased our common stock during the period
from July 1, 1998 through April 21, 1999, inclusive (the
"putative class period").

     On April 22, 1999, a securities class action lawsuit
entitled Herman Wunsch, et. al., v. Osicom Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 99-04322, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California against us
and our CEO, President and former Chief Financial Officer. This
lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock during the period from July 2, 1998
through April 20, 1999, inclusive (the "putative class period").

     Both class actions generally allege that, during the
putative class period, the defendants made false or misleading
public statements which caused the price of our common stock to
be artificially inflated. The class action asserts that the
defendants' conduct violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as state common law. The class actions do not
specify an amount of damages. Based upon various press releases,
we believe that lawsuits making similar allegations have been
filed against us, although we have not been served with any other
complaints.  We intend to defend the class actions and any other
similar lawsuits vigorously.  An unfavorable outcome in such
litigation could have a material adverse affect on our financial
condition and results of operations.


PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine commenced a class action proceeding in
the United States District Court for the  Western District of
Washington on behalf of all persons who purchased the  common
stock of PathoGenesis Corp. (NASDAQ:PGNS) between January 26,
1999 and March 22, 1999, inclusive.

Contact Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager at
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Counsel, at 800-417-7305 by telephone or
msgoldman@barrack.com via e-mail.


PAYDAY LOANS: Edelman & Combs Continues Crusade Against Lenders
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago law firm of Edelman & Combs has  filed three more
class actions lawsuits against high-interest lenders.  The  
latest lenders to be sued are Checks for Cash Credit Corp., which
makes loans  through currency exchanges, Payday Loan Express,
Inc. and Harrisburg Quick  Cash. The firm now has 63 class and
individual cases pending against 39 different  high interest
"payday loan," "title loan" and similar companies.

The list of  high-interest lenders sued, and the annual
percentage rates charged by each,  are:     

     American Loan Company                            521%         
     Americash                                        365%     
     Campus Cash Systems                              469%     
     Cash Store                                       521%          
     Chartwell Financial                              427%     
     Checks for Cash Credit Corp.                     336%-365%     
     Check Into Cash                                  573%     
     Check-N-Go of Illinois, Inc.                     456%-521%     
     Check Now                                        521%     
     Checks-N-Advance                                 523%     
     Devon Financial Services                         390%-520%     
     E-Z Loan Company                                 520%     
     Fast Cash Advance                                365%-456%     
     GFG Loan Company                                 365%     
     Halsted Financial Services                       500%+     
     Harrisburg Quick Cash                            521.43%     
     Illinois Catalog Sales                           730%     
     Illinois Title Lenders                           216%     
     Insta Cash, Inc.                                 385%     
     Instant Cash Advance (One Iron Ventures)         486%-912%     
     Millennium Title Lenders                         521%     
     Moolah Loan Company                              360%-520%     
     National Money Service                           780%     
     Nationwide Budget Finance                        521%     
     Paycheck Advance Express, Inc.                   456%-521%     
     Pay Day Loans, Inc.                              521.43%     
     Payday Check Advance, Inc., d/b/a       
          Payday Express                              521%     
     Payday Loan Corp. of Illinois                    101%-521%     
     Payday Loan Express, Inc.                        365%     
     Payday Loan Store of Calumet City, Inc.          684%-995%     
     Payday Loan Store of Illinois, Inc.              695%     
     The Payday Loan Store -- Oak Lawn                695%     
     Payday Today Loans LLC                           521%     
     Quick Cash (Community Financial Loan Company)    521%     
     Short Term Loans                                 260%-342%     
     Sun Cash                                         240%-520%     
     Surety Finance                                   186%     
     Swansea Quick Cash                               521.43%     
     Tele-Cash                                        917%     

All of the cases were filed in the federal district court in
Chicago except Tele-Cash, filed in federal court in Delaware,
Harrisburg Quick Cash, filed in the Southern District of
Illinois, and Swansea Quick Cash, filed  in St. Clair County,
Ill.

"Payday loans" are short term, very high interest rate loans.  
The loans are  typically two weeks in duration and carry annual
percentage rates of 100% to  over 1800%.  At the end of the two
week term, the customer has the option of  continuing the loan
for and additional period by paying the interest.  The  loans are
typically "rolled over" on multiple occasions. Generally,
companies which make "payday loans" do not advertise the annual  
percentage rates.  Instead, they advertise that the loans cost $x
per $100. The  consumer does not see the annual percentage rate
until he or she is presented  with the money. "Payday loans" are
generally made to consumers facing financial emergencies.   Once
a consumer obtains a "payday loan," he or she will often be
unable to pay  it off except from the proceeds of additional
"payday loans." Often, the  "payday loans" force the borrowers
into unnecessary bankruptcies. The lawsuits generally allege
violation of the Truth in Lending Act or other  federal lending
laws.  In most cases, they allege that the interest rates are  so
exorbitant that the loans are unconscionable. Some of the
lawsuits name individual owners of payday lenders.

Contact Daniel A. Edelman of  Edelman & Combs at 312-739-4200.


SIGMA DESIGNS: Suit Hinges on 9th Cir. Silicon Graphics Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
In February 1998, two putative class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Romine, et al. v. Sigma Designs, Inc., et al., No. C-
98-0537-TEH (N.D.Cal.) and Shah, et al. v. Sigma Designs, Inc.,
et al., No C-98-0582-MHP (N.D.Cal.).  The federal court
complaints allege that Sigma Designs, Inc. and certain of its
officers and/or directors, issued false or misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects during the period
October 24, 1995 through February 13, 1997.  The complaints do
not specify the amount of damages sought by the plaintiffs.  
The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint.  The parties
have stipulated that defendants will not move to dismiss the
complaint until after the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit renders its decision in In re Silicon Graphics
Securities Litigation, which decision is expected to delineate
the standards for pleading a securities fraud action under the
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.  The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
the allegations made in the complaint and intends to conduct
a vigorous defense.


TCSI CORPORATION: Announces Settlement of Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
TCSI Corporation (Nasdaq:TCSI) reached a preliminary settlement
of  the shareholder class action lawsuits pending against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California and
the Superior Court for the State of California in and for Alameda
County.  The settlement involves payment of an amount comprised
of proceeds from the  Company's Director and Officer insurance
policies.  Neither the Company nor the  individuals involved is
contributing to the settlement of the actions.  The  settlement
will not have a material effect on TCSI's financial position or
on its financial results of operations. The settlement is subject
to court approval.


VOLKSWAGEN A.G.: Cohen Milstein Files Infanticide Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers claiming to represent Russian and Polish slave  laborers
during World War II filed a class-action lawsuit against German
automaker Volkswagen, seeking reparations for the deaths of up to
400 children.  The lawsuit says the children, put in a nursery at
a Volkswagen plant where  their parents were forced to build
munitions and the "Beetle," died from  maltreatment and poor
conditions.

The class-action lawsuit was filed this week in United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  In Anna
Snopczyk v. Volkswagen A.G., the plaintiff, a 78-year-old  Polish
woman, alleges that German corporation Volkswagen A.G. is
responsible for the deaths of her two-month-old baby and at least
350 to 400 other Polish and Russian infants during the years 1943
to 1945.  The plaintiff alleges that  the infants died while in
the care of a children's nursery owned and operated by Volkswagen
due to abominable conditions there, and the intentional neglect
and maltreatment of the children by Volkswagen employees.  

Known as a "Kinderheim," the nursery was established by
Volkswagen to care for the babies  born by the Polish and Russian
forced labor population serving its automobile factory and
neighboring farms in Wolfsburg, Germany.  As part of Hitler's  
"Strength through Joy" program, the plant produced munitions for
the German war  effort, as well as the Fuhrer's affordable
"people's car" -- the now-famous  Volkswagen "Beetle" -- for
members of the German working class.

Plaintiffs' class action attorney Michael D. Hausfeld, a partner
at Cohen,  Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., filed the lawsuit
against Volkswagen A.G.  The suit claims that under international
law, Volkswagen's actions constitute  genocide, war crimes and
crimes against humanity.  The babies of the Polish and Russian
workers in Wolfsburg were taken from their mothers usually only
days after their birth and housed in the Kinderheim, which was
nothing more than two run-down wooden shacks, overrun by insects
and  infection.  Numerous visitors and staff reported that the
children cried all night while insects crawled over them and bit
them.  One eyewitness described the infestation as so severe that
the walls, floors and beds were "alive" with insects. The
children were severely malnourished, and the food they were given  
was too coarse for an infant to digest.  Near the end of its
operation, the  mortality rate for infants at the Kinderheim was
nearly 100%; the children died  with distended and discolored
abdomens, and sores and pustules over most of  their body. After
the War, the Allies conducted an investigation of the Volkswagen  
Kinderheim and tried eight Volkswagen employees, including the
manager of  Volkswagen's Wolfsburg factory, for war crimes.  The
German physician  Volkswagen put in charge of its nursery, Hans
Korbel, was executed in 1947 for the "killing by willful neglect"
of the children at Volkswagen's Kinderheim.

According to Mr. Hausfeld, "There are no statutory limitations on
the horrific  ethnic cleansing and genocide perpetrated by
Volkswagen in the Wolfsburg  Kinderheim.  The plaintiff's legal
right to seek compensation for genocide, war  crimes, and crimes
against humanity during the Second World War is preserved by  the
London Debt Settlement Agreement of 1953 and the Convention on
the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and
Crimes Against Humanity."

Mr. Hausfeld, a Washington, D.C. attorney, was co-lead counsel
for the  plaintiffs in the recent pro bono case against the Swiss
banks that resulted in  a 1998 settlement by the banks for $1.25
billion.  In 1997, he represented  minorities in a major race
discrimination case against Texaco that resulted in  a landmark
settlement for over $176 million. Attorney Beth Kushner of the
Milwaukee, Wisconsin law firm von Briesen, Purtell  & Roper,
S.C., is also serving as counsel in this case.

Volkswagen A.G. reissued a statement first released in November.  
The children's death at the  nursery "is a tragic chapter from
one of the darkest times of modern history,"  the statement said.


                          *********

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  * * *