/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/990513.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Thursday, May 13, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 70


3COM CORP.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
AMERITECH: Deceptive Telephone Line Repair Charges Settled
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Audit Vindicated in UDC Homes Litigation
AT&T CELLULAR: Mother's Day Outage Illustrates Class Claims
CITGO PETROLEUM: Neighbors, Employees, and Well Owners Sue

DATASTREAM SYSTEMS: Waiting for Amended Complaint to Answer
EXXON: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Exxon Valdez Appeal
GENERAL NUTRITION: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Dismissal is Briefed
ICT GROUP: Litigation Suspended But Discovery Will Proceed
IRIDIUM WORLD: Wechsler Harwood Files District of Columbia Suit

NCAA: $54.5 Million Transferred to Settle Coaches' Claims
NORTH FACE: Shareholders Sue in Delaware, California & Colorado
SCHEIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Plaintiffs' Claims Consolidated & Amended
SUN ENERGY: Shareholders Complain About Kerr-McGee Merger
Y2K LITIGATION: Debate Intensifies as House Bill Moves to Floor


3COM CORP.: 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
purchasers of 3Com Corp. (Nasdaq:COMS) common stock during the
period between Sept. 22, 1998 and March 2, 1999. The complaint
charges 3Com and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that beginning in 9/98, defendants made
false and misleading statements about 3Com's exceptionally
strong and much better-than-expected 1stQ F99 EPS of $.24,
strong ongoing demand for 3Com's Systems Products (especially
its new flagship CoreBuilder 9000 switch) and 3Com's Client
Access Products, 3Com's increased operational efficiencies,
improved channel inventory controls and cost savings and the
program 3Com was making with its new, improved business model.

The complaint further alleges that during 3Com's 1stQ F99 and
2ndQ F99, 3Com's insiders also used $130.4 million of 3Com's
cash to repurchase 4.3 million 3Com shares on the open market,
to help manipulate and artificially inflate the stock to help
the insiders sell their own shares at much higher and, for them,
more profitable prices. As a result of these positive
representations, 3Com's stock soared from as low as $23-1/8 on
9/1/98 to as high as $51-1/8 on 12/23/98, its 98 high, and
during 11/98-1/99, 3Com's top insiders sold 4.2 million shares
of their 3Com stock at as high as $48.69 per share for $189
million. In early 2/99, 3Com's stock fell sharply, from $47-1/4
to $30-9/16 in seven trading sessions when rumors circulated
that Intel Corp. was gaining NIC market share from 3Com and two
3Com distributors announced disappointing results. However, when
3Com assured analysts that its business model was intact and it
was on track to achieve 3rdQ F99 and 4thQ F99 EPS consistent
with its prior guidance, 3Com's stock stabilized and recovered
to as high as $35-9/16. However, on 3/2/99, 3Com revealed that,
due to weak sales of Systems Products, especially in North and
South America and very weak sales of Client Access Products,
3Com's 3rdQ F99 EPS, and its results going forward, would be
much worse than earlier forecast, causing analysts to slash the
3Com forecast for the 4thQ F99, F99 and F00 EPS to just $.22-
$.29, $1.04-$1.11 and $1.15-$1.55, respectively, far below the
levels forecast. 3Com's stock dropped from $30-11/16 on 3/1/99
to as low as $22-3/4 on 3/3/99, a 27% two-day decline on
extraordinary volume of over 92 million shares.

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

AMERITECH: Deceptive Telephone Line Repair Charges Settled
The Detroit News reported on a $230-million settlement of a
class-action lawsuit, now on appeal, which charges that the
Ameritech's "Line-Backer" repair service amounts to a deceptive
billing practice. Consumers in five states claim Ameritech never
told them that they didn't have to purchase Line-Backer service
-- also known as inside wire maintenance or premises wire
maintenance. In 1997, Ameritech agreed to a settlement, but it
is on hold in an Illinois appeals court.

Because the litigation is taking place outside Michigan, most
Metro Detroiters aren't even aware of it. According to the
Detroit News, the only official notice was a phone bill insert
more than a year ago and full-page ads in two January 1998
editions of USA TODAY.

"I didn't know about that one," Elizabeth Grochulski told the
Detroit News. She pays $3.79 a month for the Ameritech service,
which covers repairs to wires and phone jacks inside a home or
small business. Consumers who don't buy into the plan can pay
fees of up to $100 an hour if repairs are required. "I got it
because I wanted the protection in case they ever have to come
out," Grochulski told the Detroit News. "But I think it's a rip-
off that they charge in the first place -- years ago they would
come out for free."

The Detroit News explained that Ameritech has offered the Line-
Backer service since 1987, but many consumers who don't read the
fine print on their phone bills apparently are unaware they even
pay the fee. The company says it's a customer-friendly service;
critics contend that it is an unnecessary form of insurance,
because the repairs it covers are rare. They also say it is
improperly marketed to renters, who generally aren't responsible
for the wiring in their apartments.

According to the Detroit News story, the lawsuits date back to
1995, when consumers charged in an Illinois state court that
Ameritech was adding the service without explaining to consumers
that they could choose not to order it. Eventually the suit was
broadened to cover the company's customers in Michigan, Ohio,
Indiana and Wisconsin. Ameritech insists that it never used
deceptive practices to market the service, but it settled the
case in late 1997 to avoid a lengthy court battle. "In Michigan
we always send a confirmation letter and we always have," Karen
Sanborn, an Ameritech spokeswoman in Detroit, told the Detroit
News. "And Line-Backer has always been identified on your phone
bill. But our goal is to get this behind us so we can get back
to serving our customers." Ameritech declined to say how many
consumers are affected by the suit or how many current Line-
Backer subscribers there are.

The proposed settlement would offer various perks to Line-Backer
subscribers, such as $10 worth of phone cards, free pay-per-use
features and discounted upgrades to inside wiring, according to
the Detroit News. But that's being appealed by lawyers for some
of the claimants, who say the offer is too paltry and favors the
Illinois customers of Chicago-based Ameritech. Those consumers
will receive cash rebates as well as other perks depending on
how long they paid for Line-Backer. Other critiques: the plan
offers lower benefits to consumers who cancel Line-Backer, and
the free phone cards are only good at Ameritech pay phones.

"Our position is, give everybody a credit on their bill," Kevin
McGraw, the Lansing attorney who filed an appeal on behalf of
Michigan customers, told the Detroit News. He presented a brief
last month to the Illinois appeals court; Ameritech is due to
respond in June. "Ameritech was marketing a service that nobody
needed," McGraw told the Detroit News. "A lot of people who had
it didn't know that they had it, and still don't." McGraw
expects the process to drag on for months yet, if not longer. In
the meantime, Ameritech said, consumers who think they might
have a claim don't need to do anything. When the settlement is
approved, eligible subscribers -- those who had Line-Backer or
other inside maintenance plans between Jan. 1, 1987, and Nov. 7,
1997 -- will be notified of procedures for filing a claim.

The Detroit News reported that if the proposed settlement terms
are approved, Michigan consumers would be eligible for the

   Current Line-Backer or IWMS subscribers: Two $5 prepaid phone
     cards good at Ameritech pay phones; one free use per month
     of pay-per-use features such as three-way calling and
     automatic callback; 50 percent off replacement of
     nonstandard inside phone wiring.

   Former Line-Backer or IWMS subscribers: Two $5 prepaid phone

The Detroit News noted that consumers need not take action now.
When a final settlement is reached, they will be notified by
Ameritech, possibly by mail or inserts in their phone bills.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Audit Vindicated in UDC Homes Litigation
Arthur Andersen LLP was vindicated with a jury verdict delivered
by a Maricopa County Arizona jury following a six-month trial of
a securities fraud class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed
in 1995 on behalf of stockholders of UDC Homes Inc., a
nationally recognized homebuilder based in Phoenix, Arizona.

"We are grateful the jury ruled that Arthur Andersen acted
properly. We stood by our client's financial reporting and our
audit services from the beginning and our resolve has been
recognized and rewarded," said Jack Henry, the Arthur Andersen
Managing Partner in Phoenix, Arizona. The class action claimed
general damages of approximately $95 million and punitive
damages in excess of $1 billion. The jury delivered a resounding
defeat to the class action plaintiffs and their lawyers in
finding for Arthur Andersen on all counts.

"We are proud of the service we provide all our clients
including UDC Homes. We always stand behind what we do and, in
this particular case, we vigorously defended the UDC Homes
financial statements and our audit work," said Henry, also
Chairman of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce.

UDC Homes Inc. was a leading national homebuilder with aggregate
profits in excess of $190 million in the years prior to the
1989-1990 recession. The company had a highly leveraged capital
structure. In 1994, with sharply increasing interest rates, its
stock plummeted from $10 to one dollar per share. In May 1995,
the company voluntarily filed for bankruptcy as part of a plan
to sell the company to DMB Homes of Phoenix, Arizona. The class
action litigation was filed immediately after the company filed
bankruptcy. The previous auditor, Coopers & Lybrand, and the UDC
Homes Board of Directors were also named.

Arthur Andersen's lead trial counsel, Marshall B. Grossman of
the Los Angeles law firm of Alshuler, Grossman, Stein & Kahan,
stated, "This lawsuit is an example of what is wrong with the
unchecked class action litigation which is taxing our courts
today. The lawsuit was filed by a professional class action
plaintiff, with career class action lawyers and their paid
experts. Fortunately, the jury saw through it all. Hopefully,
this vote against frivolous class action litigation will
discourage others from embarking on a similar path."

To learn more, call Jack Henry at 602-286-2000.

AT&T CELLULAR: Mother's Day Outage Illustrates Class Claims
The Record Northern New Jersey reported that telephone service
to AT&T Wireless customers in parts of North Jersey and New York
resumed Monday after a major and persistent 22-hour outage was
repaired. A faulty switch in Manhattan is being blamed for what
AT&T calls the largest service disruption of its kind on its
wireless network. The loss of service affected hundreds of
thousands of mobile phone users Sunday -- Mother's Day --
traditionally one of the busiest calling days of the year.

According to The Record Northern New Jersey, this Mother's Day
outage is the latest setback for the nation's largest wireless
company, which has been having trouble maintaining its service
quality as it adds an average of 100,000 customers a month. Last
week, Naevus International Inc. of Upper Saddle River filed a
lawsuit seeking class-action status on behalf of AT&T Wireless's
Digital One Rate subscribers. The company accuses AT&T Wireless
of failing to live up to its advertised claims, and that the
network "was not sufficiently developed to accommodate the
increased number of users."

A staff study published in The Sunday Record found AT&T Wireless
service inconsistent overall and plagued by congestion that
caused calls to be dropped. According to The Record Northern New
Jersey, AT&T was ranked third out of four services due to these

CITGO PETROLEUM: Neighbors, Employees, and Well Owners Sue
A class action lawsuit is pending in Corpus Christi, Texas state
court against CITGO PETROLEUM CORP and other operators and
owners of nearby industrial facilities which claims damages for
reduced value of residential properties located in the vicinity
of the industrial facilities as a result of air, soil and
groundwater contamination. Trial is scheduled for January 2000.

In 1997, CITGO offered to purchase about 275 properties in a
neighborhood adjacent to CITGO's Corpus Christi refinery, which
were included in the lawsuit. Related to this offer, $15.7
million was expensed in 1997. To date, CITGO has reached
agreements to buy all but 15 of such properties, which include
settlements of property damage claims, and has offers open to
purchase the remaining properties.

Two related personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits were
filed against the same defendants in 1996 and are scheduled for
trial in 2000.

Litigation is pending in federal court in Lake Charles,
Louisiana, against CITGO by a number of current and former Lake
Charles refinery employees and applicants asserting claims of
racial discrimination in connection with CITGO's employment
practices. Trials in this case are set to begin in the fall of

CITGO is among defendants to lawsuits in California and North
Carolina alleging contamination of water supplies by methyl
tertiary butyl ether ("MTBE"), a component of gasoline. The
action in California was filed in November 1998 by the South
Tahoe Public Utility District and CITGO was added as a defendant
in February 1999. The North Carolina case, filed in January
1999, is a putative class action on behalf of owners of water
wells and other drinking water supplies in the state. Both
actions allege that MTBE poses public health risks. Both actions
seek damages as well as remediation of the alleged
contamination. These matters are in early stages and there has
been no discovery conducted against CITGO. CITGO has denied all
of the allegations and is pursuing its defenses.

DATASTREAM SYSTEMS: Waiting for Amended Complaint to Answer
Since January 11, 1999, Datastream Systems Inc., Larry G.
Blackwell and Daniel H. Christie have been named as defendants
in shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina, Greenville
Division. The complaints alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of individuals who purchased the Company's common stock
from April 1 to October 20, 1998.

The complaints filed to date allege that defendants artificially
inflated Datastream's earnings and stock price by taking certain
one-time charges not in compliance with generally accepted
accounting principles ("GAAP") in connection with Datastream's
acquisitions of Insta and SIS and materially understating
operating costs by improperly capitalizing certain expenses in
the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 1998 in violation of GAAP.

The Company has not yet filed its answer to the complaints filed
to date, and expects a single, consolidated, amended complaint
to be filed during the second or third quarter of 1999. The
Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but due to
the inherent uncertainties of the litigation process, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation.

EXXON: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Exxon Valdez Appeal
According to The U.S. News & World Report, although a decade has
passed since 11 million gallons of North Slope crude oil spilled
from the tanker Exxon Valdez, the effects are still being
debated, from the frigid Alaskan waters to a Seattle federal
courtroom. Last week, fishing boats were kept at the docks and
the herring harvest called off in Prince William Sound. The
reason: a dearth of fish. Nobody knows for sure what happened to
the herring or what's devastated the local fishing industry. But
Jack Hopkins, who's been fishing these waters for three decades,
thinks he has a pretty good idea. "I'm just a dumb fisherman,"
he told The U.S. News & World Report, "but the only thing that
happened to dramatically change my livelihood was that spill."

In 1994, an Anchorage jury agreed and awarded Hopkins and more
than 50,000 other plaintiffs in a class action suit more than $5
billion in punitive damages. According to The U.S. News & World
Report, it was the largest such award in U.S. history, but
Hopkins and the others have yet to see a penny of it, pending an
appeal by Exxon. Last week, the case finally reached the appeals
court, where Exxon attorneys argued that the payoff "cannot be
justified" and should be overturned.

According to The U.S. News & World Report, plaintiffs' attorney
Dave Oesting disagreed. He argued Exxon was liable because the
accident was "entirely preventable" since the oil company knew
skipper Joseph Hazelwood had a drinking problem. Oesting claims
the spill has cost the local fishing industry billions. Federal
monitors estimate that of roughly 30 species affected by the
spill, including salmon, seal, and killer whale, only the bald
eagle and river otter have fully recovered.

The U.S. News & World Report says that Exxon lawyer John Daum
argued that the punitive damages were excessive, in part because
the oil giant has already paid more than $3 billion for cleanup
and fines and some $300 million to local fishermen for lost

Fishermen like Hopkins know the Exxon spill isn't the only
reason the Alaskan fishing industry is hurting; a badly timed
glut of farm-raised fish has also reduced prices. And 10 years
after the toxic spill, his monetary expectations are modest. "It
might be a little band aid, something to put some of our lives
back together," he told The U.S. News & World Report, "but
whether anything will change business-wise is pretty doubtful."
A decision isn't expected for several months. But don't expect
that to be the final word. Further appeals are possible, so the
bickering could go on--and on. Five billion dollars has that
sort of effect on people, The U.S. News & World Report wrote.

GENERAL NUTRITION: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Dismissal is Briefed
On June 24, 1996, a putative class action, Lavalla v. Lee et al,
C.A. No. 15080, was commenced against GENERAL NUTRITION
COMPANIES INC and two directors and shareholders in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, Newcastle County, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the
Prospectus and Registration Statement (the "Prospectus") for a
public offering of common stock of the Company which took place
on February 7, 1996 (the "Public Offering"). The action was
dismissed without prejudice on December 29, 1997 pursuant to the
parties' stipulation. The named plaintiff, Gaetan Lavalla,
subsequently became a named plaintiff in Klein et al v. General
Nutrition Companies, Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 96-1455,
another putative class action filed on August 2, 1996, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of

In Klein, plaintiffs asserted that the Company is liable for
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 1-501(a) of the Pennsylvania Securities Act,
arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements in the
Prospectus, and for violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for negligent
misrepresentation arising out of allegedly false and misleading
public statements during the period from the Public Offering
through May 28, 1996. Plaintiffs also alleged that certain
officers, directors and shareholders of the Company, as well as
the underwriters for the Public Offering, are liable for other
violations of the federal and state securities laws and for
negligent misrepresentation.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on December 2, 1996
and plaintiffs subsequently filed an Amended Complaint dated
March 21, 1997, which among other things, added Gaetan Lavalla
as a named plaintiff. On March 30, 1998, the Court granted the
motions of all defendants to dismiss the Amended Complaint with
prejudice. On April 20, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. The Company disputes the allegations contained in the
complaint and intends to defend the action vigorously. The
appeal has been fully briefed and was argued on December 2,
1998. The appeal has not yet been decided.

ICT GROUP: Litigation Suspended But Discovery Will Proceed
A shareholder, purporting to act on behalf of a class of ICT
shareholders filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against ICT GROUP
INC and certain of its directors. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws, and seeks
compensatory and other damages, including rescission of stock
purchases made by the plaintiff and other class members in
connection with the Company's initial public offering effective
June 14, 1996. The defendants believe the complaint is without
merit, deny all of the allegations of wrongdoing and are
vigorously defending the suit.

On February 2, 1998, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint. On May 19, 1998, the complaint was dismissed by a
judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania with leave to plaintiff to file an
amended complaint on narrow accounting allegations. On June 22,
1998, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint
purporting to bring negligence claims in connection with the
Company's initial public offering.

The defendants continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing,
believe the amended complaint is without merit and are
vigorously defending the suit.

On November 3, 1998, the court granted a motion appointing Rowan
Klein and Michael Mandat as lead plaintiffs. On February 2,
1999, the court dismissed the case without prejudice, directing
that the case remain in status quo, that the statute of
limitations be tolled and that the parties continue with
discovery and advise the court if assistance by the court is
needed. The parties are proceeding with discovery.

IRIDIUM WORLD: Wechsler Harwood Files District of Columbia Suit
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on May 7, 1999, in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia on behalf of all who purchased Iridium
World Communications Ltd. (Nasdaq:IRID) securities, including
bonds, calls and sellers of puts, between Sept. 9, 1998 and
March 29, 1999. The complaint charges Iridium, certain of its
officers and directors, and its controlling shareholder Motorola
Inc. with violations of the federal securities laws and

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's ability to launch the Iridium system and subscriber
demand for Iridium services. Ultimately, on March 29, 1999, the
Company disclosed that it would not be able to satisfy its
secured credit covenants due to its failure to meet minimum
subscription targets. Following this disclosure, Iridium's stock
price fell 73% from its 52 week high in May 1998.

To learn more, contact Stuart D. Wechsler, Esq. or Jonathan
Schwartz, Esq. at jschwartz@whhf.com or at 877-935-7400.

NCAA: $54.5 Million Transferred to Settle Coaches' Claims
According to the Associated Press, the NCAA officially brought
an end to its most expensive mistake on Tuesday, transferring
more than $54.5 million to an account controlled by lawyers for
former restricted-earnings coaches. The final accounting, agreed
upon after the NCAA was found in violation of antitrust law for
artificially capping the coaches' salaries, included $19,754.40
in interest since the NCAA was three days late in making the

"They wanted to wait until all the points in the written
agreement were settled and we didn't get that done until this
morning," Dennis Cross, a lawyer for the coaches, told AP. "It
was resolved with their agreement to pay interest, which
amounted to about $6,000 and change per day."

Conceived as a way to save money, Division I schools voted
almost unanimously in 1991 to create an entry-level coaching
position in all sports but football where people could be paid
no more than $16,000 per year. According to the Associated
Press, several coaches filed suit, which became a class-action
representing more than 2,000 men and women. The NCAA fought the
suit through the courts for more than three years, losing at
every turn.

"Everyone is very glad to have this finally resolved. It has
been a very trying time for everyone," Wally Renfro, director of
public relations for the NCAA, told AP.

AP writes that every one of the more than 310 Division I schools
will share in the payment. It will cost the major powers about
$190,000 each and the smaller schools about $77,000. The NCAA,
which is moving its headquarters to Indianapolis from suburban
Kansas City, had expected to get much of the money through a
tax-free bond issue guaranteed by the state of Indiana. But the
Indiana Legislature adjourned without acting on the bill. So the
NCAA covered the biggest part of the $54.5 million from the
nearly $200 million which arrives this time every year from CBS
as payment for rights to the basketball tournament.

However, AP notes that it will be several months before the
coaches get their money. "There's still a lot of work to do,"
Cross told AP. "We have to get preliminary approval from the
court, send notice to (the coaches), propose a plan of
distribution. Then there will be a final hearing and the court
will decided whether to give final approval to the settlement.
Then distributing and processing the claims will take a lot of
effort as well."

NORTH FACE: Shareholders Sue in Delaware, California & Colorado
During the first week of March 1999, various complaints were
filed against North Face Inc. and its Board of Directors in the
Delaware Court of Chancery and in California Superior Court,
Alameda County in connection with the transactions contemplated
by the Transaction Agreement dated February 27, 1999, between
the Company and TNF Acquisition LLC. The complaints, filed on
behalf of a purported class of the Company's shareholders,
generally allege that the Transactions are unfair and inadequate
to the Company's shareholders and charge the defendants with
self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duties. The various
complaints generally request injunctive relief to prevent the
consummation of the Transactions, and seek other remedies in the
event the Transactions are completed. The Company has not yet
responded to these complaints.

On March 9, 1999, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed in federal district court in Colorado, alleging that
the Company and various of its officers and directors violated
the federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements about the Company's financial results during a class
period from April 25, 1997 through March 4, 1999. Markus v. The
North Face, Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 99-WM-473. Subsequently,
complaints with similar allegations on behalf of persons trading
in the Company's securities, have been filed in federal district
courts in Colorado and California (collectively, the "Securities
Litigation"). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to these claims and intends to contest the Securities Litigation

On April 6, 1999, a shareholder derivative action purportedly on
behalf of the Company, captioned Eng v. Cason, et al., Civil
Action No. 810726-0, was filed in California Superior Court,
Alameda County. The complaint alleges that the Company's
directors and various officers violated California law and
breached fiduciary duties to the Company by engaging in alleged
wrongful conduct from April 25, 1997 through March 12, 1999,
including the conduct complained of in the Securities
Litigation. The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant,
against whom the plaintiff seeks no recovery.

SCHEIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Plaintiffs' Claims Consolidated & Amended
In September and October 1998, following the commencement of a
seizure action by the FDA against Steris on September 10, 1998,
a number of substantially similar class action complaints
asserting claims under the federal securities laws were filed in
federal court in the District of New Jersey against SCHEIN
PHARMACEUTICAL INC and certain of its officers and directors. On
December 21, 1998, the court entered an order consolidating the
actions, appointing lead plaintiffs and approving selection of
lead and liaison counsel.

On or about March 29, 1999, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
and amended class action complaint (the Complaint), naming as
defendants SCHEIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC, its directors at the time
of the Company's April 9, 1998 initial public offering (the
Offering), and three of the underwriters of the Offering.
Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Offering during the period from April 9, 1998
through September 28, 1998. They allege that defendants violated
the Securities Act of 1933 and as to the Company and three of
the individual defendants, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 by making misrepresentations and omissions of
material facts in connection with the Offering and in the
registration statement and prospectus issued pursuant to the
Offering and in statements made immediately following the FDA
seizure action on September 10, 1998.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants failed to
disclose or misrepresented facts concerning the status of the
Company's internal controls and ability to comply with
government regulations relating to its manufacturing activities,
including the status of the Company's corrective actions at the
Steris facility and the effect of the FDA enforcement action on
the Company's operations. Plaintiffs on behalf of the purported
class seek damages, rescission and/or rescissionary damages.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against this

SUN ENERGY: Shareholders Complain About Kerr-McGee Merger
Two purported class action lawsuits entitled Kaplan v. Sun
Energy Partners, L.P. and Greenfield v. Sun Energy Partners,
L.P. have been filed in Delaware Chancery Court by several unit
holders. The complaints in these actions variously name as
defendants Sun Energy Partners, Kerr-McGee Corporation, former
directors of Oryx Energy Company and Kerr-McGee Corporation

Among other things, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
have breached fiduciary and common law duties by failing to
offer a fair price to unit holders in the merger, failing to
negotiate the purchase price at arms-length, failing to obtain
an independent valuation of the units and of Sun Energy
Partners, and otherwise seeking to enrich themselves to the
detriment of the unit holders. The plaintiffs further allege
that the merger is timed to take advantage of the depressed
market price of the units and that the purchase price is grossly
inadequate relative to the market price of the units prior to
the announcement of the merger and the premium paid in Kerr-
McGee Corporation's merger with Oryx. These lawsuits seek
unspecified damages and costs and to enjoin or rescind the
merger, among other things.

Sun Energy Partners and Kerr-McGee Corporation believe that
these lawsuits are wholly without merit.

Y2K LITIGATION: Debate Intensifies as House Bill Moves to Floor
Rep. James Moran, D-Va., one of the original sponsors of the
House version of the Year 2000 litigation limitation bill, told
Newsbytes News Network that the full House is expected to debate
the bill starting Wednesday. Unless a three-Democrat substitute
amendment to the bill, H.R. 775, is approved on the floor,
however, the White House has said that President Clinton will
veto the bill.

According to Newsbytes, the House Rules Committee approved the
bill, though it rejected a variety of amendments submitted by
Democrats attempting to change the measure to make it more
friendly to trial lawyers and stave off what they see as
backdoor tort law reform. Since the bill can be "recommitted,"
or sent back to the committee process, it could suffer the same
near-death that its Senate counterpart, S. 96 from Sen. John
McCain, R-Ariz., currently is experiencing.

Newsbytes reports that the bill requires a 90-day waiting period
before plaintiffs can file lawsuits against defendants for Year
2000-related equipment breakdowns, in order to encourage
reconciliation and alternative dispute resolution. It also caps
the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in a Year
2000 problem lawsuit, and requires proportionate liability. Its
supporters say it will lessen the burden on the legal system
that could be snowed under by up to $1 trillion in related legal

Out of the original 17 amendments submitted for the Rules
Committee, only five of them will be considered for debate
tomorrow, according to Newsbytes. In addition, an amendment
proposed by Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rick Boucher, D-
Va., and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Democrat John
Conyers, D-Mich., that would substitute for the entire bill now
heading to the floor, also was sent on.

Newsbytes says that debate grew fierce during the Rules
Committee process, as Rules Committee Ranking Democrat John
Moakley, D-Mass., grilled the bill's big defender, Rep. Robert
W. Goodlatte, R-Va., over what he said was an inauspicious
attempt to supersede state tort law.

"Bob, this looks more like sweeping tort reform than a Y2K
bill," Moakley thundered. "...I think this bill is a
disincentive (to fix Year 2000-related software and hardware
problems)." "I would respectfully disagree," Goodlatte retorted.
"This encourages working out (Year 2000 disputes) in a number of

Newsbytes also reports that Moakley fielded several amendments
by Rep. Robert Scott, D-Va., that failed, including an attempt
to make the bill apply only to products that were sold before
May 1, 1999 (an anti-profiteering effort), and an amendment that
would have exempted private consumers from the bill's language.
Scott also tried to exclude consumers from the proportionate
liability sections of the bill. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, D-Mich.,
failed in his attempt to set a cutoff date for the bill at Jan.
1, 1995. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., lost out on his amendment
that would have stricken the requirement for class-action
lawsuits that every member of the class be notified separately
by mail, though he did get his amendment that would strike all
class-action provisions from the bill cleared for debate. Rep.
Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, was unsuccessful in her bid to add
language to make it less difficult for plaintiffs to win Year
2000-related lawsuits (the bill currently requires "clear and
convincing evidence" instead of a "preponderance of evidence").
She did win the chance to debate an amendment on language
provisions in other parts of the bill, however. She took another
hit, though, losing the chance to add an amendment that would
sunset the bill after two years. This feature is currently part
of McCain's compromise version of S. 96, arrived at with Sen.
Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

Newsbytes reports that other amendments that will be debated
include the Lofgren- Boucher- Conyers amendment, as well as one
from Moran to exempt all personal injury claims, counterclaims,
cross-claims and third-party claims from the bill's language.
Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., also will debate his amendment to define
what kinds of damages are covered in H.R. 775. The bill
previously included a cap on attorneys' fees of $1,000 per hour,
but this was stripped in the House Judiciary Committee.


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  * * *