CAR_Public/990514.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 14, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 71

                            Headlines

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: ValuJet Securities Suit Settles for $5 Million
AMERICAN HOME: Seeks National Settlement of Fen-Phen Litigation
ASARCO INC: April 1999 Consent Decree Settles Couer d'Alene Suit
AT&T: Company Pays $45,000 Per Mile for Fiber Optic Easements
BARBERS HAIRSTYLING: Franchisees' Litigation Slowly Progresses

BEAR STEARNS: Updates Securities Suits in New York and Missouri
FIRST DATA: Charitable Fund Created to Settle Western Union Case
HITSGALORE.COM: Disclosure of Payout Attracts Weiss & Yourman
IOMEGA CORP: Stipulated Settlement Ends New York Litigation
MINNESOTA MINING: Settlement Revised for Breast Implant Cases

NEW YORK CITY: 63,000 People in Line for $5 Million Strip Search
PATRIOT AMERICAN: Settlement Satisfies Shareholder Complaints
PHILIP SERVICES: Court Decides Ontario is Better than New York
STURM RUGER: Gun Manufacturers Face Charges of Public Nuisance
WWII REPARATIONS: Working Groups Seek Closure for Slave Labor


                            *********


AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: ValuJet Securities Suit Settles for $5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several stockholder class action suits have been filed against
AIRTRAN HOLDINGS INC and certain of its present and former
executive officers and Directors. These suits have been
consolidated into a single action (In re ValuJet, Inc.). The
consolidated lawsuit is based on allegedly misleading public
statements made by the Company or omission to disclose material
facts in violation of federal securities laws. Class
certification has been granted for all purchasers of stock in
the Company during the period beginning in June 1995 and ending
on June 18, 1996.

The Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle
the consolidated lawsuit with attorneys representing the
certified class on December 31, 1998. Although the Company
denies that it has violated any of its obligations under the
federal securities laws, it has agreed to pay $2.5 million in
cash and $2.5 million in common stock in the settlement, which
is subject to certain conditions. In the event the settlement is
not approved, discovery under the lawsuit would likely be
revived.

In another story involving ValuJet airlines, AIRTRAN HOLDINGS
INC reported that numerous lawsuits have been filed seeking
damages attributable to the deaths of those on Flight 592.
Approximately 100 such lawsuits have been filed against AIRTRAN
HOLDINGS INC. Most of the cases were initially removed to the
federal court. That court, however, remanded the majority of the
actions to the state courts from which they originated and
retained jurisdiction over only seven cases. As a consequence,
most of the cases are proceeding in state courts in Florida,
Georgia, Texas and Missouri.

The Company's insurance carrier has assumed defense of all of
these suits under a reservation of rights against third parties
and the Company and has settled and paid approximately 90 claims
and is pursuing settlements in the balance of the claims. As all
claims are handled independently by the Company's insurance
carrier, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
liability that may finally exist. In the remaining lawsuits,
SabreTech has been named as a co-defendant as a result of the
role that it played in the accident. The Company maintains a
$750 million policy of liability insurance per occurrence. The
Company believes that the coverage will be sufficient to cover
all claims arising from the accident.


AMERICAN HOME: Seeks National Settlement of Fen-Phen Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that lawyers representing millions
of people who used the diet drug combination fen-phen are
negotiating a national settlement of health claims against the
manufacturer, American Home Products Corp. The talks are in the
earliest stages, but American Home Products hopes to reach an
out-of-court deal in cases scheduled for trial in Texas this
spring and summer, said Houston lawyer Graham Hill, whose
partners, representing plaintiffs, attended two settlement
meetings.

The Dallas Morning News, which first reported the negotiations,
said American Home Products would pay billions of dollars under
such a deal. Hill, however, told AP it was too early to put a
price tag on a possible settlement. "There have been several
meetings, and a number of different proposals and scenarios have
been discussed, but there are some difficult issues that are
going to have to be agreed upon before anything of this
magnitude can be concluded," Hill told The Associated Press.

American Home Products spokesman Lowell Weiner declined comment
on the report this morning. Last month, the company reached a
settlement in the first trial over heart-valve damage from fen-
phen, reportedly agreeing to pay $500,000 to one plaintiff. AP
reports that thousands of people contend they developed heart
problems after taking the drugs. The company wants "to avoid
letting any of these cases go to trial and risk a really huge
verdict," another Houston lawyer, Don Bowen, told the Morning
News. A large jury verdict, he said, would "considerably
inflate" a national settlement's price tag.

The Associated Press notes that American Home Products marketed
fenfluramine, half of the fen-phen combination and Redux, a
similar product, through its Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
subsidiary. In 1997, the Madison, N.J.-based drug maker pulled
fenfluramine and Redux off the market at the Food and Drug
Administration's request. A Mayo Clinic study had linked the
drugs to potentially fatal heart valve damage. According to AP,
the other half of fen-phen, phentermine, was never associated
with that damage when taken alone and is still on the market.

Settlements in at least nine cases, including those of four
Texans, have resulted in amounts of up to $4.6 million. The
company must put between $3 billion and $5 billion into a
settlement before it is acceptable, some lawyers and Wall Street
analysts told the Morning News. The drug maker, in a filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, stated it was aware
of 2,615 lawsuits over fen-phen as of March 22. According to the
Associated Press, class-action lawsuits are certified in
Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and West
Virginia.


ASARCO INC: April 1999 Consent Decree Settles Couer d'Alene Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, separate class actions were commenced against ASARCO
INC in Omaha, Nebraska and in Denver, Colorado seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for alleged contamination of
properties by emissions from the Company's former Omaha plant
and the Globe plant in Denver. In March 1996, the United States
government filed an action in United States District Court in
Boise, Idaho against the Company and three other mining
companies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) and
the federal Clean Water Act for alleged natural resource damage
to the Coeur d'Alene River Basin in Idaho. The government
contends that the defendants are liable for damages to natural
resources in a 1,500 square mile area caused by mining and
related activities that they and others undertook over the
period between the mid-1800s and the mid-1960s. The action also
seeks a declaration that defendants are liable for restoration
of the area.

The Company believes, and has been advised by outside legal
counsel, that it has strong legal defenses to the lawsuit. In
1996, the court granted a motion to consolidate this case with a
prior, similar lawsuit filed by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe. In
1998, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
commenced a remedial investigation and feasibility study of the
Coeur d'Alene River Basin.

The Company, the United States Department of Justice, the EPA,
and the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission signed a
consent decree filed in United States District Court in Houston,
Texas in April 1999 covering a broad range of environmental
issues affecting principally the facility of Encycle/Texas,
Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, in
Corpus Christi, Texas and Asarco's Coy zinc mine in Tennessee.
Pursuant to the consent decree, the Company will perform certain
environmental projects and pay a $5.5 million penalty, without
an admission of wrongdoing or liability. The Company's existing
environmental reserves are adequate to cover the cost of the
penalty and supplemental environmental projects. The April 1999
consent decree is subject to public comment and court approval.


AT&T: Company Pays $45,000 Per Mile for Fiber Optic Easements
-------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T agreed to pay landowners $45,000 per mile, plus additional
benefits, to settle class action claims where the company has
installed fiber optic cables on abandoned railroad right-of-way
property. The figure of $45,000 is the average payment per mile,
which is net to the landowners. AT&T will also pay landowners'
attorney fees and all class-action costs.

This settlement of a case in federal court in Indianapolis is
part of a nationwide class action involving thousands of miles
of operating and abandoned railroad and utility corridors where
AT&T maintains its fiber optic cable network. It covers
abandoned railroad lines in Indiana, but is part of a process to
settle all claims against AT&T nationally on abandoned railroad
lines, according to attorneys representing the landowners. The
same attorneys represent landowners in similar nationwide
landowner class actions against other major telecommunications
companies.

AT&T, MCI WorldCom, Sprint, Qwest and other telecommunications
companies are engaged in fierce competition to establish and
expand their nationwide presence and the interconnectivity of
their fiber optic cable networks. The landowner class actions
against AT&T and other telecommunications companies, filed by
the same attorneys, cover fiber optic cable corridors in every
state and include a substantial part of the entire industry's
fiber optic network. AT&T is the first company to agree to a
landowner class action settlement. It is the first of many
state-by-state settlements that are anticipated by AT&T and
attorneys for the landowners in the ongoing nationwide class
action proceedings.

Nels Ackerson, a Washington, D.C. attorney who is co-lead
counsel for the landowners, complimented AT&T for reaching this
settlement. "AT&T is leading the industry in correcting its
errors concerning the rights of landowners," Ackerson said. "At
the same time, AT&T is protecting its core business from a great
risk, while its competitors are still exposed." "We negotiated
hard for this result for landowners," added Henry J. Price, an
Indianapolis attorney who, along with Ackerson, serves as co-
lead counsel for the class. "I compliment AT&T for seeing the
benefits of a fair and just settlement."

In return for the settlement's financial benefits to landowners,
AT&T will obtain legal security for its fiber optic cable
network in the future, and it will avoid risks that its core
business might be disrupted if a court were to restrict AT&T's
use or maintenance of fiber optic cable on land where it has not
obtained legal rights from legitimate landowners. AT&T and other
companies have installed much of their fiber optic cable on
railroad and utility corridors under agreements with railroads
and utility companies. That method of building a fiber optic
network is fast and relatively inexpensive. However, railroads
and utilities often do not own the land, but have easements that
permit them to use the corridor only for their specific, limited
purposes.

Although the specific terms of today's settlement apply only to
abandoned railroad right-of-way land in one state, lawyers
representing the landowners said they anticipate that the same
principles will guide ongoing settlement negotiations regarding
AT&T's corridors in the other states, first on abandoned
railroad lines and then on operating railroad and utility lines.
Vera Hinshaw, a landowner who is a class representative, was
pleased. "This is a fair settlement and a wonderful breakthrough
for landowners," she said. "For years these companies have
simply taken land that we own and used it. They've even
threatened us with huge damages if we accidentally interfered
with their use. I'm glad AT&T now has stepped up to do what's
right, and I hope this is a wake-up call for other companies."
Besides AT&T's cable, there is also an MCI WorldCom cable on
railroad right-of-way land next to Mrs. Hinshaw's home. "MCI
WorldCom has never asked us for permission or offered to pay for
what they've taken," she said. Companies that fail to gain from
landowners the legal rights to use the land where they place
their cable are acting at their peril, according to the
landowners' attorneys. "Companies like MCI WorldCom, Sprint and
Qwest, collectively, face hundreds of millions of dollars of
potential liability for trespass, slander of title and unjust
enrichment, and even worse, their most valuable assets and their
core businesses may be vulnerable to loss or interruption,"
Ackerson said.

Attorneys representing landowners have organized nationally to
handle this litigation. They have formed a leadership group
consisting of the four law firms, with Ackerson serving as
chair. The lead firms have offices in Washington, Indianapolis,
Minneapolis, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Dallas.
Attorneys have been retained by the group in 20 states to help
pursue landowners' remedies against telecommunications
companies, railroads and others. The attorneys have prosecuted
landowner class action litigation against railroads and
telecommunications companies for many years. They have advised
right-of-way landowners and landowner organizations in more than
forty states, and their earlier cases, including state supreme
court and federal court of appeals decisions, have established
precedents favorable to landowners in several jurisdictions.
Among the most important are decisions that railroads owning
only right-of-way easements cannot transfer rights to use the
land for other purposes, that class actions are appropriate to
address these issues, and that a nationwide class action may be
maintained by corridor landowners. The landowners' attorneys
have also testified on related policy issues on several
occasions before committees of Congress and state legislatures,
and have spoken to landowner groups nationally on the subject.

In response to increasing recognition of the problem, some
telecommunications companies recently have begun to "perfect"
title by systematically negotiating parcel-by-parcel easements
even after paying railroads or utilities for supposed lights to
occupy an entire corridor. That is an expensive process and has
not even been attempted by many companies. Parcel-by-parcel
negotiations place landowners at a disadvantage, according to
the landowners' attorneys, because small landowners are forced
to negotiate with companies that have far greater knowledge and
resources. Landowners often are persuaded to sell rights on
their land for a fraction of its value, the landowners'
attorneys claim, either because they do not know their rights or
because they do not realize that, for fiber optic cable
purposes, corridor value may be much greater than the value of
land next to the corridor. The attorneys believe their class
action process has leveled the litigation playing field for
landowners.


BARBERS HAIRSTYLING: Franchisees' Litigation Slowly Progresses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 58 present or former We Care Hair(R) franchisees
have joined in a lawsuit and requested certification of the
lawsuit as a class action against BARBERS HAIRSTYLING FOR MEN &
WOMEN INC on behalf of all past and present We Care Hair(R)
franchisees for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The case is
entitled LELA BISHOP, ET AL. V. DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES, INC.,
FREDERICK DELUCA, PETER H. BUCK, FRANCHISE WORLD HEADQUARTERS,
INC., WE CARE HAIR DEVELOPMENT, INC., JOHN AMICO, SR., FRED
FLORIO, THE BARBERS, HAIRSTYLING FOR MEN & WOMEN, INC., WE CARE
HAIR REALTY, INC., FRANCHISE REAL ESTATE LEASING CORP., JOHN F.
AMICO & COMPANY, WCH, INC. AND JAMI INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Circuit
Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, Cause
No. 97-L-231, filed February 4, 1997).

The plaintiffs further allege that We Care Hair Development,
Inc. and all other defendants in this lawsuit have violated the
Illinois Anti-trust Statute, 740 ILCS Section 10/3 (2) or (3),
by requiring We Care Hair(R) franchisees to purchase alleged
unusable hair care products. The plaintiffs further allege that
We Care Development, Inc. and all other defendants in this
lawsuit have violated the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act by
using a standard franchise agreement for We Care Hair(R)
franchises that violated the anti-waiver provisions of 815 ILCS
Section 705/41, and by engaging in fraudulent practices and
selling franchises at certain times during which We Care
Development, Inc.'s registration with the Illinois Attorney
General's Office had lapsed. The Company and its subsidiary,
WCH, Inc., have been named as defendants in this lawsuit under
the theory that they acted with all other defendants pursuant to
a civil conspiracy and/or mutual scheme with concerted action
for the purpose of constructively terminating the We Care
Hair(R) franchises throughout the country by convincing We Care
Hair(R) franchisees to execute new franchise agreements with the
Company to operate as Cost Cutters franchisees and decrease
and/or eliminate all services and advertising for the remaining
We Care Hair(R) franchisees in violation of the Illinois
Franchise Disclosure Act. We Care Hair Realty, Inc., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of WCH, Inc., has been named as a defendant in
this lawsuit under the theory that it also participated in the
conspiracy or scheme by attempting to transfer the We Care
Hair(R) subleases to the Company and WCH, Inc. The plaintiffs
seek to recover an award of actual damages, punitive damages,
treble damages and attorneys fees in an amount not to exceed, in
the aggregate, under all counts of the complaint, against all
defendants, the sum of $74,950 for each franchisee, and for
court costs.

This case is in the early pretrial stage. The Company, WCH, Inc.
and We Care Hair Realty, Inc. have initiated an action in
Illinois Federal District Court seeking to compel arbitration of
the claims of the plaintiffs and are awaiting the Court's
decision on their pending motion to compel arbitration. The co-
defendants have initiated a separate action in Illinois Federal
District Court also seeking to compel arbitration of the claims
of the plaintiffs. By order dated September 25, 1997, the
Federal District Court, in the co-defendants' action, compelled
all non-Illinois plaintiffs to arbitrate their disputes with the
co-defendants, and enjoined all non-Illinois plaintiffs from
continuing the lawsuit against all defendants, including the
Company, WCH, Inc. and We Care Hair Realty, Inc. The plaintiffs
have appealed this ruling.

In addition, on March 9, 1998, the Appellate Court of Illinois -
Fifth District ordered the State Court proceeding to be
transferred to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The
non-Illinois plaintiffs have filed a motion with the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois seeking discovery from all
defendants. The Company and the co-defendants oppose this motion
and have filed their own motion seeking to stay the Cook County,
Illinois state court proceedings until the federal appeal has
been determined. These motions are pending.


BEAR STEARNS: Updates Securities Suits in New York and Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 8, 1999, a purported class action (Bier, et al. v.
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., et al.) was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons who purchased securities through certain
retail brokerage firms for which BSSC provided clearing services
and financing during the period from December 8, 1992 through
December 8, 1998. Named as defendants are Bear, Stearns & Co.
Inc., BSSC and an officer of BSSC. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and committed breach of contract, common law fraud and negligent
misrepresentation in connection with providing clearing services
and financing for the brokerage firms named in the complaint.
Compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts are
sought.

On April 5, 1999, this action was consolidated for all purposes
with another action. Bear Stearns denies all allegations of
wrongdoing asserted against it in this litigation, intends to
defend against these claims vigorously, and believes that it has
substantial defenses to these claims.

On February 16, 1999, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., BSSC and an
officer of BSSC were added as defendants in a purported class
action pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The action is brought on behalf of
a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired certain securities that were underwritten by
Sterling Foster & Co., Inc. ("Sterling Foster"). Named as
defendants, in addition to the Bear Stearns defendants set forth
above, are Sterling Foster, seven individuals alleged to have
had an employment relationship with, or exercised control over,
Sterling Foster, six companies that issued securities
underwritten by Sterling Foster, eight individuals who were
directors, officers and/or employees of these issuers, and
Bernstein & Wasserman LLP and two of its partners. The second
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Bear
Stearns defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 349 of the New
York General Business Law and committed common law fraud in
connection with providing clearing services to Sterling Foster.
Compensatory damages in an unspecified amount are sought.

Bear Stearns denies all allegations of wrongdoing asserted
against it in this litigation, intends to defend against these
claims vigorously, and believes that it has substantial defenses
to these claims.

On February 5, 1999, a purported class action (Mihalevich v.
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.) was commenced in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of
all persons who, "within or from the State of Missouri,"
purchased ML Direct, Inc. common stock or warrants through
Sterling Foster between September 4, 1996 and February 13, 1997.
Named as defendants are Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and BSSC. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated the Missouri Securities Act and committed common law
fraud, constructive fraud, negligence and made negligent
misrepresentations in connection with providing clearing
services to Sterling Foster with respect to certain transactions
by customers of Sterling Foster in ML Direct common stock and
warrants. Compensatory damages of approximately $290,000 and
punitive damages in an unspecified amount are sought.

On March 31, 1999, this action was conditionally transferred by
the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Plaintiff has opposed this conditional transfer.

Bear Stearns denies all allegations of wrongdoing asserted
against it in this litigation, intends to defend against these
claims vigorously, and believes that it has substantial defenses
to these claims.


FIRST DATA: Charitable Fund Created to Settle Western Union Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corporation (NYSE: FDC) announced today that its
subsidiaries, Western Union Financial Services, Inc. and Orlandi
Valuta, have received preliminary approval for a proposed
settlement of all claims in a nationwide class action lawsuit
pertaining to the companies' U.S.-to-Mexico money transfer
businesses. The United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois preliminarily approved on a nationwide
basis the agreement reached with counsel for the plaintiff class
in the lawsuit. The court also issued an injunction prohibiting
further prosecution of any similar lawsuits, including those
currently pending in Texas and California.

According to the terms of the settlement, each of the companies
will issue discount coupons for future transactions to Mexico to
its customers who transferred money from the U.S. to Mexico
after January 1, 1987. In addition, Western Union will issue
discount coupons for use in future Western Union money transfers
to Mexico to MoneyGram customers who transferred money from
January 1, 1987 to December 10, 1996. MoneyGram was owned by
First Data Corporation prior to December 11, 1996. In addition,
Western Union and Orlandi Valuta will create a $2 million
charitable fund that will be used to support Mexican and
Mexican-American causes. The companies also will modify their
disclosure regarding currency exchange on their consumer money
transfer forms or receipts and in their price-related Mexico
money transfer advertising.

Western Union and Orlandi Valuta expect to provide notice to
customers of the settlement and additional details regarding the
settlement within the next several months. The companies also
expect that the court will give final approval to the settlement
in the fall of 1999 and that coupons will be issued in 2000.

First Data will take a second quarter charge of approximately
$18 million after-tax to reflect legal fees, the charitable fund
and other administrative costs in connection with the
settlement. "We are very pleased to have reached this settlement
with the plaintiffs and avoid the costs and distraction of
further litigation for all parties involved," said Doug McNary,
president, Western Union North America. "Western Union has a
long history of not only helping our customers send their hard-
earned money to Mexico but also of helping them in their local
communities, as demonstrated by the settlement's $2 million
charitable fund for Mexican and Mexican American causes. We
believe the terms of the settlement ensure that Western Union
remains the best way to send money to Mexico."

"We congratulate Western Union for deciding to settle this case
in a way that will deliver benefits to customers sending money
to Mexico now, rather than engaging in protracted litigation,"
said Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National
Organization of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO).
"We are pleased that Western Union has recognized that it has a
responsibility not only to its customers but to the broader
Latino community in the U.S. By creating a $2 million charitable
fund, Western Union will be helping our community to address its
many unmet needs," he added.

"We're pleased to be part of the charitable fund advisory
committee which will help guide the distribution of critical
funds to the Latino community, a community which has long been a
strong customer base for Western Union," said Antonia Hernandez,
president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). "We believe that this fund,
which is part of the broader settlement of the litigation, shows
a commitment by the parties to address future needs of the
Latino community," she added.

However, the Associated Press reports that California attorney
Fred Kumetz, who has filed separate class-action lawsuits
against the companies in state court, called the settlement a
"sweetheart deal" and said he would fight it. "I have a problem
when a Chicago court ... imposes its will on a California
lawsuit when California has eight times as many affected people
and its own set of laws." he told AP.


HITSGALORE.COM: Disclosure of Payout Attracts Weiss & Yourman
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman is investigating a class action claim on behalf
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired their shares of
Hitsgalore.com Inc. (OTC:HITT) securities between February 17,
1999 to May 11, 1999. This interest arises out of yesterday's
disclosure that the company knew and failed to disclose that its
founder, Dorian Reed, along with two other individuals, had been
ordered to pay over $600,000 to 100 customers for "false claims
made by Internet Business Broadcasting, a failed online
advertising company they worked for." As a result of this
disclosure, the company's stock price, which had recently
skyrocketed from $1.88 a share to a high of $20.69, tumbled
yesterday to $9.38 a share, for a loss of over 50% of its value
in one day.

To learn more, call Ron Theda or Jim Tullman at 800-437-7918 or
310-208-2800 or write wyinfo@wyca.com via email, or call Mark D.
Smilow at 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 or write wynyc@aol.com
via email.


IOMEGA CORP: Stipulated Settlement Ends New York Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
On February 25, 1998, IOMEGA CORP was served with a complaint in
a purported class action filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, entitled Christian Champod v. Iomega Corporation.
In March 1999, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding pertaining to the settlement of this litigation.
In addition, the parties have jointly submitted to the court a
stipulation containing the terms of the proposed settlement.


MINNESOTA MINING: Settlement Revised for Breast Implant Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to individual suits against MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO, a class action on behalf of all women with
breast implants filed against all manufacturers of such implants
has been conditionally certified and is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the
"Court")(DANTE, ET AL., V. DOW CORNING, ET AL., U.S.D.C., N.
Dist., Ala., 92-2589; part of IN RE: SILICONE GEL BREAST IMPLANT
PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION, U.S.D.C., N. Dist. Ala., MDL 926,
U.S.D.C., N. Dist. Ala., CV 92-P-10000-S; now held in abeyance
pending settlement proceedings in the settlement class action
LINDSEY, ET AL., V. DOW CORNING CORPORATION, ET AL., U.S.D.C.,
N. Dist., Ala., CV 94-P-11558-S). Class actions, some of which
have been certified, are pending in various state courts,
including, among others, Louisiana, Florida and Illinois, and in
the British Columbia courts in Canada.

The Louisiana state court action (SPITZFADEN, ET AL., v. DOW
CORNING CORPORATION, ET AL., Dist. Ct., Parish of Orleans, 92-
2589) has been decertified by the trial court. Plaintiffs' writ
for an emergency appeal from the decertification has been denied
by the Louisiana Supreme Court. A normal appeal remains pending.

MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO also has been served with a
purported class action brought on behalf of children allegedly
exposed to silicone in utero and through breast milk. (FEUER, ET
AL., V. MCGHAN, ET AL., U.S.D.C., E. Dist. NY, 93-0146.) The
suit names all breast implant manufacturers as defendants and
seeks to establish a medical-monitoring fund.

On December 22, 1995, the Court approved a revised class action
settlement program for resolution of claims seeking damages for
personal injuries from allegedly defective breast implants (the
"Revised Settlement Program"). The Revised Settlement Program is
a revision of a previous settlement pursuant to a Breast Implant
Litigation Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement")
reached on April 8, 1994, and approved by the Court on September
1, 1994.

The Court ordered that, beginning after November 30, 1995,
members of the plaintiff class may choose to participate in the
revised Settlement Program or opt out, which would then allow
them to proceed with separate products liability actions.

The Revised Settlement Program includes domestic class members
with implants manufactured by certain manufacturer defendants,
including Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
the company and McGhan Medical Corporation. The company's
obligations under the Revised Settlement Program are limited to
eligible claimants with implants manufactured by the company or
its predecessors ("3M implants") or manufactured only by McGhan
Medical Corporation after its divestiture from the company on
August 3, 1984 ("Post 8/84 McGhan implants"). With respect to
claimants with only Post 8/84 McGhan implants (or only Post 8/84
McGhan implants plus certain other manufacturers' implants), the
benefits are more limited than for claimants with 3M implants.
Post 8/84 McGhan implant benefits are payable in fixed shares by
the company, Union Carbide Corporation and McGhan Medical
Corporation. McGhan Medical Corporation has defaulted on its
fixed share obligation (which does not affect 3M's obligation to
pay its share) and has a request for a mandatory class action
recently approved by the Court.

In general, the amounts payable to individual current claimants
(as defined in the Court's order) under the Revised Settlement
Program, and the company's obligations to make those payments,
are not affected by the number of class members who have elected
to opt out of the Revised Settlement Program or the number of
class members making claims under the Revised Settlement
Program. In addition to certain miscellaneous benefits, the
Revised Settlement Program provides for two compensation options
for current claimants with 3M implants.

Under the first option, denominated as Fixed Amount Benefits,
current claimants with 3M implants who satisfy disease criteria
established in the prior Settlement Agreement will receive
amounts ranging from $5,000 to $100,000, depending on disease
severity or disability level; whether the claimant can establish
that her implants have ruptured; and whether the claimant also
has had implants manufactured by Dow Corning. Under the second
option, denominated as Long-Term Benefits, current claimants
with 3M implants who satisfy more restrictive disease and
severity criteria specified under the Revised Settlement Program
can receive benefits ranging from $37,500 to $250,000.

In addition, current claimants with 3M implants are eligible for
(a) a one-time payment of $3,000 upon removal of 3M implants
during the course of the class settlement, and (b) an advance
payment of $5,000 against the above referenced benefits upon
proof of having 3M implants and upon waiving or not timely
exercising the right to opt out of the Revised Settlement
Program. Current claimants with only Post 8/84 McGhan implants
(or only Post 8/84 McGhan implants plus certain other
manufacturers' implants) are eligible only for benefits ranging
from $10,000 to $50,000.

Eligible participants with 3M implants who did not file current
claims but are able to satisfy the more restrictive disease and
severity criteria during an ongoing period of 15 years will be
eligible for the Long-Term Benefits, subject to certain funding
limitations. Such participants also will be eligible for an
advance payment of $1,000 upon proof of having 3M implants and
upon waiving or not timely exercising the right to opt out of
the Revised Settlement Program or, as an elective option
expiring on June 15, 1999, a payment of $3,500 in full
settlement of all breast implant claims including any claim for
Long-Term Benefits under the Revised Settlement Program. Benefit
levels for eligible participants who are not current claimants
and have only Post 8/84 McGhan implants (or only Post 8/84
McGhan implants plus certain other manufacturers' implants) will
range from $10,000 to $50,000.

On June 10, 1998 the Court approved the terms of a settlement
program offered by Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company and the company to eligible foreign implant recipients
(the "Foreign Settlement Program"). Notices and claim forms were
mailed on June 15, 1998. Benefits to eligible foreign claimants
range from $3,500 to $50,000.

As of the date of this filing, the company believes that
approximately 90% of the registrants, including those claimants
who filed current claims, have elected to participate in the
Revised Settlement Program. It is still unknown as to what
disease criteria all claimants have satisfied, and what options
they have chosen. As a result, the total amount and timing of
the company's prospective payments under the Revised Settlement
Program cannot be determined with precision at this time. As of
March 31, 1999, the company has paid $232 million into the
court-administered fund as a reserve against costs of claims
payable by the company under the Revised Settlement Program
(including a $5 million administrative assessment). Additional
payments will be made as necessary. Payments to date have been
consistent with the company's estimates of the total liability
for these claims.


NEW YORK CITY: 63,000 People in Line for $5 Million Strip Search
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a lawsuit that may have a profound effect on a case involving
thousands of New Yorkers, the Associated Press reports that a
jury ordered New York City to pay $5 million to a woman who was
strip-searched after her arrest in a domestic dispute, the first
court decision against the city over its controversial policy.
The verdict could have broad financial impact as the city faces
a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 63,000 people who
claim they were illegally strip-searched. City officials are
negotiating with lawyers in the class action to try to settle
the claims before trial, The New York Times reported.

According to AP, the city adopted a policy of strip-searching
all people arrested and arraigned on minor charges in Manhattan
and Queens for about 10 months in 1996 and 1997. A federal
appeals court ruled in 1986 that people charged with minor
offenses may not be strip searched unless there is reason for
authorities to believe they were concealing weapons or
contraband. The city's Department of Correction said the policy
of searching everyone was necessary because crowded holding
cells created safety concerns. However, AP writes that officials
acknowledged in court papers that jail guards conducting the
searches were not told of the appeals court's requirement of
reasonable suspicion.

A federal jury last Thursday awarded Debra Ciraolo $19,600 for
pain, suffering and medical expenses and $5 million in punitive
damages. The city plans to appeal. Ms. Ciraolo claimed that she
was falsely arrested in January 1997 after a domestic spat and
was taken to a Manhattan holding cell. She said two female
guards ordered her to strip naked, stand against a wall, bend
over and cough. "I felt so shamed," Ms. Ciraolo, 43, told AP. "I
felt as if I was taken to the lowest human emotion that anyone
could possibly experience."

According to the Associated Press, city officials said most of
the people strip-searched had been arrested for crimes such as
drug dealing and prostitution. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said the
searches took place without the knowledge of senior Corrections
Department officials. "This is a situation that was going on,
and when it was found out about, it was ended," he told AP.
"There are people that are entitled to some degree of
compensation for it, but they are not entitled to win the
lottery over it."

Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, one of the lawyers handling the class
action lawsuit, said he found it hard to believe that city
officials were unaware that strip searches were being conducted.
"It is shocking neglect if they didn't know," he told AP.

The searches, said Lorna Goodman, a spokeswoman for the city's
legal department, occurred after a shift in job functions
between police officers and jail guards. The guards, accustomed
to conducting such searches of inmates, did not realize it was
illegal to strip-search people who had not been arraigned, she
said. "This was not a policy, this was a mistake," she told AP.

The mayor said the $5 million in punitive damages and $19,600
for pain and suffering verdict will probably be overturned
because a municipality cannot be assessed punitive damages. "We
are pretty certain that the ultimate amount the city will have
to pay is going to be in the range of $25,000, which is a far
cry from $5 million," Giuliani told the Associated Press.


PATRIOT AMERICAN: Settlement Satisfies Shareholder Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
On January 12, 1999, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
on behalf of the shareholders of PATRIOT AMERICAN HOSPITALITY
INC and Wyndham in the Delaware Chancery Court. The lawsuit,
captioned Charles Fraschilla v. Paul A. Nussbaum, et al., No.
16895NC, names as defendants the directors of Patriot, as well
as PATRIOT AMERICAN HOSPITALITY INC, Wyndham, Patriot
Partnership, Wyndham Partnership and affiliates of each of
Apollo Real Estate Management III, L.P., Apollo Management IV,
L.P., Thomas H. Lee Equity Fund IV, L.P., Beacon Capital
Partners, L.P. and Rosen Consulting Group (the "Investors").

The lawsuit alleges that the Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Patriot's shareholders by "effectively selling
control" of Patriot to the Investors for inadequate
consideration and without having adequately considered or
explored all other alternatives to this sale or having taken
steps to maximize stockholder value. The lawsuit also alleges
that the Investors aided and abetted the Directors in their
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages from the Directors as
well as an injunction preventing the consummation of the deal
with the Investors. On January 19, 1999, three nearly identical
purported class action lawsuits were filed in the same court on
behalf of different purported class representatives: (1) Sybil
R. Meisel and Steven Langsam, Trustees, No. 16905NC; (2) Crandon
Capital Partners, No. 16906NC; and (3) Robert A. Staub, No.
16907NC.

In April 1999, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle these lawsuits. In the memorandum of
understanding Wyndham agreed to make the proposed $300 million
rights offering no earlier than 60 days after the closing of the
$1 billion equity investment and to hold the rights offering
open for a period of not less than 30 days. Wyndham also agreed
to use good faith efforts to commence the rights offering no
later than 120 days after the closing of the $1 billion equity
investment. Wyndham will not be required to make the rights
offering if: (1) the $1 billion equity investment is not made;
(2) the SEC does not declare effective any registration
statement with regard to securities of Wyndham to be offered in
the rights offering; (3) there is a pending court order, motion,
legal proceeding or other action to enjoin, prevent or delay the
rights offering; or (4) the rights offering cannot be completed,
despite Wyndham's good faith efforts, within 170 days of the
closing of the $1 billion investment.

The memorandum of understanding and the proposed settlement are
conditioned on:

   . the completion of the $1 billion investment;

   . the drafting and execution of a stipulation of settlement
     and related documents;

   . the completion by plaintiffs of reasonable and appropriate
     discovery; and

   . final court approval of the settlement and dismissal of the
     action with prejudice by the court.  

In the stipulation, the parties will request that the court
certify, for purposes of settlement, a non-opt out, binding
class of all persons, exclusive of defendants and their
affiliates, who owned shares of Patriot on or after December 15,
1998, and their successors in interest and transferees, through
and including the closing of the $1 billion investment; that the
court approve the settlement, including the release of all
claims by class members against the defendants; and that the
court enter final judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims
of the plaintiffs and the class against the defendants. Patriot
has agreed to pay an award of attorney's fees and expenses not
to exceed $1.25 million to counsel for class plaintiffs if
ordered by the court.


PHILIP SERVICES: Court Decides Ontario is Better than New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
has ruled in favor of Philip Services Corp. (TSE:PHV) (ME:PHV)
to dismiss the U.S. plaintiffs' Consolidated and Amended Class
Action Complaint on forum non conveniens grounds. In reaching
its decision, the US court declined to assume jurisdiction over
the complaint on the grounds that Ontario Canada provides an
adequate alternative forum for litigation of the class action
plaintiff's claims, and ruled that adjudication in Ontario would
be more convenient and best serve the public interest.

Philip Services is an integrated metals recovery and industrial
services company with operations throughout the United States,
Canada and Europe. Philip provides diversified metals services,
together with by-product management, utilities management and
industrial outsourcing services, to all major industry sectors.


STURM RUGER: Gun Manufacturers Face Charges of Public Nuisance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Among the cases instituted against STURM RUGER & CO INC during
the three months ending March 31, 1999, were two putative class
actions.

The first, entitled Obrellia Smith, Administratrix and
Individually, v. Navegar, Inc. et. al., was filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois on March 8, 1999 and alleges that
the plaintiff's decedent was murdered by Darnell Foxx (a gang
member) with a non-Ruger handgun. The complaint also alleges
that firearms manufacturers have created a "public nuisance" by
intentionally supplying handguns to the underground market for
use by gang members and juveniles. Damages plus fees and costs
to be determined by the Court are demanded.

Another class action, entitled Stephen Young, Administratrix and
Individually, v. Bryco Arms, et. al., in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, was filed on March 15, 1999 and alleges
that the plaintiff's decedent was killed by Mario Ramos and a
juvenile gang member with a non-Ruger handgun. The complaint
also alleges that firearms manufacturers have created a "public
nuisance" by "oversupplying" the handgun market resulting in
illegal possession and use by gang members and juveniles.
Damages plus fees and costs to be determined by the Court are
demanded.


WWII REPARATIONS: Working Groups Seek Closure for Slave Labor
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a story from The Associated Press, the Clinton administration
expressed satisfaction with an initial effort to set up a
reparations program for tens of thousands of workers subjected
to a forced labor campaign sponsored by Nazi Germany during
World War II. Many were employed by large German companies, 15
of which have pledged to set up a fund by September to pay the
reparations. The State Department played host for two days of
talks by government officials from eight countries, as well as
business and private groups. The meeting ended Wednesday.

The Associated Press reports that agreement was reached to set
up two working groups, one to set eligibility rules for payments
from the fund and the other to deal with ways to ensure legal
closure for the German companies. Stuart Eizenstat, U.S.
undersecretary of state for economic affairs, presided at the
conference with Bodo Hombach, chief of staff for German
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Eizenstat told AP that
participants are committed to meeting in working groups in
Washington and in Bonn and to making recommendations within the
next 90 days. He expressed hope processes can be agreed to by
Sept. 1. That date, he noted, is the 60th anniversary of the
start of World War II. Among the issues to be settled are ways
to achieve legal closure, who should be the beneficiaries and
how the fund would be operated.

According to AP, the process will deal with the 70,000 to 90,000
people from a number of countries who are classified as slave
laborers, mostly Jewish concentration camp or ghetto survivors,
and so-called forced laborers, a much larger category that
consists mostly of agricultural workers.

Eizenstat told AP the goal is to provide victims with payments
through a "cooperative, fair and non-bureaucratic arrangement
without regard to nationality or religion." In addition to the
United States and Germany, delegations from Belarus, Ukraine,
the Czech Republic, Israel, Poland and Russia were present. Also
attending were delegates from reconciliation foundations from
Central and Eastern Europe, and officers from key German
companies and their lawyers. The Conference on Jewish Material
Claims Against Germany and attorneys representing Holocaust
survivors in class-action suits also were represented. "The
participation of all those who attended is a significant
accomplishment in moving the process toward closure," Eizenstat
said after the second and final day of talks. Gideon Taylor,
executive vice president of the Jewish claims conference, said,
"For this effort to succeed we need to make very rapid progress.
We also hope that more companies will join the process very
soon."

The Associated Press also reported that the German Embassy
hosted a dinner for the visiting delegations.


                            *********

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  * * *