/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/990524.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Monday, May 24, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 77


ACE CASH: Consumers Complain About Payday Loans in Three States
ADAM'S MARK: Reunion Accommodations Prompt Alumni Complaints
AMERICAN GENERAL: $167 Mil. Punitives for Misleading Dish Buyers
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Settles Claims After Six Inmates Die
DIAL CORP.: EEOC Charges Pattern & Practice of Sexual Harassment

FORE SYSTEMS: Finkelstein & Krinsk File Pennsylvania Complaint
FORE SYSTEMS: Yates Firm Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
FULTON COUNTY: Agrees to More Funds for More Public Defenders
GEORGIA GULF: Many Settle After "Unforeseen Chemical Reaction"
GIBSON GREETINGS: Awaiting Approval to End Securities Litigation

INSIGHT HEALTH: Buyout Prompts Stockholders' Suit in Delaware
MAXIM GROUP: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Georgia
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Settles Charges of Polluting Air, Soil & Water
MTI TECHNOLOGY: Settles Consolidated 1998 Suits for $900,000
O'SULLIVAN INDUSTRIES: Shareholders Complain Merger is Unfair

PAULSON CAPITAL: Expects Dismissal from SF Securities Suit
SCHERING PLOUGH: Updates Antitrust and Consumers Cases
SMITH & WESSON: Victims of Violence Seek Justice in Chicago
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Jury Begin Work on Florida Smokers' Case
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Parties Dismiss Louisiana Landfill Lawsuit


ACE CASH: Consumers Complain About Payday Loans in Three States
ACE CASH EXPRESS INC has recently been served with three class-
action lawsuits regarding its service commonly referred to in
the check-cashing industry as a "payday loan." That service
consists of providing a customer cash in exchange for that
customer's check (in the amount of that cash plus a service fee)
with an agreement to defer the presentment or deposit of that
check until the customer's next payday, usually a period of two
to four weeks. During the quarter ended March 31, 1999, the
average amount of cash provided to a customer in such a
transaction was approximately $200, and the fee to the Company
was approximately $30.

The first lawsuit, Bryan Meegan v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on December 15, 1998, but was served on
the Company only on February 5, 1999. The plaintiff, for himself
and other customers similarly situated, alleges violations of
the California statute that governs deferred-deposit
transactions and, therefore, violations of various California
consumer-protection statutes regarding usury and unfair and
deceptive business practices. However, the plaintiff was not a
customer of the Company, but was a customer of one of the
Company's franchisees (not named in the lawsuit). It is
therefore unclear whether the allegations concern the Company's
deferred-deposit business at its own locations in California in
addition to purported responsibility of the Company for its
franchisee's deferred-deposit business in California. The
complaint seeks an injunction against the alleged illegal
activities and actual and punitive damages from the Company.

The second lawsuit, Mike Kenney et al. v. Ace Cash Express,
Inc., was filed in the State Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas on February 9, 1999. The plaintiff, for himself and
other customers similarly situated, alleges that the Company's
deferred-presentment transactions in Arkansas violate the usury
laws of Arkansas. The complaint seeks the standard penalty for a
usury-law violation in Arkansas: an amount equal to twice the
amount paid by customers of deferred-presentment transactions
during the past three years.

The third lawsuit, Gary M. Kane and Wendy Betts v. Ace Cash
Express, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 19, 1999. The
complaint was filed not only against the Company, but also
against Check Express, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiary, and
most of the directors and executive officers of the Company and
Check Express, Inc. The plaintiffs, for themselves and other
customers similarly situated, allege violations of the federal
Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z and of Florida consumer-
protection statutes regarding consumer lending, deceptive and
unfair trade practices, and usury. The plaintiffs seek an
injunction against the alleged illegal activities and actual and
punitive damages of various kinds, based on various theories.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and
denies all allegations. The Company intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuits. The Company understands that others in California,
Arkansas, and Florida have also been sued regarding their
"payday loan" service, on substantially similar bases as are
stated in the complaints against the Company, by one or more
plaintiffs represented by the same counsel as are representing
the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the Company.

ADAM'S MARK: Reunion Accommodations Prompt Alumni Complaints
Five visitors to Black College Reunion in Daytona Beach sued the
Adam's Mark Hotel on Thursday, saying they were overcharged,
made to wear bright-orange wristbands and forced to carry their
own luggage, all because of their race. According to the Orlando
Sentinel, the five, all professionals in their 20s, said
oppressive security at the hotel during this year's gathering in
April was more in line with a prison stay than a vacation.

"I chose the Adam's Mark because it was supposed to be the best
in Daytona," one of the plaintiffs, Napoleon Berrian, told the
Orlando Sentinel. "I've never been arrested, never been in jail.
Instead of orange jumpsuits, they gave us these [orange
wristbands), and it felt like staying in the county jail for the

The attorneys who filed the suit Thursday at U.S. District Court
in Orlando said they would seek to have the case certified as a
class action. No amount for damages was specified. One of the
attorneys, John Relman of the Washington Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, compared the case with a class-
action suit against the Denny's restaurant chain in which he
recovered a $17.7 million settlement for the plaintiffs. "This
case is of national importance," Relman said. "It's another
wake-up call to white Americans who think race discrimination
doesn't happen anymore. The truth is, unless we bring these
cases and get injunctive relief, it isn't going to stop."

Fred S. Kummer, founder and CEO of HBE Corp. the hotel chain's
St. Louis-based parent company, issued a written statement
saying the race of its guests had nothing to do with its
practices during Black College Reunion. The company has 22
hotels across the country, including one in Orlando. "While this
lawsuit will certainly be addressed by HBE Corp. in the courts,
we feel an obligation to the fine management and staff at our
Daytona Beach hotel ... to clarify our record regarding these
irresponsible claims," Kummer's statement read.

Daytona Beach hotels frequently take special measures in dealing
with the crowds generated by events such as spring break, Bike
Week and Black College Reunion. Bikers have accused hotels of
price-gouging; spring breakers have complained about extra
security, locked balcony doors and the identification wristbands
designed to police the number of visitors per room.

But lawyers accused the Adam's Mark of taking matters to an
extreme, setting out to make things so unpleasant that black
visitors would not come back. Berrian and the other four
plaintiffs - Dante Gilliam, 28, St. Petersburg, Jamie Morrison,
26, Waterbury, Conn., Mark Simmonds, 26, West Palm Beach, and
Latoya Straughn, 25, Ocala - told similar stories. Among the
allegations in the 29-page complaint are: Black guests were
issued bright-orange wristbands, which they were told they had
to wear all weekend to enter the hotel. Uniformed security
guards repeatedly checked guests for the wristbands, which white
guests weren't made to wear.

The statement from Kummer said the Adam's Mark often requires
guests to wear wristbands during large, heavily trafficked

Rooms appeared to be "stripped down," with pictures missing from
walls. Maid and valet services were not available. The company's
statement said nothing about "stripped down" rooms but said maid
and valet services, while "severely challenged" by the number of
BCR visitors, weren't denied to anyone. It said although some
BCR guests might have had to carry their own luggage, it had
nothing to do with race but was because of the large number of
guests. Guests were told they would be charged an additional $50
for anyone who visited the room during the weekend, even if the
visitor stayed for only a few minutes. The Adam's Mark statement
did not address this allegation. Visitors were made to pay the
full price of their rooms in advance, in some case by check or
money order. The hotel chain's statement said the pre-payment
requirement is standard practice during all special events,
including Bike Week and Speed Weeks. Room rates were higher than
for other special events. The least-expensive single rooms
during Black College Reunion cost $250 a night; during
Biketoberfest in October, the rate for the same room is $189.
The statement from Adam's Mark said room rates were actually
higher during Speed Weeks in February, when they rented for as
much as $340 for a single night.

The Orlando Sentinel explained that the Black College Reunion
began 15 years ago as a small gathering of students and alumni
from Bethune-Cookman College and Florida A&M, but has grown into
a major event that attracts as many as 100,000 young blacks to
Daytona Beach.

Beachside residents complain about traffic and lawlessness such
as a shooting last year that left an Orlando man dead and four
police officers wounded. In response, city officials this year
designed a traffic plan that would have limited beachside access
to local residents and registered hotel guests with special
passes when the area became jammed with cars. The Florida
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
labeled the plan discriminatory and filed for an emergency
injunction to stop it. U.S. District Judge Patricia Fawsett
ruled in the NAACP's favor, saying portions of the traffic plan
violated visitors' constitutional rights to assemble, enjoy
equal protection under the law and travel freely between states.

Attorneys Charles Burr and Sam Smith, whose Tampa firm filed
that suit on behalf of the NAACP, are among the attorneys on
this case as well. Though the case was initially assigned to
U.S. District Judge Anne Conway, Burr said he would move to have
it reassigned to Fawsett because of the similarity of the issues
involved. (THE ORLANDO SENTINEL; May 21, 1999)

AMERICAN GENERAL: $167 Mil. Punitives for Misleading Dish Buyers
A jury ordered American General Financial Center (AGFC) to pay
$167 million in punitive damages to 29 plaintiffs who had
accused the company of misleading them about the credit
agreement for financing satellite dish purchases. The jury also
ordered AGFC to pay $500,000 in compensatory damages.

Satellite Bcstg. & Communications Assn. (SBCA) wouldn't comment
on specifics of case, but said it was "concerned" about
decision. A spokeswoman questioned the timing of suit and
predicted that the large judgment would be reduced.

The class action suit was filed on behalf of 29 consumers who
had obtained financing for their satellite dishes from AGFC in
early 1990s. The plaintiffs allegedly did not know that they
were entering into a credit card agreement, and accused the
retailer and finance company of making misleading statements
about the transaction.

Each of plaintiffs borrowed about $2,500 and had repaid an
average of $600 before being notified by company that he or she
owed no additional money. This meant AGFC actually took loss on
balance owed, an AGFC spokesman claimed. AGFC said it was
disappointed in outcome of trial and plans to appeal. "The
damage awards in this case are outrageous and contrary to sound
constitutional protections established by the Mississippi
Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court."

In a similar case, a jury in Alabama recently awarded $581
million, mostly in punitive damages, against Whirlpool Financial
National Bank and Gulf Coast Electronics on charges of
overcharging a couple $1,200 for 2 dishes. AGFC is a subsidiary
of American General Finance Inc. and no longer is in the
satellite dish financing business.

Cases for small amounts involved in satellite dish financing
complaints usually would go to Small Claims Court, but because
large punitive awards are getting so much publicity, lawyers are
placing ads and gathering plaintiffs, SBCA spokeswoman said.
Financing dishes no longer is issue because their prices have
dropped dramatically, but SBCA still warns retailer members to
be very careful when executing credit agreements, she said.
(Communications Daily; May 21, 1999)

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Settles Claims After Six Inmates Die
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution reports that Corrections
Corporation of America and Washington agreed to pay 1,000
inmates $1.65 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed
after six inmates from Washington died while in the medical unit
of a CCA prison in Ohio to which they had been sent. Three other
inmates and a guard were stabbed at the facility and others were

CCA is the largest private prison company in the world. Based in
Nashville, it runs 80 institutions in the United States and
abroad. Two of those prisons, which hold state inmates, are in
South Georgia. The company also is building three more prisons
in South Georgia, although the state hasn't agreed to house
inmates in those. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution; May 21,

DIAL CORP.: EEOC Charges Pattern & Practice of Sexual Harassment
Beverly Allen had worked as a machine operator at the Dial Corp.
soap plant in suburban Montgomery for some 30 years when she
started complaining about sexual harassment on the job. The
company's response: a few hostile comments and no assistance,
according to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
investigators. On Thursday, Allen's complaints formed the core
of a class-action lawsuit that the EEOC brought against Dial,
alleging "a pattern and practice of sexual harassment."

The company declined to comment.

The Dial suit is much smaller in scope than the massive action
the EEOC settled last year involving Mitsubishi Motor
Manufacturing of America Inc.'s Normal, Ill., plant, but its
bare outlines appear similar. Since at least July 1988, the
consumer-products manufacturer subjected Allen and other female
employees to "a hostile and abusive work environment," and also
failed "to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the
harassment," according to the complaint.

About a half-dozen plant employees have stepped forward to air
complaints so far, according to Noelle Brennan, the EEOC trial
attorney on the case. Dial's alleged practices deprived Allen
and female co-workers "of equal-employment opportunities and
otherwise adversely (affected) their status because of their
sex," the lawsuit said. It seeks an injunction ordering Dial to
forbid sexual harassment, and asks for back pay and other
compensation for any harassment victims. It also seeks an order
forcing the company to provide employees and managers with
training about harassment in the workplace.

Allen, who Brennan said left her job at the plant last year,
couldn't be reached by the Chicago Tribune for comment.

The plant is a fixture in Montgomery, near Aurora. It has about
300 employees, at least one-third of them women, Brennan said.

Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Dial is best known for its Dial line of
soaps. The $1.5 billion company also makes Purex laundry
detergents, Renuzit air fresheners and Armour Star canned meats.
(Chicago Tribune; May 21, 1999)

FORE SYSTEMS: Finkelstein & Krinsk File Pennsylvania Complaint
Finkelstein & Krinsk filed a class action lawsuit accusing Fore
Systems (Nasdaq:FORE) of granting millions of dollars in stock
options to its key executives while acquisition negotiations
were underway with General Electric Company of England (GEC),
which isn't related to General Electric Co. of the U.S. In fact,
the complaint charges that Fore Systems Inc. a Warrendale,
Pennsylvania based maker of backbone equipment for data network
and General Electric Company are liable for extraordinary
payments to Fore System's top officers to "grease the skids" in
conjunction with GEC's recently announced tender offer for the
acquisition of Fore system.

On April 30, 1999 GEC made a tender offer for $35 to all
shareholders of Fore Systems. Yet the action taken by Fore
Systems during the negotiations to grant stock options for the
several key Fore executive officers which kicked in at between
$13.44 and $20.56 in effect establishes a "privileged class" of
shareholders. Moreover according to the complaint that
"privileged class" in effect the directors and executives of
Fore Systems, violated their fiduciary responsibility to all
other shareholder by cutting a separate $23 million lucrative
stock option deal for themselves. The stock options transactions
were backdated to avoid shareholder scrutiny and ire in learning
that they were authorized after the sale of Fore Systems was

Finkelstein & Krinsk filed the complaint on behalf of all public
shareholders that own Fore System shares and have since the time
of the announcement of GEC's acquisition via a $35.00 Tender
Offer. The complaint charges that Fore Systems, its executive
management and GEC violated the securities laws including the
Exchange Act and Rules 14d- 10 and 10b-13, in failing to abide
by the "all holder, best price" rule and contravening
shareholder anti discrimination requirements. The complaint also
alleges that the named defendants also breached fiduciary duties
owed the Fore Systems shareholders. GEC, which has represented
to the financial press its comfort with the situation, could be
liable for the additional per share benefit given to the
executive defendants (on top of the $35 per share tender offer),
an amount adding in excess of a billion dollars to GEC's
purchase price.

"The beauty of the securities laws are their adaptability to the
broad array of cheating," stated Jeffrey Krinsk. "In this
instance the Fore Systems and its executives and those at GEC
thought they had 'committed the perfect crime' -- shareholders
would not notice the payments to the executive defendants
because the money was disguised as normal stock options, Fore
Systems would not object since it benefited the Company's
executive hierarchy, and GEC was not alarmed because these
payments were the payola that greased its acquisition of Fore

To learn more, contact Jeffrey R. Krinsk at 877-493-5366 or at
fk.@class-action-Law.com via email, or call Alfred G. Yates Jr.,
Esq. at 412-391-5164 or write yateslaw@aol.com via email.

FORE SYSTEMS: Yates Firm Files Complaint in Pennsylvania
The Law Office of Attorney Alfred G. Yates Jr. filed a Class
Action in the United States District Court of the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all FORE Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq: FORE) shareholders subject to the Tender Offer
negotiated between FORE Systems, Inc. and GEC, P.L.C. of England
(GEC). The complaint charges that FORE Systems Inc., a
Warrendale, Pennsylvania-based maker of backbone equipment for
data network and GEC are liable for extraordinary payments to
FORE Systems top officers to "grease the skids" in conjunction
with GEC's recently announced Tender Offer for the acquisition
of FORE Systems.

On April 30, 1999 GEC made a tender offer for $35 to all
shareholders of FORE Systems. However, the complaint alleges
that the action taken by FORE Systems during the negotiations to
grant stock options for several key FORE Systems executive
officers which kicked in at between $13.44 and $20.56 in effect
establishes a "privileged class" of shareholders. According to
the complaint, that "privileged class", the directors and
executives of FORE Systems, violated their fiduciary
responsibility to all other shareholders by cutting a separate
$23 million lucrative stock option deal for themselves.

The complaint charges that FORE Systems, its executive
management and GEC violated Federal Securities laws including
the Exchange Act and Rules 14d-10 and 10b-13, in failing to
abide by the "all holder, best price" rule and contravening
shareholder anti discrimination requirements. The complaint also
alleges that the named defendants breached fiduciary duties owed
the FORE Systems shareholders. GEC could be liable to the class
for the additional per share benefit given to the executive
defendants of FORE Systems in an amount in excess of $1 billion
on top of the $35 per share tender offer.

For more information, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr, Esq. at 800-
391-5164 or 412-391-5164, or via e-mail at yateslaw@aol.com via

FULTON COUNTY: Agrees to More Funds for More Public Defenders
Agreeing to fund 20 more public defenders, Fulton County
commissioners voted Wednesday to settle a federal suit by poor
inmates claiming to be denied access to lawyers. The additions,
to be made over the next three years, will bring the total
lawyers defending indigent defendants in Fulton to about 85.
That's virtually the same number of prosecutor positions in the
Fulton District Attorney's Office.

Increasing lawyers for the indigent was a key concession sought
by the plaintiffs, a class defined as all non-homicide felony
defendants not released on bond.

The settlement also requires Fulton County to "make good-faith
efforts" to ensure that the Fulton County Public Defender's
Office and the Fulton County Conflict Defender's Office lower
their per-attorney caseloads to 175 per year by 2002. The
Conflict Defender's Office takes cases when a public defender's
client is a co-defendant with another indigent whose interests
conflict. On average, attorneys in the Public Defender's Office
handled slightly more than 200 cases per year, according to data
from 1998. The American Bar Association states that criminal-
defense lawyers should not handle more than 150 cases per year.

The agreement also requires Fulton County to pay $175,000 for
plaintiff's attorneys' fees, costs and damages for the ex-inmate
who brought the case.

The case began in 1994 as a pro se filing by Sam Stinson, an
indigent arrested and eventually convicted on a drug charge.
Once U.S. District Court Chief Judge J. Ernest Tidwell appointed
counsel to help him, Stinson's case achieved class action status
and, in 1997, survived Fulton's motion for summary judgment.
Claiming civil rights violations, Stinson alleges that he waited
three months after his arrest before he was contacted by the
Public Defender's Office, and that his situation is not uncommon
among jailed indigents. Stinson v. Fulton County Board of
Commissioners, No. 1:94-cv-240 (filed Jan. 28, 1994).

A public defender appears at the bond hearing for an inmate, but
the suit alleges that after that appearance, prisoners have
virtually no contact with lawyers during the months they spend
waiting to be indicted. Under Fulton's current system, an
indictment triggers assignment of the case to a Superior Court
judge and consequently to public defenders assigned to that
particular courtroom.

In a proposed settlement obtained by the Daily Report last year,
Fulton County agreed to assign judges to cases before
indictment. That would have sped the time a lawyer would be
assigned to a defendant's case and made it more likely that the
same lawyer would represent a defendant from a bond hearing
through trial or a plea agreement (Daily Report, Aug. 14, 1998).

But that provision was missing from the settlement approved by
the commission Wednesday, which does not address when judges
will be assigned to cases. Plaintiffs' counsel W. Bruce Maloy
said Wednesday that that element came out of the agreement
because it would have required action from a nonparty to the
case -- Fulton Superior Court. Maloy says he asked judges to go
along, but they declined.

The agreement provides "the maximum relief we could get from the
parties," says Maloy, a principal in Maloy & Jenkins. The
agreement states that Fulton's government "shall make good-faith
efforts" to ensure that a Pre-Trial Services officer interviews
each incoming nonhomicide felony arrestee within two days of
booking. If the defendant has not retained a private attorney,
the Pre-Trial Services officer will immediately assign the case
to either the Public Defender's Office or the Conflict
Defender's Office. "The assigned office shall promptly assign an
attorney to handle that defendant's case and shall thereafter
immediately notify the defendant of this assignment," the
agreement reads. If the defendant is not released on bond, a
legal assistant supervised by an attorney from either the Public
Defender's Office or the Conflict Defender's Office will meet
with the defendant within two days of being appointed to the

The inmates, represented by Maloy and Robert E. Toone of the
Southern Center for Human Rights, had sought to require the
county to provide budget parity between the District Attorney's
Office and the public defenders. The settlement agreed to
Wednesday does not address budgets, except to require the county
to submit twice-yearly reports on the state of indigent defense,
including the budget of the Public Defender's and Conflict
Defender's offices.

An important element of the reporting requirement, Maloy notes,
is the county's commitment to track inmates who have been in
jail without indictment. As for budget parity, Maloy says that
would never happen, anyway, because the District Attorney's
Office handles all criminal cases, whereas public defenders
represent only poor defendants. In 1998, the District Attorney's
Office had a budget of $10.7 million. The Public Defender's
Office had a budget of $5.1 million, and the Conflict Defender's
Office had a budget of $1.2 million. The Public Defender's
Office budget had nearly quadrupled since 1990, when an outside
consultant branded the county's indigent defense system among
the worst in the country.

Fulton County Attorney Overtis Hicks Brantley, who was attending
the commission meeting Wednesday afternoon, declined to discuss
the case.

Judge Tidwell must approve the settlement and rule on whether to
hold commission members in contempt for failing to show up at a
settlement conference last month. Tidwell had ordered all seven
members to the conference, but only Chairman Mike Kenn showed up
with Brantley, who said later she thought the judge required
only a single representative from the commission at the meeting.
The contempt hearing was scheduled for Tuesday but was postponed
due to the settlement vote. (Fulton County Daily Report; May 20,

GEORGIA GULF: Many Settle After "Unforeseen Chemical Reaction"
Georgia Gulf Corp. is a party to numerous individual and several
class-action lawsuits filed against Georgia Gulf, among other
parties, arising out of an incident that occurred in September
1996 in which workers were exposed to a chemical substance on
Georgia Gulf's premises in Plaquemine, Louisiana. The substance
was later identified to be a form of mustard agent, a chemical
which is not manufactured as part of Georgia Gulf's ordinary
operations, but instead occurred as a result of an unforeseen
chemical reaction.

Georgia Gulf presently believes there are approximately 2,000
plaintiffs, of which approximately 650 are workers claiming to
have been on-site at the time of the incident. All of the
actions claim one or more forms of compensable damages,
including past and future wages, past and future physical and
emotional pain and suffering, and medical monitoring. The
lawsuits were originally filed in Louisiana State Court in
Iberville Parish.

In September 1998, the plaintiffs filed amended petitions that
added the additional allegations that Georgia Gulf had engaged
in intentional conduct against the plaintiffs. These additional
allegations raised a coverage issue under Georgia Gulf's general
liability insurance policies. In December 1998, as required by
the terms of the insurance policies, the insurers demanded
arbitration to determine whether coverage is required for the
alleged intentional conduct in addition to the coverage
applicable to the other allegations of the case. The date for
the arbitration has not yet been established.

As a result of the arbitration relating to the insurance issue,
as permitted by federal statute, the insurers removed the cases
to United States District Court in December 1998. By order
entered March 2, 1999, the federal court denied the plaintiff's
motion to remand the cases back to state court and retained
federal jurisdiction.

Settlements have been reached with a majority of the original
workers, including those claimants believed to be the most
severely injured, and the settled cases have been or will be
dismissed. Additionally, settlements have been reached or are
being negotiated with other parties named as defendants whereby
such parties have made, or are being requested to make,
contributions to the recoveries made by the plaintiffs.
Negotiations for the resolution of the remaining claims are

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Georgia Gulf is asserting and
pursuing defenses to the claims. Based on the present status of
the proceedings, Georgia Gulf believes the liability ultimately
imposed will not have a material effect on the financial
position or on results of operations of Georgia Gulf.

GIBSON GREETINGS: Awaiting Approval to End Securities Litigation
In July 1994, immediately following GIBSON GREETINGS INC.'s
announcement of an inventory misstatement at Cleo, which
resulted in an overstatement of the Company's previously
reported 1993 consolidated net income, five purported class
actions were commenced by certain stockholders. These suits were
consolidated and a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
against the Company, its then Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial Officer and the
former President and Chief Executive Officer of Cleo was filed
in October 1994, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio (In Re Gibson Securities Litigation).
The Complaint alleged violations of the federal securities laws
and sought unspecified damages for an asserted public disclosure
of false information regarding the Company's earnings.

In August 1996, the Court certified the case as a class action.
The Court subsequently concluded that the certified class
representative could represent only those class members who
purchased Gibson stock after April 19, 1994 and before July 1,

On June 15, 1998, the Court entered judgment for the Company and
each individual defendant on all remaining claims asserted by
the plaintiff class. Plaintiff's appeal of the judgment to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was dismissed as untimely due to
remaining claims and counterclaims between the Company and its
former auditor in connection with a Third Party Complaint which
the Company had filed against the auditor. In December 1998, the
Company and its former auditor reached a settlement of all
claims between them. Plaintiff re-filed its appeal of the
judgment for defendant. Subsequently, the Company and the
plaintiff agreed to a settlement which will be presented to the
District Court for approval at a hearing expected to take place
in May 1999.

INSIGHT HEALTH: Buyout Prompts Stockholders' Suit in Delaware
On May 19, 1999 a lawsuit was filed by two individuals claiming
to be stockholders of InSight Health Services Corp., which seeks
class action status, in Delaware chancery court in connection
with the proposal of The Carlyle Group and the Halifax Group,
announced May 17, 1999, to buyout the publicly held portion of
InSight Health Services Corp. (Nasdaq:IHSC) common stock. The
suit, names as defendants the Company, The Carlyle Group, the
Halifax Group, five of the Company's eight directors, and the
Company's chief operating officer. The complaint alleges, among
other things, a breach of fiduciary duties and nondisclosure of
material information in connection with the buyout proposal and
seeks to have the proposal enjoined or, if it is consummated, to
have it rescinded and to recover unspecified damages, fees and

As announced by the Company on May 17, 1999, a special committee
has been appointed by the Company's board of directors to
evaluate the buyout proposal and consider other options to
maximize stockholder value; however, no agreements have been
reached to date with respect to the buyout proposal.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is totally without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously. InSight, headquartered
in Newport Beach, provides diagnostic imaging and information,
treatment and related management services. It serves managed
care entities, hospitals and other contractual customers in 29
US states, including five major US markets: California, the
Southwest (including a major presence in Texas), the Midwest,
the Northeast and the Southeast.

MAXIM GROUP: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Georgia
The Law Firm Of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP filed a Class
Action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, on behalf of all purchasers of The Maxim
Group Inc. (NYSE:MXG) common stock between August 31, 1998 and
May 19, 1999. The Complaint charges The Maxim Group and certain
of its officers and directors with violations of the federal
securities laws.

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements regarding
The Maxim Group's financial results for fiscal 1999 and for
certain quarters therein. On May 19, 1999, The Maxim Group
announced that it would "record certain adjustments" to
previously reported results due to its improper recognition of
revenue in prior quarters. As a result of these adjustments, The
Maxim Group is revising downward its reported results of
operations for the second, third and fourth quarter of fiscal
1999 and for the fiscal year ended January 31, 1999.

For more information, contact Mark C. Gardy, Esq., Karin E.
Fisch, Esq., or James S. Notis, Esq. at 800-889-3701 or 212-889-
3700 or write kfisch@a-g-s.com via email.

MEMC ELECTRONIC: Settles Charges of Polluting Air, Soil & Water
MEMC ELECTRONIC MATERIALS INC was a named defendant in two class
action lawsuits filed against companies operating industrial
facilities along I-10 and along the Houston Ship Channel in
Harris County, Texas. The lawsuits alleged that the defendants
had discharged various pollutants into the air, soil, ground and
surface waters.

The Company has agreed to a settlement of these lawsuits and has
been dismissed without prejudice as a defendant in such
lawsuits. The settlement is conditioned upon the Company
receiving signed releases from substantially all of the
plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

MTI TECHNOLOGY: Settles Consolidated 1998 Suits for $900,000
MTI Technology Corp., an Anaheim maker of data storage products,
agreed to pay $900,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit.

On May 17, 1999 the United States District Court for the Central
District of California entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement and release of all claims against MTI Technology
Corp. (Nasdaq: MTIC) and certain officers in the consolidated
amended class action complaint entitled "In re: MTI Technology
Corp. Securities Litigation," filed Feb. 2, 1999. This action is
a consolidation of two prior complaints against the Company,
"Wei Xin, et al. v. MTI Technology Corp., et al.," filed Aug.
26, 1998, and "Kenneth Bernard Flynn, et al. v. MTI Technology
Corp., et al.," filed Oct. 30, 1998.

The agreement between the Company and plaintiffs provides for a
total settlement amount of $900,000. The Company's unreimbursed
portion of the aggregate settlement is approximately $100,000.
The settlement is subject to final approval by the Court.

According to a story in the Los Angeles Times, shareholders had
accused MTI of misrepresenting the negative impact of European
sales on first-quarter earnings and failing to notify investors
about delays in one of its product lines. Before announcing the
negative news, three MTI senior officers allegedly sold all
their shares for a profit of $2 million.

MTI is a provider of high-performance, cross-platform data
storage management solutions. MTI integrates distributed data
management software, a hierarchy of modular storage systems and
on-site services to meet the mass storage needs of its
customers. Headquartered in Anaheim, Calif., the company offers
services and support from more than 40 offices in the U.S. and

O'SULLIVAN INDUSTRIES: Shareholders Complain Merger is Unfair
Stockholder suits have been filed against O'Sullivan Industries
Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: OSU), the tenth largest U.S. furniture
manufacturer, as well as the directors of O'Sullivan and
Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Co., L.P. ("BRS") in connection
with the recently announced merger agreement with OSI
Acquisition, Inc., an affiliate of BRS. The lawsuits, which
purport to be class actions on behalf of O'Sullivan
stockholders, allege that the consideration to be paid to
O'Sullivan stockholders in the merger is inadequate and unfair
and that the directors of O'Sullivan have breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the transaction. The actions seek
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as damages.

O'Sullivan and BRS believe that the suits are without merit and
intend to defend them vigorously. O'Sullivan is a leading
designer and manufacturer of furniture. O'Sullivan products are
sold primarily through office superstores, mass merchandisers,
catalog showrooms, department stores, home improvement centers
and other retailers. BRS is a private equity investment firm in
New York that makes control investments in leveraged buyouts and

For more information, contact Terry L. Crump, Executive Vice
President & CFO, 417-682-8379, or Phillip J. Pacey, Treasurer,

PAULSON CAPITAL: Expects Dismissal from SF Securities Suit
PAULSON CAPITAL CORP is a defendant in Holly Millar and Bertram
Ostrau v. Pearce Systems International, Inc., et al., filed in
San Francisco Superior Court, State of California, in March
1996. An asserted class action, plaintiffs allege violations of
the California securities law, deceit, negligent
misrepresentation and unfair business practices relating to
alleged misstatements in the prospectus used in connection with
a February 1994, $5 million public offering in which PIC acted
as the managing underwriter. Plaintiffs seek rescission of the
offering as well as actual damages, interest, attorney fees and
punitive damages. No class has been certified. No date for a
trial has been set. Pursuant to a tolling agreement with the
plaintiff, the Company (but not PIC) expects to be dismissed
without prejudice from the lawsuit.

PIC and plaintiffs reached a settlement in principle in August
1998. The settlement is subject to court approval. The total
payment by PIC under the settlement would depend upon the number
of purchasers in the public offering who file valid claims. PIC
believes the maximum total payment by PIC under the settlement
would be approximately $920,000, but the actual payment could be
less, depending upon the number of valid claims filed. A
disagreement among the parties has arisen during the drafting of
the settlement agreement about terms that would not affect PIC's
maximum potential settlement payment. At this time, it is
unclear what effect this disagreement will have on the

If the case does not settle, the Company and PIC believe they
have meritorious defenses and intend to defend this matter

SCHERING PLOUGH: Updates Antitrust and Consumers Cases
SCHERING PLOUGH CORP. is a defendant in more than 160 antitrust
actions commenced (starting in 1993) in state and federal courts
by independent retail pharmacies, chain retail pharmacies and
consumers. The plaintiffs allege price discrimination and/or
conspiracy between the Company and other defendants to restrain
trade by jointly refusing to sell prescription drugs at
discounted prices to the plaintiffs.

One of the federal cases is a class action on behalf of
approximately two-thirds of all retail pharmacies in the United
States and alleges a price-fixing conspiracy. The Company agreed
to settle the federal class action for a total of $22, which has
been paid in full. The settlement provides, among other things,
that the Company shall not refuse to grant discounts on brand-
name prescription drugs to a retailer based solely on its status
as a retailer and that, to the extent a retailer can demonstrate
its ability to affect market share of a Company brand-name
prescription drug in the same manner as a managed care
organization with which the retailer competes, it will be
entitled to negotiate similar incentives subject to the rights,
obligations, exemptions and defenses of the Robinson-Patman Act
and other laws and regulations.

The United States District Court in Illinois approved the
settlement of the federal class action on June 21, 1996. In June
1997, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed all appeals
from that settlement, and it is not subject to further review.
The defendants that did not settle the class action proceeded to
trial in September 1998. The trial ended in November 1998 with a
directed verdict in the defendants' favor.

Three of the state antitrust cases have been certified as class
actions. Two are class actions on behalf of certain retail
pharmacies in California and Wisconsin, and the other is a class
action in the District of Columbia, on behalf of consumers of
prescription medicine. In addition, an action has been brought
in Alabama purportedly on behalf of consumers in Alabama and
several other states. Plaintiffs are seeking to maintain the
action as a class action. The Company has settled the retailer
class action in Wisconsin and the alleged class action in
Minnesota. The settlements of the state antitrust cases in
Wisconsin and Minnesota have been approved by the respective
courts. The settlement amounts were not significant. In August
1998, a class action was brought in Tennessee purportedly on
behalf of consumers in Tennessee and several other states. The
court has conditionally certified a class of consumers, but has
stayed the case pending the resolution of an earlier filed
Tennessee case, which the Company has settled in principle. In
April 1999, a state consumer case was filed in state court in
North Dakota.

The Company has also recently settled the state consumer cases
in all of the states except Alabama, Tennessee and North Dakota.
Court approval of those settlements has been obtained. The
settlement amounts were not material to the Company.

Plaintiffs in these antitrust actions generally seek treble
damages in an unspecified amount and an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.

During the first quarter of 1999, the Company agreed to settle
the consumer class action in California for approximately $1.625
million in cash and $8.34 million in free products donated to
certain California public health clinics. Court approval has
been obtained in all of the state consumer cases where
settlements have been reached.

SMITH & WESSON: Victims of Violence Seek Justice in Chicago
>From Chicago, UPI reports that a father of slain Chicago police
officer Michael Ceriale has filed a class-action lawsuit against
gunmaker Smith and Wesson, a Riverdale, Illinois gun shop and
various other handgun manufacturers. Ceriale was shot in the
line of duty last year. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
people killed or injured by handgun violence.

According to the United Press International story, Chuck's Gun
Shop and Pistol Range sold a .357 magnum handgun used to kill
officer Ceriale last August.

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Jury Begin Work on Florida Smokers' Case
After seven months, the nation's first statewide smokers' class-
action trial is almost ready to go to a Miami-Dade Circuit Court
jury for a verdict. Tobacco industry defendants rested their
case, concluding with Wednesday's testimony of James J. Morgan,
former president of Philip Morris U.S.A. Morgan said cigarette
companies do not target children to become smokers.

Susan and Stanley Rosenblatt are suing Morris, R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. and five more industry giants on behalf of sick
smokers seeking billions of dollars in damages. (Sun-Sentinel
(Fort Lauderdale, FL) May 21, 1999)

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Parties Dismiss Louisiana Landfill Lawsuit
The Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA) reports that U.S. District Judge
Ralph Tyson dismissed a class-action lawsuit targeting Waste
Management Inc. in connection with operation of the company's
Woodside Landfill. Tyson said he took the action as a result of
a joint motion by the plaintiffs and the defendants, which
included the company and David Mason, the landfill manager.

The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, which means the
plaintiffs may file another lawsuit if they choose. In fact,
Mason said Wednesday he would not be surprised to see additional
lawsuits aimed at "profiting from the people of Livingston
Parish and our company. "Mason described the dismissed lawsuit
as "frivolous" and "riddled with falsehoods." He added, "The
lawsuit against Woodside contained unsubstantiated and false
allegations concerning the landfill."

The lawsuit filed by Randy and Marilyn Wallace asserted Waste
Management allowed "leakage of waste into the groundwater."
Attorney Gerald L. Walter Jr. said he informed the plaintiffs'
attorneys in an April 29 letter that information available from
the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality would show no
leakage has occurred from the landfill. "There is absolutely no
evidentiary support for these factual allegations," Walter said
in the letter.

Vincent J. Desalvo, Jack Harris and Robert Liptak, the attorneys
who filed the lawsuit, could not be reached by the Advocate for

A number of residents have complained about the landfill in
recent weeks. Last week, the Livingston Parish Council
unanimously approved a resolution opposing a new 400-acre
landfill adjacent to the 100-acre Woodside Landfill. The company
operates Woodside for the parish and accepts both municipal
trash and industrial waste at the site. Waste Management pays
the parish a 5 percent royalty on the gross income from the
waste. (Advocate Baton Rouge LA; 05/20/99)


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  * * *