CAR_Public/991014.MBX                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Thursday, October 14, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 177

                                 Headlines

2THEMART.COM INC: Rabin & Peckel Files Securities Suit In California
ACXIOM CORP: Finkelstein, Thompson Files Securities Suit In Arkansas
ATTRANSCO INC: Agrees To Pay $16 Mil For 1990 Oil Spill From Tanker
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Settlement For Chicago Power Outages May Be Near
DOT HILL: Intends To Defend Vigorously Shareholders Suit Over IPO

DRUG PRICE-FIXING: Illinois Ct Determines Distribution Of Settlement
GENERAL NUTRITION: 3rd Cir Oks Dismissal Of Suit Over Disclosure At IPO
GPU ENERGY: NJ Judge Oks Class Action On July 4 Power Failure
HARRIS COUNTY: Sp Ct To Hear Overtime Issue Of TX Sheriff's Deputies
MATTEL INC: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit In California

MATTEL INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In California
OLSTEN CORP: Faces Derivative Lawsuit In Delaware
PARTY CITY: NJ Ct Directs Stockholders To File Amended Complaint In Oct
PSS WORLD: Receives Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Of Florida Suit
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: MI Sues, Charging Deceptive & Misleading Practices

QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Barrack Rodos Files Carolina Securities Suit
RED DOOR: Toronto Salon Slams Shut Without Severance Pay; Employees Sue
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In Florida
REVLON INC: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In New York
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit

TMP WORLDWIDE: Former Employees Sue For OT & Vacation Pay Under CA Law
Y2K LITIGATION: U.S. Y2K Act Will Affect Canadian Business

* More Female Employees In Securities Field May Sue Over Sex Bias

                             *********

2THEMART.COM INC: Rabin & Peckel Files Securities Suit In California
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
2TheMart.com Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: TMRTE) between January 19, 1999
and August 26, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that 2TheMart.com and certain of its officers
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning market readiness
of the Company's website during the Class Period. The Complaint alleges
that as a result of these false and misleading statements the price of
2TheMart.com securities were artificially inflated throughout the Class
Period causing plaintiff and the other members of the Class to suffer
damages.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Rabin & Peckel LLP. Rabin &
Peckel LLP. If you purchased or otherwise acquired 2TheMart.com
securities during the Class Period described above, you may, no later
than November 12, 1999, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff. To
serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal
requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this announcement, or your rights or interests, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, Elana M. Bourkoff, Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by telephone at 800-497-8076 or
212-682-1818, by facsimile at 212-682-1892, or by e-mail at
email@rabinlaw.com or at the website at http://www.rabinlaw.com


ACXIOM CORP: Finkelstein, Thompson Files Securities Suit In Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran has filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on
behalf of purchasers of Acxiom Corporation ("Acxiom") (Nasdaq: ACXM)
stock pursuant or traceable to Acxiom's July 1999 secondary offering.

The complaint charges Acxiom and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges
that on July 23, 1999, Acxiom completed a secondary offering of stock
pursuant to a Registration Statement/Prospectus that was false and
misleading in that it contained false financial results and failed to
describe the significance of Acxiom's recent contract renewal with its
largest customer, Allstate.

On August 29, 1999, Acxiom announced it was reducing its work force by
5% and laying off 250 employees. Then, on August 30, 1999, it was
revealed that Acxiom was disseminating false financial results, was
suffering from stiff competition and was lowering prices which would
have a very negative impact on future earnings. Acxiom's stock price
reacted swiftly and negatively to these revelations, falling to as low
as $17-11/16 on huge volume of 5 million shares, nearly $11 below the
offering price just six weeks earlier.

If you are a member of the Class described above, and if you meet
certain other legal requirements, you may, not later than November 19,
1999, move the Court to serve as a lead plaintiff. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact Vincent D. Renzi or Donald J.
Enright with Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, toll-free at
888-333-4409, or at 202-337-8000, or by e-mail at VDR@FTLLAW.com or
visit their Web page at http://www.FTLLAW.com


ATTRANSCO INC: Agrees To Pay $16 Mil For 1990 Oil Spill From Tanker
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The People of the State of California v. American Trading Transportation
Co. Inc., 646339 (Super. Ct., Orange Co., Calif.)

Attransco Inc. has agreed to pay $ 16 million to the state of California
and other plaintiffs to settle an environmental action that brought an $
18.1 million jury verdict in 1997. The state, the cities of Huntington
Beach and Newport Beach, Calif., and Orange County, Calif., sued
Attransco after an oil spill involving the company's tanker American
Trader. The incident occurred in February 1990 when the American Trader,
while attempting to offload oil at an offshore seaberth near Huntington
Beach, ran over its own anchor, which punctured its hull. More than
400,000 gallons of crude oil washed up on a 14-mile stretch of beach,
forcing sections of the beach to close for up to six weeks.

The plaintiffs also sued the owners of the oil and the seaberth
operator. These defendants settled before trial for a total of $ 11
million, said plaintiffs' attorney Michael R. Leslie, of Los Angeles'
Caldwell, Leslie, Newcombe & Pettit. In December 1997, an Orange County
jury ordered Attransco to pay the plaintiffs $ 18.1 million, including $
12.7 million for the lost recreational use of the beaches. Attransco
appealed but, after a mediation, agreed to settle in September, Mr.
Leslie said. (The National Law Journal 10-4-1999)


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Settlement For Chicago Power Outages May Be Near
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed multimillion-dollar settlement could be announced by year's
end in a class-action lawsuit against Commonwealth Edison resulting from
a series of power outages this summer, a lawyer for the class said.
Class lawyers anticipate that a settlement should be forthcoming soon,"
attorney Robert A. Holstein said after a court hearing.

Cook County Circuit Judge Ellis E. Reid entered an order conditionally
certifying a class for the purposes of exploring and negotiating
settlement. The class is expected to comprise more than 100,000
businesses and individuals who suffered damages stemming from at least
three power outages in Cook County from July 30 through Aug. 31,
according to lawyers for the class.

Stringent" settlement negotiations are expected to begin next week and
an announcement about a proposed settlement could be made by Dec. 31,
added Holstein of Stackler and Holstein in Chicago. The amount of
damages for class members could exceed $ 100 million, he added. ComEd
wants to get this behind them and move into the next century," Holstein
said outside court.

Charles B. Sklarsky, a Jenner & Block partner representing ComEd, said
that the company agreed to the conditional class certification order to
allow for settlement discussions. We're going to approach these
discussions with good faith and hopefully resolve the issues without
protracted litigation," Sklarsky added in a telephone interview.
Sklarsky said he doubts the class will exceed 100,000 members and that
damages would be anywhere near $ 100 million.

If a settlement is reached, Sklarsky predicted that payments for
property damage resulting from the outages will be in line with
settlements of substantially less than $ 100 million stemming from
previous power failures. We will vigorously defend on the issue of what
kind of damages we're going to be prepared to resolve," Sklarsky said.

During August, three lawsuits were filed on behalf of businesses and
individual seeking damages for losses incurred during the outages. The
three cases were later consolidated and are assigned to Reid. The
affected customers were in the Wrigleyville neighborhood, the South Loop
and the Greektown area west of the Loop, said Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr.,
another attorney with the Stackler & Holstein firm representing the
class. Reid must ultimately approve a settlement in the class-action
cases, he added.

In mid-September, ComEd issued an 800-page report detailing how it
allowed its power lines and transformers to deteriorate and spelling out
plans to fix them. The utility admitted in the report that poor
maintenance and lax oversight were factors in the power outages this
summer. Sklarsky estimated that ComEd has already settled between 9,000
and 10,000 of about 11,000 property damage claims filed by ComEd
customers affected by the outages.

Barbara W. Stackler, principal of Stackler & Holstein, and Chicago
attorney Larry D. Drury also are lead class counsel. The cases are
Anchor Management Inc., et al. v. Commonwealth Edison, No. 99 CH 11626,
99 CH 11954 and 99 CH 12339, consolidated. (Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
10-12-1999)

According to the Chicago Tribune of October 13, 1999, Commonwealth
Edison could face a potential pool of 200,000 plaintiffs in a single
court case over its July and August electrical outages.

The decision was designed to ease case management while reaching a
settlement for the "brownouts" that affected Wrigleyville, the South
Loop and Greektown between July 30 and Aug. 31. The purpose is to attach
all civil actions against ComEd to the first suit filed against the
electrical giant, thus freeing the courts from processing thousands of
individual cases.

The law firm of Stackler and Holstein, which is representing the
original plaintiff, Anchor Maintenance Inc., was appointed lead class
counsel. "Every business or individual who suffered some type of
damages, whether actual or consequential, such as lost business or any
type of personal injury, is automatically included in the lawsuit," said
Thomas A. Zimmerman of Stackler and Holstein.

ComEd already has settled out-of-court claims brought by 13,500
businesses and individuals inconvenienced by the power outages for
unspecified monetary sums, the company says.

Glenn Newman, associate general counsel for labor and litigation at
ComEd, said Reid's ruling allows both the plaintiffs and defendant an
out: Either side can end the class-action status of the suit at any time
if it appears a settlement cannot be reached without protracted
litigation. "This simply provides a way for us to see who the plaintiffs
are seeking to represent," Newman said. "It is not an admission that a
class is appropriate or would be certified if we are unable to reach a
resolution."

Due to the high-profile nature of the suit, however, Zimmerman said he
is hopeful that a settlement will happen quickly. He estimated that at
least 200,000 customers were affected by the outages and that damages
for personal injury and consequential recovery could exceed $100
million.

However, Newman said, legal rulings have declared that utilities are not
responsible for damages if the outage is the result of natural
occurrences such as weather. "Making utilities responsible for losses
from outages would make the cost of providing telephone or electrical
service prohibitively high," Newman said. "They would be in effect
insuring business."

Zimmerman countered that courts would rule differently on ComEd's
current troubles, charging that they stem from "negligence."

Stackler and Holstein have established a hot line for information on
joining the class action: 1-800-666-9066.


DOT HILL: Intends To Defend Vigorously Shareholders Suit Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The former conformed name of Dot Hill Systems Corp was Box Hill Systems
Corp. (Date of Name Change: 19970722).

In December 1998, four shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
against Box Hill, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of Box Hill's 1997 initial public offering (the
"Offering"). The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Common stock of the Company during the period from September 16, 1997 to
April 14, 1998 and allege that the Company made misrepresentations of
material fact and omitted material facts required to be disclosed in the
Company's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the Offering and in statements allegedly made by the Company and
certain of its officers and directors subsequent to the Offering. The
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims
and intends to vigorously defend against those claims.


DRUG PRICE-FIXING: Illinois Ct Determines Distribution Of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has
determined the distribution of certain settlement proceeds recovered in
a nationwide antitrust class action against manufacturers and
wholesalers of brand name prescription drugs. In re Brand Name
Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, No. 94 C 897, MDL 997 (ND IL,
Aug. 17, 1999); see Antitrust LR, August 1999, P. 14.

Class plaintiffs alleged a price-fixing conspiracy in which the makers
and wholesalers of brand name prescription drugs agreed to keep the
prices of the drugs artificially high for retail pharmacies, in
violation of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiff class essentially
included: People and entities in the U.S. who, between Oct. 15, 1989,
and Feb. 9, 1995, purchased prescription brand name drugs directly from
any of the defendants. It excluded defendants; other makers and
wholesalers of brand name prescription drugs; co-conspirators;
affiliates, parents and subsidiaries of the aforementioned; government
entities; mail order pharmacies; HMOs; hospitals; clinics; and nursing
homes.

The class included pharmacies of all sizes, from large chain pharmacies,
such as CVS, Walgreens, and Wal-Mart, to smaller independent pharmacies.
Several thousand independent pharmacies, drug store chains, and grocery
store chains chose to opt out of the nationwide class action to pursue
their own individual Sherman Act claims.

Over a four-year period, the class plaintiffs settled with several
manufacturer defendants, the proceeds of which totaled approximately
$723 million, of which over $700 million remains to be distributed.

To effectively and efficiently trace the millions of purchases of brand
name prescription drugs to most fairly and accurately allocate the
settlement proceeds among the class members, the district court decided
to rely on the massive data base of IMS Health, a leading provider of
pharmaceutical purchase and sales information. It determined the pro
rata or proportional distribution method is the most appropriate to
calculate each member's share of the damages. The district court
explained that each member is entitled to damages measured as follows:
its purchases of brand name prescription drugs as a percentage of all
class members' brand name prescription drug purchases for the relevant
time period.

Lastly, the district court concluded the universe of brand name
prescription drug purchases to be considered by IMS Health in its data
compilation would include purchases from all manufacturer defendants,
including the non-settling defendants. And the universe of drug
purchases to be considered for damages purposes should include all
purchases made during the class period, Oct. 15, 1989, to Feb. 9, 1995.
(Antitrust Litigation Reporter, September 1999)


GENERAL NUTRITION: 3rd Cir Oks Dismissal Of Suit Over Disclosure At IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Klein v. General Nutrition Cos., Inc., PICS Case No. 99-1592 (3d Cir.
Aug. 10, 1999) Wood, J. (6 pages).

The district court properly dismissed the claims of shareholders who
alleged that the disclosure materials relating to a public offering
contained material misrepresentations or omissions of fact, where the
disputed facts were either speculative, matters of public knowledge,
properly explained or not pleaded with particularity. Affirmed.

Plaintiffs are individuals who purchased shares of common stock in
General Nutrition Companies, Inc. (GNC) during a public offering.
Plaintiffs brought a class action in federal court alleging that
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about GNC's
operations, causing plaintiffs to buy their shares at artificially
inflated prices.

After the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiffs
appealed. Plaintiffs contended that the prospectus describing the public
offering did not disclose that GNC had lost advertising support, that
there was a worldwide shortage of certain important raw materials used
by GNC, and that GNC's expansion plans could have a detrimental impact
on profits. Plaintiffs argued that the omitted facts were material under
15 U.S.C. @ 77(a)(2) and 77(k) (the Securities Act). Plaintiffs also
charged defendants with making misleading statements after the
prospectus was issued in violation of 15 U.S.C. @ 78(j) (the Exchange
Act).

Defendants maintained that the alleged omissions related to facts that
were either immaterial, matters of public knowledge, or properly
described in the prospectus. After examining each of plaintiffs'
contentions, the Third Circuit ruled in favor of defendants on all
counts.

The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that at the time of offering,
defendants knew of a decline in advertising support from diet-product
manufacturers, but failed to disclose the possible adverse impact. The
court determined that the prospectus disclosed that third-party
advertising was declining and that plaintiffs' concern about the alleged
negative impact on GNC was speculative.

Regarding plaintiffs' claim that the prospectus failed to reveal the
existence of a worldwide shortage of a chemical component used in GNC's
products, the court noted that the shortage was a matter of public
knowledge. Because the Securities Act does not require defendants "to
state the obvious," the court ruled that there had been no disclosure
violation.

The court also rejected plaintiffs' charge that GNC failed to disclose
the possible negative impacts of its planned expansion. The court held
that because the prospectus contained "meaningful cautionary language"
regarding the predicted profitability of the expansion, the alleged
omission was not material as a matter of law.

As to the alleged Exchange Act violations, the court concluded that
plaintiffs had failed to identify with the requisite particularity each
of the statements alleged to have been misleading, the source of the
statements, and the reasons why the statements were misleading. The
court determined that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the heightened
pleading standard and/or failed to demonstrate the materiality of the
purportedly misleading statements. The court accordingly upheld the
district court's dismissal. (Pennsylvania Law Weekly 10-4-1999)


GPU ENERGY: NJ Judge Oks Class Action On July 4 Power Failure
-------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey judge agreed to hear a class action lawsuit seeking
compensation from an electrical utility for a power failure over the
steamy Fourth of July weekend.

The judge, Paul F. Chaiet of State Superior Court in Freehold, ruled
that all GPU Energy customers in New Jersey could be members of the
class, including tenants and employees of customers. He excluded people
with claims for personal injuries. The ruling is the first time that
class action certification was granted to people suing a utility in New
Jersey, said Frank S. Gaudio, a lawyer representing a Monmouth County
woman who was without power for three days.

His lawsuit and others filed on behalf of Monmouth County residents and
businesses maintain that GPU Energy failed to plan adequately for hot
weather.

GPU sought to have those cases dismissed, asserting that only the State
Board of Public Utilities had jurisdiction. A company spokesman said
officials were disappointed by the judge's decision. GPU officials have
said two transformer failures at a substation in Red Bank, N.J., could
not have been predicted. (The New York Times 10-13-1999)


HARRIS COUNTY: Sp Ct To Hear Overtime Issue Of TX Sheriff's Deputies
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether public employees who agree to
take extra time off instead of overtime pay can be forced to use the
time off at the employer's convenience. The court voted to hear
arguments by more than 120 Harris County, Texas, sheriff's deputies that
they not their government employer have the right to control when such
time-off credits are used. The deputies filed a class-action lawsuit in
1994 against the county, which includes Houston. The lawsuit said the
sheriff's department violated federal labor law by forcing them to use
accumulated time-off credits when they did not want to use them.
(Washington AP 10-12-1999)


MATTEL INC: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit In California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was released today by Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP:

Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against
Mattel, Inc. (NYSE: MAT) and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
The suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Mattel, Inc. between February
1, 1999 and October 1, 1999, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Mattel, Inc. and certain of its top officers and
directors with violations of the securities laws and regulations of the
United States. The complaint alleges that the defendants knowingly or
recklessly misled investors to enable Mattel to acquire The Learning
Company. On October 4, 1999, Mattel disclosed that The Learning Company
would incur a $ 50-$ 100 million loss rather than the large profit
forecast for the third quarter of 1999. Defendants' false and misleading
statements artificially inflated the price of Mattel common stock during
the Class Period.

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the court, no later than
December 6, 1999 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. In order to
serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements.
Contact Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Hae Sung Nam,
Esq. Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP (800) 290-1952 (212) 687-1980 E-mail
address: mail@kkf-law.com Fax: (212) 687-7714 805 Third Avenue - 22nd
Floor New York, NY 10022 TICKERS: NYSE:MAT


MATTEL INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In California
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued by the law firm of Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Mattel, Inc. (NYSE: MAT)
from February 1, 1999 through October 1, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Mattel and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements that Mattel's acquisition
of The Learning Company would be accretive to Mattel's 1999 and 2000
results. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members
and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, who has
significant experience and expertise prosecuting class actions on behalf
of investors and shareholders.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later
than December 6, 1999, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the
class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however,
you must meet certain legal requirements.

Contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP Andrew L. Barroway, Esq. Three Bala
Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
or 1-610-667-7706 Or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com


OLSTEN CORP: Faces Derivative Lawsuit In Delaware
-------------------------------------------------
On September 8, 1998, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"Amended Complaint") was filed by the plaintiffs in the four previously
disclosed purported class action lawsuits (Weichman, Goldman, Waldman
and Cannold) pending against Olsten and certain of its officers and
directors. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
(including Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

On October 19, 1998, the Company and the individual defendants served a
motion seeking an Order dismissing the Amended Complaint; that motion
was fully briefed on December 23, 1998. The Amended Complaint seeks
certification of the proposed class, a judgment declaring the conduct of
the defendants to be in violation of the law, unspecified compensatory
damages and unspecified costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees
and experts' fees. The Company has vigorously defended the Class Action.

On or about May 11, 1999, a Complaint was served in a derivative
lawsuit, captioned Robert Rubin, et al. v. John M. May, et al., No.
17135-NC (Delaware Chancery Court), which was filed against the
following current and former directors of the Company: John M. May,
Raymond S. Troubh, Jo[sh] S. Weston, Victor F. Ganzi, Stuart R. Levine,
Frank N. Liguori, Miriam Olsten, Stuart Olsten and Richard J. Sharoff.

The Complaint, which names Olsten as a nominal defendant, alleges a
claim for breach of fiduciary duties arising out of the Class Action
referenced above and Healthcare Investigations. Plaintiffs seek a
judgment (1) requiring the defendants to account to the Company for
unspecified alleged damages resulting from the defendants' alleged
conduct; (2) directing the defendants to establish and maintain
effective compliance programs; and (3) awarding plaintiffs the costs and
expenses of the lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On
September 10, 1999, the defendants in the Derivative Lawsuit filed a
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the lawsuit.


PARTY CITY: NJ Ct Directs Stockholders To File Amended Complaint In Oct
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Party City Corp. has been named as a defendant in the following twelve
class action complaints: (1) Weber v. Party City Corp., Steven Mandell,
and David Lauber, Civ. Action No. 99-CV-1252; (2) Opus GT Partners LP v.
Party City Corp. and Steven Mandell, Civ. Action No. 99-CV-1327; (3)
Klein and Shiffrin v. Party City Corp., Steven Mandell and David Lauber,
Civ. Action No. 99-CV-1325; (4) Flynn v. Party City Corp., David Lauber
and Steven Mandell, Civ. Action No. 99-CV-1328; (5) Catanzarite v. Party
City Corp., Steven Mandell and David Lauber, Civ. Action No. 99-CV-1317;
(6) Tabbert v. Party City Corp. and Steven Mandell, Civ. Action No.
99-CV-1353; (7) Maietta v. Steven Mandell and Party City Corp., Civ.
Action No. 99-CV-1386; (8) Barry v. Party City Corp., Steven Mandell and
David Lauber, Civ. Action No. 99-CV-1453; (9) Kurzweil v. Party City
Corp., Steven Mandell and David Lauber, Civ. Action No. 99-CV-1396; (10)
Hormel v. Party City Corp., Steven Mandell and David Lauber, Civ. Action
No. 99-CV-1689; (11) Sacher v. Party City Corp., Steven Mandell and
David Lauber, Civ. Action No. 99-CV-2238; and (12) Gross v. Party City
Corp., Steven Mandell and David Lauber, Civ. Action No. 99-CV-2355.

The Company's former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial
Officer and Executive Vice President of Operations have also been named
as defendants. The complaints have all been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaints were filed
as class actions on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired Party
City common stock during various time periods between February 1998 and
March 19, 1999.

The complaints allege, among other things, violations of sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seek unspecified damages. The plaintiffs
allege that defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning, among other
things, the Company's financial condition, adequacy of internal controls
and compliance with certain loan covenants. The plaintiffs further
allege that because of the issuance of a series of false and misleading
statements and/or failure to disclose material facts, the price of Party
City common stock was artificially inflated.

On September 13, 1999, the Court signed an Order appointing lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel to represent the classes alleged in the
complaints. The Order directs plaintiffs to file a consolidated and
amended complaint in October 1999.


PSS WORLD: Receives Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Of Florida Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PSS World Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq/NM:PSSI) announced that it has received
notice from the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida of the Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice filed on behalf of
the Plaintiffs in the class action suit filed by Kaplan, Kilsheimer &
Fox LLP on March 23, 1999, against PSS World Medical, Inc. and certain
officers and directors of the Company. The notice stated that the
Plaintiffs in the case further recite that there has been no settlement
or compromise of the claims asserted which would require further
consideration of the Court.


PUBLISHERS CLEARING: MI Sues, Charging Deceptive & Misleading Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Atty. Gen. Jennifer Granholm filed a lawsuit Tuesday against
sweepstakes giant Publishers Clearing House, charging deceptive and
misleading practices. "We want these sweepstakes promoters to deal with
consumers honestly," Granholm said in filing the suit in Ingham Circuit
Court. "The reality is these promoters target senior citizens."

Michigan is the seventh state to file suit against Publishers Clearing
House, the largest sweepstakes outfit in the United States. The other
states are Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana and
Washington.

In August, Granholm served notice on six sweepstakes companies, saying
she was considering legal action. The companies include Reader's Digest
and American Family Publishing.

Christopher Irving, director of consumer affairs for Publishers Clearing
House in Port Washington, N.Y., said he was "honestly disappointed" with
the lawsuit. "We think a settlement with the attorneys general is very
close at hand," he said.

One criticism Granholm made is that a proposed $ 10-million settlement
of a class-action lawsuit against Publishers Clearing House filed in
Illinois was too small. It would offer $ 4 million to pay claims.

A spokesman for the Michigan chapter of American Association of Retired
Persons praised the suit. Direct marketing and telemarketers are a "$ 40
billion-a-year scam," Steve Gools said. (The Detroit News 10-13-1999)


QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Barrack Rodos Files Carolina Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for Class Plaintiff, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, issued the
following:

A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Quintiles Transnational Corp. (Nasdaq: QTRN)
between July 16, 1999 and September 15, 1999, inclusive.

The complaint charges Quintiles and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws by making
misrepresentations about trends in Quintiles' business, and the
termination of a series of significant clinical trials. By issuing these
allegedly false and misleading statements, defendants artificially
inflated the price of Quintiles stock during the Class Period.

The plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine.
If you are a member of the Class described above, you may, no later than
November 29, 1999, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the
Class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however,
you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this case or your rights or
interests, please contact: Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations
Manager Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Counsel for Class Plaintiff 3300 Two
Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 800-417-7305
or 215-963-0600 fax number 888-417-7306 or 215-963-0838 e-mail at
msgoldman@barrack.com


RED DOOR: Toronto Salon Slams Shut Without Severance Pay; Employees Sue
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The exclusive Red Door is slamming shut on hundreds of employees at
Elizabeth Arden Salons across Canada. Hairstylists, massage therapists
and aestheticians who work at the upscale spas, known by its Red Door
trademark, have been told they will not receive any severance as the
salons - located only in Eaton's stores - close their doors in the
coming weeks.

Three long-time Toronto-area employees have launched a class-action
lawsuit against the salons, asking for damages of $15 million, in a bid
to collect termination and severance pay.

Officials at E. A. Salons Canada Ltd. of Islington, Elizabeth Arden
Salons, Inc., and Elizabeth Arden Salons Holding, Ltd., both based in
Phoenix, could not be reached for comment. Their lawyers at the Toronto
office of McCarthy Tetrault declined to comment on the case. The
companies have until mid-November to file statements of defence.

The lawsuit, which has yet to be certified as a class action, seeks
compensatory damages of $10 million and punitive damages of $5 million.
About 450 employees at scores of salons across Canada have been affected
by the closing of the salons, according to the statement of claim, which
was filed in Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto at the end of
September. Many employees worked on individual contracts that were
indefinite in length.

The plaintiffs, hairstylists Kathy Ellenberger, Nazeera Juman and Margie
Ing, say that the 12 weeks of termination notice they received was
insufficient. Ellenberger says she has worked at the Elizabeth Arden
Salon at the Eaton's store in Yorkdale Shopping Centre for 23 years. Her
co-workers Juman and Ing say they have been there for 27 years and 31
years, respectively.

Workers were told Sept. 1 they were losing their jobs, the court
documents show. Company officials said staff would be able to continue
working until Nov. 30, but many are salons that are closing this weekend
as the Eaton's stores where they are located shut down.

''These people require protection between jobs. The older workers are
entitled to it,'' said Loreta Zubas, lawyer for the employees.

Under Ontario's Employment Standards Act, employees with three or more
months of service are entitled to termination pay if they are released
without notice. The amount of termination pay depends on the employees'
length of service. Workers are also entitled to severance pay of one
week for every year of employment, to a maximum of 26 weeks of pay.

''I understand they've been told there is no severance payment plan,
whatever that means,'' Zubas said. ''It's very unclear what they're
being told.'' The defendants have so far not responded to employees'
questions about severance payments, the plaintiffs allege. ''It really
seems a shame we can't even deal with a straight information issue in
the midst of all this chaos that's going on with the store closures, ''
Zubas said.

The general manager of the Elizabeth Arden salons in Canada says in the
greeting on his voice mail that he moved to New York last month. The
phone number he offers for another contact is out of service.

The Toronto-area salons, located at the Eaton Centre, Yorkdale mall,
Sherway Gardens mall, Scarborough Town Centre and the Don Mills Shopping
Centre, have about 100 employees in total. ''After so many years, you
get a letter saying, 'This is it.' It's hard to take all at once - plus,
no severance,'' said one long-time Elizabeth Arden hairstylist who
didn't want her name used. ''After 20 years, it's a big blow. ''
According to the Notice of Termination of Employment that was
distributed to employees, E. A. Salons Canada Ltd. has made no
provisions for severance for its workers. ''E. A. Salons Canada Ltd.
does not have a severance pay plan,'' the notice says. (The Toronto Star
10-13-1999)


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Following is an Announcement by the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP:

A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida by investors of Republic
Services, Inc. (NYSE: RSG) on behalf of themselves and all others who
purchased common stock of Republic between January 28, 1999, and August
28, 1999, inclusive against Republic, and certain of its officers and
directors, H. Wayne Huizenga, James O'Connor and Tod C. Holmes.

The Complaint charges Defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, Defendants issued false and misleading statements and
misstatements, and failed to disclose certain adverse information
concerning the Company's acquisition of Waste Management, Inc. The false
and misleading statements and material omissions were designed to and
did deceive the investing public, caused the market price of Republic's
common stock to be artificially inflated, and caused plaintiffs and
other Class members to purchase Republic common stock at artificially
inflated prices.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later
than sixty days from October 12, 1999, move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead
plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights, please contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800)
575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Shane T. Rowley, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., or Michael Miske), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or
Isquith @whafh.com or Rowley@whafh.com or Nespole@whafh.com or
Miske@whafh.com or visit website at http://www.whafh.comTICKERS:
NYSE:RSG (All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Republic
Services.)


REVLON INC: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed on October
13, 1999, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
Revlon, Inc. (NYSE:REV) between October 30, 1997 and October 1, 1999
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that certain officers and directors of the Company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by, among other things, misrepresenting and/or omitting material
information concerning Revlon's revenues and results of operations.
These statements caused Revlon's securities prices to be artificially
inflated during the Class Periods.

Plaintiff is represented by, among others, the law firm of Stull, Stull
& Brody. If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not
later than sixty days from October 4, 1999, move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead
plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by calling toll-free
1-800-337-4983, or by email at SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-2022,
or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY
10017. TICKERS: NYSE:REV


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following is an announcement by the law firm of Pomerantz Haudek
Block Grossman & Gross LLP:

Stewart Misled Investors About Financial Results, Says the Pomerantz
Firm. Stewart Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq:STEI) and certain of its
officers and directors issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's earnings growth, business
environment and financial success, which resulted in artificially
inflating the price of Stewart's common stock. In particular, Stewart
was misleading as to its true financial condition and the impact
negative trends in the death-care industry were having on the company,
according to allegations in a Complaint filed by Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP.

According to the Complaint, the issuance of these false and misleading
statements caused the price of Stewart's common stock to be artificially
inflated during the class period and enabled Stewart's Chairman of the
Board to sell over 745,000 shares of his Stewart stock at artificially
inflated prices, reaping over $ 12 million in proceeds. The price of
Stewart stock fell dramatically once Stewart disclosed to the public on
August 12, 1999 that its business would decline as a result of
industry-wide trends.

If you purchased Stewart Enterprises common stock during the period
between December 15, 1998 and August 12, 1999, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and were damaged, you have until October 25, 1999 to ask the
Court to appoint you as one of the lead plaintiffs for the Class. In
order to serve as lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal
requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions,
please contact Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. of the Pomerantz firm at
888-476-6529 (or (888) 4-POMLAW), toll free, or by e-mail at
agtolan@pomlaw.com TICKERS: NASDAQ:STEI (Those who inquire by e-mail are
encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.)


TMP WORLDWIDE: Former Employees Sue For OT & Vacation Pay Under CA Law
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 19, 1998, a class action complaint was filed against TMP
Worldwide Inc.  by five former employees. The claims brought by the
plaintiffs in the complaint are that the Company (a) misclassified the
named plaintiffs and purported class members as exempt from the overtime
requirements of California wage and hour law and failed to pay them
overtime wages, (b) failed to pay accrued but unused vacation days at
the time of termination, and (c) failed to pay accrued but unused
personal days at the time of termination. The plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of 450 former and current employees who are similarly
situated. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims brought by
the plaintiffs and on March 18, 1998 responded to the complaint by
filing an answer denying all allegations. Management presently believes
that the disposition of these claims will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position, operations or liquidity.

In June 1997, a settlement of $275, which was paid by the Principal
Stockholder under an indemnity agreement with the Company, was made
relating to a November 1996 action of a former employee against Old TMP,
WCI and the Principal Stockholder. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the defendants breached purported contractual obligations
pursuant to which the former employee was entitled to an ownership
interest in the Company's recruitment advertising business.


Y2K LITIGATION: U.S. Y2K Act Will Affect Canadian Business
----------------------------------------------------------
Individuals or firms in Canada that have operations in the U.S. or that
do business with firms in the U.S. should be aware of the Y2K Act, a new
U.S. federal statute that limits legal liability in connection with
civil actions alleging actual or potential failures related to the Year
2000 (Y2K).

Enacted on July 20, 1999, the legislation declares that it is in the
U.S. national interest that "producers and users of technology products
concentrate their attention and resources in the time remaining before
Jan. 1, 2000, on assessing, fixing, testing and developing contingency
plans to address Y2K problems."

The following are the primary features of the Y2K Act. The full text of
the Act is available at www.senate.gov/ commerce/ issues/y2k.htm.

                            Application

The Act defines "Y2K failure"broadly as "failure by any device or system
(including any computer system and any microchip or integrated circuit
embedded in another device or product), or any software, firmware, or
other set or collection of processing instructions to process, to
calculate, to compare, to sequence, to display, to store, to transmit,
or to receive year-2000 date-related data."

The Act applies to most civil actions brought in a state or federal
court after Jan. 1, 1999, for Y2K failures occurring before Jan. 1,
2003, or for potential Y2K failures that could occur or have allegedly
caused harm or injury before Jan. 1, 2003.

The Act could also affect decisions taken by Canadian courts in lawsuits
conducted in Canada if, for example, the governing law for the matter is
U.S. law.

The Act does not apply to arbitrations, although an arbitrator might
choose to apply it, and does not apply to personal injury or wrongful
death lawsuits.

The Act does not apply to regulatory actions brought by U.S. government
entities, but does apply to commercial and contractual claims brought by
such entities.

                           Limits on liability

The Act caps punitive damages at the lesser of three times the amount of
compensatory damages or $250,000 U.S., but the cap only applies to
individual defendants whose net worth is $500,000 U.S. or less, and to
businesses having less than 50 full-time employees. The cap does not
apply to defendants who are proven to have acted intentionally to injure
the plaintiff.

Plaintiffs in tort cases cannot recover damages for economic loss unless
the recovery of these losses is provided for in a contract, or the
losses result from damage to tangible property or from an intentional
tort independent of a contract.

Generally, the Act makes defendants liable on a proportionate basis,
rather than a joint and several basis. A "deep pocket"defendant can only
be held liable for the loss caused by that defendant, and not the total
loss caused by all defendants.

A defendant can be held jointly and severally liable if the defendant
specifically intended to injure the plaintiff or knowingly committed
fraud. In certain narrow circumstances, defendants can also be jointly
and severally liable for uncollectible amounts awarded against
co-defendants.

Generally, the right of a defendant to recover amounts from
co-defendants is preserved, although certain time limits are imposed.

                        Mitigation, Disclaimers

Plaintiffs are expressly required to mitigate their damages (other than
those caused by a defendant's intentional fraud). Since this duty
applies in respect of information that the plaintiff knew or reasonably
should have known, generally the better a defendant's Y2K disclosure,
the higher a plaintiff's duty to mitigate.

The Act states that any written contractual term, including a limitation
or an exclusion of liability, or a disclaimer of warranty, is to be
strictly enforced unless the enforcement of that term would manifestly
and directly contravene an applicable state statute in effect on Jan. 1,
1999.

The use of the phrase "strictly enforced"gives rise to some confusion.
The intention of the Act seems to be to bolster the effectiveness of
such clauses so that defendants may enjoy increased protection under
them. Under U.S. contract interpretation doctrine (as in Canada),
however, "strict"enforcement of a contractual provision means that the
provision will be interpreted against the defendant.

                          Procedural Changes

Plaintiff's pleadings in actions alleging Y2K failures must provide more
specific information about the claim than is otherwise required in U.S.
civil actions. For example, in any Y2K action in which the plaintiff
alleges that there is a material defect (as that term is defined in the
Act) in a product or service, the plaintiff must also first provide
specific information regarding the manifestation of that material defect
and the facts supporting a conclusion that the defect is material.

Furthermore, in any Y2K action requiring the plaintiff to prove that the
defendant acted with a particular state of mind, the plaintiff must
first provide facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant
acted with the required state of mind.

While these pleading provisions may serve to prevent baseless "fishing
expeditions,"they will also make it more difficult and costly for
plaintiffs to bring actions to which the Act applies.

Plaintiffs must give a prescribed notice to each defendant before
commencing an action alleging a Y2K failure. After this notice is given,
the legislation provides for a remediation period of up to 90 days
during which the defendants may attempt remedial action or pursue
alternative dispute resolution.

Any applicable statute of limitations is tolled (suspended) during this
period.

Class actions are not permitted unless the Y2K failure results from a
defect in a product or service that affects a majority of class members
and that substantially prevents the product or service from operating or
functioning according to its specifications.

Some confusion is anticipated, as defendants may attempt to turn non-Y2K
litigation into Y2K litigation to take advantage of these procedural
benefits.

Because the Act's reach may extend to actions brought by Canadian
individuals or firms in the U.S. or Canada, Canadian counsel advising
potential plaintiffs in actions alleging Y2K failures involving U.S.
defendants should take note of its provisions (particularly those
relating to mitigation) and seek specialized U.S. advice on the Act's
application to their particular matters.

Douglas Harris practises corporate-commercial law with the Technology
Group of Tory Tory Tory Deslauriers &Binnington in Toronto. (The Lawyers
Weekly 10-1-1999)


* More Female Employees In Securities Field May Sue Over Sex Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. securities firms face a growing number of sex discrimination
lawsuits, and possibly millions in settlement costs, as women move into
more senior jobs and exercise a new right to take firms to court,
lawyers say. "There is still a lot of sexism on Wall Street," said Ted
Eppenstein, a New York attorney at Eppenstein & Eppenstein who has
represented plaintiffs in cases against securities firms. "It's going to
be aired in public and women are more tuned to what their rights are."

American Express Financial Advisors last week was charged with allegedly
favoring young, male financial advisers by giving them the most
lucrative accounts, more training and lower standards for promotion.
That followed a charge against Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. by a
bond saleswoman alleging, among other things, she was excluded from
male-only outings with clients and passed over for a promotion because
of her sex.

Salomon Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch & Co. are still grappling with
settlements of class-action suits brought in 1996 and 1997 on behalf of
thousands of female brokerage employees. The Merrill suit could cost the
biggest U.S. brokerage up to $ 250 million, plaintiffs' lawyers have
said. Merrill has disputed the figure, saying there is no basis for such
a large award.

The flow of complaints may turn into a flood as women move into more
senior jobs and experience discrimination beyond the sexual harassment
claims that have led to charges until now, lawyers said. What's more,
the National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock
Exchange in January abandoned a rule forcing discrimination complaints
into mandatory arbitration, freeing individual women to take their
claims to court.

"When women are younger and starting out, there is much more sexual
harassment and hostility," said Judith Vladeck, a Manhattan labor
lawyer. "As women move up the ladder, it is more discrimination in
promotion and opportunities."

Vladeck says that several hundred Wall Street women come to her firm,
Vladeck Waldman Elias & Engelhard, each year with both sex
discrimination and harassment claims. With the number of women working
in the U.S. securities industry having risen to more than 95,000, or
about 40 percent of the total, securities firms are recognizing that
their once-macho cultures have to change, if only to protect their
profits, legal experts said.

They've implemented programs for women's career nights, mentors and
confidential hot lines for reporting inappropriate behavior. Deutsche
Bank had more than 1,800 women signed up for its annual Women on Wall
Street conference at the World Trade Center, featuring six top female
executives speaking about their careers. "Our goal is making sure good
women get high-risk, high-reward assignments," said Mona Lau, head of
global diversity at Deutsche Bank. "We are sending out a message that
all women can feel empowered" within their firms.

Still, only 9.6 percent of the jobs that pay the most in salary and
bonuses, including investment banking and related businesses, are held
by women, according to a Securities Industry Association survey this
year. Such statistics may point to where the next charges against the
firms are brewing. (The Houston Chronicle 10-8-1999)


                               *********


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.  Theresa Cheuk and Peter A. Chapman, editors.

Copyright 1999.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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  * * *