SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

   Litigation Release No. 16958 / April 10, 2001

   SEC v. LAWRENCE PRINCIPATO and TODD ROBERTI, U.S. District Court for
   the District of Columbia, Case No. 01-MS-24 (D.D.C. January 8, 2001)

   The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it
   obtained a federal district court order directing defendants Lawrence
   Principato (Principato) and Todd Roberti (Roberti) to comply with a
   Commission order previously entered against them with their consent
   (Commission Order). On February 28, 2001, the Hon. Richard W. Roberts,
   of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia,
   issued an order under Section 21(e)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
   of 1934 directing Roberti and Principato to comply with the Commission
   Order. The Commission Order, which was entered on July 24^, 2001,
   barred Principato and Roberti from association with any broker-dealer,
   ordered Roberti and Principato to pay more than $748,000 in
   disgorgement and penalties, revoked the broker-dealer registration of
   L.T. Lawrence & Co, Inc. (LTL) and ordered Roberti, Principato and LTL
   to cease and desist from future violations of the anti-fraud and
   anti-manipulation provisions of the federal securities laws. The
   Commission Order resolved the administrative proceeding brought in
   June 1999, which charged that Principato, Roberti and LTL engaged in
   the manipulation of the initial public offering of two microcap
   companies, Bigmar, Inc. and Ecotyre Technologies, Inc. between
   December 1995 and June 1996. The Commission found in the
   administrative proceeding that Roberti and Principato, through LTL,
   artificially inflated the price of Bigmar and Ecotyre securities by
   controlling the distribution of both IPOs and then dominating and
   controlling the first day of aftermarket trading in both Ecotyre and
   Bigmar securities. Roberti, Principato and LTL consented to the
   Commission Order without admitting or denying the findings of the
   Commission Order, except for the Commission's jurisdiction.

   In the federal district court action, which was filed on January 8,
   2001, the Commission alleged in its application that Roberti and
   Principato have failed to make any payment of the disgorgement and
   penalty amounts required by the Commission Order. Judge Roberts
   entered the Section 21(e)(1) order after Roberti and Principato failed
   to file an answer to the Commission's application.
     _________________________________________________________________

Modified 04/11/2001