SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

   LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 16641 / AUGUST 2, 2000

   SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. SANJAY SAXENA AND MUMTAZ SAXENA,
   Civil Action No. 98-11918-EFH (D. Mass.)

   SEC WINS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST AN INVESTMENT ADVISOR FOR VIOLATING
   A COMMISSION BAR ORDER AND FRAUDULENTLY SELLING UNREGISTERED
   SECURITIES

   The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced today
   that on July 25, 2000, the District Court in Massachusetts entered a
   final judgment against Defendants Sanjay Saxena and Mumtaz Saxena
   enjoining them from further violations of the registration provisions
   and the general antifraud and investment advisor antifraud provisions
   of the federal securities laws. The judgment also directed the Saxenas
   to pay disgorgement in the total amount of $304,703 plus prejudgment
   interest in the total amount of $62,501 and to pay civil monetary
   penalties in the total amount of $354,703.

   On September 18, 1998, the Commission filed a complaint alleging that
   in 1995 the Commission barred Sanjay Saxena from the securities
   industry due to prior securities law violations. Months later, Saxena
   and his wife, Mumtaz Saxena, implemented a scheme to evade the bar by
   setting up an investment adviser, Saxena Capital Management Inc., and
   two investment companies, Index Timing Fund L.P. and Saxena Growth
   Fund, for which Mumtaz Saxena was nominally the principal. In reality
   Sanjay Saxena was actively associated with these entities from the
   outset and their investment decisions tracked the recommendations in
   newsletters that he published over an Internet website entitled "Vital
   Information." The Commission alleged that Sanjay Saxena violated the
   bar by associating with the entities as well as by continuing to
   receive fees under a separate consulting agreement with a
   broker-dealer. Further, the Saxenas made material misrepresentations
   and omissions to investors in their companies and they failed to
   register the two investment companies with the Commission.
   Accordingly, the Saxenas violated the anti-fraud provisions of Section
   17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
   Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1)
   and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and violated
   Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 by offering and
   selling unregistered securities. Sanjay Saxena also violated Section
   206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. On June 30, 2000, the
   Commission filed a motion for summary judgement against the Saxenas
   which the Court granted on July 18, 2000.
     _________________________________________________________________