UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

     Litigation Release No. 16100 / March 31, 1999

     FINAL  JUDGMENT  ENTERED IN SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v.
     JEFFREY  NORTON,  DONALD   REYNOLDS,   EDWARD  MENSTER  AND  JOHN
     TARTAGLIA, 95 CIV. 4451 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.)


         On March 8, 1999,  a  final judgment of permanent injunction
     was entered against John Tartaglia in SEC v. Norton et al, No. 95
     Civ. 4451 (S.D.N.Y.).  The judgment permanently enjoins Tartaglia
     from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities  Act of
     1933,  and  Section  10(b)  of the Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
     10b-5  thereunder. In connection  with  the  settlement  of  this
     matter,   Tartaglia  agreed  to  pay  a  $10,000  civil  penalty.
     Tartaglia neither  admitted  nor  denied  the  allegations of the
     Commission's complaint for purposes of the settlement.

          On June 14, 1995, the Commission filed a complaint alleging,
     in   relevant  part,  that  defendants  Jeffrey  Norton,   Donald
     Reynolds,  and  John  Tartaglia induced Harold Thurman to deposit
     one million dollars into  an  escrow  account  controlled  by  an
     escrow  holder  at  a  New  York  City law firm to facilitate the
     purchase of "prime bank notes."  The  complaint  did  not  allege
     that  Tartaglia  was  a  party  to  the  escrow  agreement.   The
     complaint  further  alleged  that the prime bank note transaction
     never occurred and that Norton  instructed  the  escrow holder to
     wire Thurman's funds out of the escrow account, which Norton then
     misappropriated for his own personal use.

          The  Commission  has  previously obtained judgments  against
     Norton and Reynolds.  A permanent  injunction was entered against
     Norton,  who was ordered to disgorge  approximately  $824,000  in
     ill-gotten  gains  that  he  had misappropriated from Thurman.  A
     civil  penalty  was  not  imposed  based  on  Norton's  financial
     inability to pay.  A default judgment was also previously entered
     against Reynolds.

          During the litigation,  Tartaglia  filed a motion to dismiss
     the Commission's complaint which the court  granted  in  part and
     denied  in  part,  on  the grounds that one aspect of the alleged
     fraudulent transaction was  not "in connection with" the purchase
     or sale of a security, although  matters relating to the parties'
     escrow agreement were.  Tartaglia  also  filed a summary judgment
     motion.  The court denied this motion with  respect  to liability
     finding  that  there  were  issues  of  material  fact  regarding
     Tartaglia's  involvement  in  the escrow transaction, but granted
     the  motion  with  respect  to  the  disgorgement  claim  because