SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

          SEC v. Lisa C. Herbst, Civil Action No. 99-00621 SI (N.D. Cal.
          1999)

          Litigation Release No.16059 \ February 12, 1999


               The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") today
          filed an insider trading case alleging that an investor relations
          consultant obtained nonpublic information about three high-
          technology companies while performing services for them and used
          the information to trade in the clients’ securities before the
          information became public.  The action was filed against Lisa C.
          Herbst ("Herbst") of Pleasanton, California.

              The Commission alleged that between 1995 and 1998 Herbst
          engaged in illegal insider trading in the securities of the
          following three Northern California high-technology companies:

               Adobe Systems, Inc., based in San Jose, California
               Asyst Technologies, Inc., based in Fremont, California
               Splash Technology Holdings, Inc., based in Sunnyvale,
               California

          In the complaint,  filed on February 11, 1999,  in the United
          States District Court for the Northern District of California,
          the Commission alleges that Herbst had been hired to assist these
          companies with the preparation and distribution of press
          releases, and that she traded before the announcements on which
          she worked were made public.  In particular, the complaint
          alleges that on four occasions Herbst bought common stock before
          positive news announcements, and on one occasion she sold common
          stock before a negative news announcement.  Herbst is the owner
          of Herbst Consulting of Pleasanton.

               Herbst cooperated with the Commission’s investigation and,
          without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations,
          consented to a permanent injunction prohibiting future violations
          of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
          Herbst also agreed to pay a total of $32,799.67, including
          $15,791.50 in disgorgement of realized and unrealized profits and
          losses avoided, prejudgment interest of $1,216.67, and a civil
          penalty of $15,791.50.

               The Commission acknowledges the assistance of NASD
          Regulation, Inc., in this matter.

                                           SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
          COMMISSION

          SEC v. Gorman K. Wong, Civil Action No. 99-01094  (W.D. Wash.
          1999)

          Litigation Release No. 16061 / February 12, 1999

               The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") today
          filed an insider trading case against an employee of Physio-
          Control International Corporation ("Physio-Control").  The
          complaint alleges that Gorman K. Wong, age 32, of Bellevue,
          Washington used nonpublic information about Physio-Control’s
          impending acquisition by Medtronic, Inc. ("Medtronic") when
          buying Physio-Control stock in June 1998.

               The Commission alleged that in May 1998, Wong, who had been
          asked to prepare information used during the merger negotiations,
          was told by Physio-Control’s senior management that Medtronic
          would very likely acquire Physio-Control.  The Commission further
          alleged that Wong used the inside information concerning the
          acquisition in purchasing a total of 1775 shares of Physio-
          Control common stock during June 1998.  When the acquisition was
          publicly announced on Monday, June 29, 1998, Physio-Control’s
          common stock increased in price by over 14 percent, from $23.00
          on Friday, June 26, 1998, to $26.25 on June 29, 1998, enabling
          Wong to earn a profit of $8,068.75 from his insider trading.

               Wong voluntarily contacted the Commission about this matter.
          He has cooperated fully with the Commission’s investigation and
          has provided the Commission staff with helpful information.  He
          has agreed to settle the case by consenting, without admitting or
          denying the allegations of the complaint, to the entry of a
          judgment permanently enjoining him from future violations of
          Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
          10b-5 thereunder and to the payment of $16,237.31, including
          $8,068.75 in disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest of
          $99.81, and a civil penalty of $8,068.75.

               The Commission acknowledges the assistance of NASD
          Regulation, Inc., in this matter.