==========================================START OF PAGE 1======

         UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 15130 / October 21, 1996

Securities and Exchange Commission v. James G. Freeman, et al.,
(United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Civil Action No. C-96-2316-WHO).

     The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on
October 9, 1996, William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California entered an Order of
Permanent Injunction (Order) against James G. Freeman and 19
related companies enjoining them from further violations of
Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and ordering an
accounting, disgorgement and civil penalties against them.  The
Court will set the specific amount of disgorgement and civil
penalties in a subsequent hearing.   Freeman and the 19 related
companies consented, without admitting or denying the allegations
in the Commission's complaint, to the entry of the Order.

     The Complaint, filed on June 25, 1996, alleged, among other
things, that during the period from approximately April 1994
through April 1995, Freeman operated a nation-wide "Ponzi" scheme
involving nearly 500 investors and raising over $26 million in
proceeds.  As a part of this scheme, Freeman misappropriated
approximately $4.45 million from investors.  During the one-year
period, Freeman and the companies offered and sold promissory
notes ("Freeman notes").  The investor funds raised through the
sale of the Freeman notes allegedly were to be invested in
various European ventures.  The Freeman notes were renewable
every 9 months and guaranteed a 12% annual return.  In addition,
investors were promised a "longevity bonus" equal to 8% interest
on all funds maintained in the alleged investment for each year
the Freeman note was renewed.  In reality, however, Freeman was
operating nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme.  Freeman deposited
all investor funds into bank accounts under his control and used
the proceeds to make purported interest payments, pay exorbitant
commissions, satisfy unrelated business and personal expenses and
meet obligations to prior investors.

     Accordingly, in connection with the offer, purchase and sale
of securities, Freeman and the companies he controlled made
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact concerning the
nature of the investments, the legitimacy of the investments, the
use of investor proceeds, the returns to be generated, the