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



                SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                         Washington, D.C.

Litigation Release No. 15091 / September 30, 1996

SEC v. Robert D. Poirier, et al., Civil Action No. 96-2243-PHX-
ROS (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 1996)

     The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed an action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona alleging
that Robert D. Poirier and Robert J. Palm engaged in a stock
manipulation scheme in connection with their sales of securities
of Garcis U.S.A., Inc., a distributor of athletic supplies and
apparel formerly located in Scottsdale, Arizona.

     The complaint alleges that from approximately September 1994
through September 1995, Poirier and Palm assumed substantial
control over the operations of Garcis, indirectly obtained a
controlling block of unregistered shares of Garcis and promoted
Garcis and its securities to the public using materially false
and misleading information.  Poirier and Palm concealed their
interest in and relationship with Garcis from the investing
public while selling at least 1.2 million shares of Garcis stock
for proceeds of at least $1.77 million.

     The complaint also alleges that James R. Vincent and Richard
E. Wensel participated in and assisted Poirier and Palm carry out
this scheme.  Vincent helped Poirier and Palm obtain control of a
substantial block of unregistered Garcis shares, avoid the
registration requirements of the federal securities laws and sell
those shares into the market at a profit.  Wensel, who was an
officer and/or director of Garcis, approved false and misleading
promotional material in furtherance of Poirier and Palm's
fraudulent scheme.

     The Commission charged Poirier and Palm with violations of
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and
Sections 7(f), 10(b), 13(d) and 16(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The Commission also charged Vincent with violations
of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and Sections
13(d) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act, and charged Wensel with
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and 10(b) of
the Exchange Act.  The Commission is seeking an injunction
against all of the defendants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains