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

         UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. HUGHES CAPITAL CORPORATION,
LIONEL REIFLER, SUSAN LACHANCE, GILBERT BEALL, HOWARD ACKERMAN,
IRA VICTOR, FREDERIC MASCOLO AND THE ESTATE OF JOHN KNOBLAUCH,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 88-5238 (WGB)

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 14832 / March 4, 1996


          The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that
on February 16, 1996, the Honorable William G. Bassler, United
States District Court Judge for the District of New Jersey,
granted the Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment, on the
issue of disgorgement, holding defendants Hughes Capital
Corporation ("Hughes Capital"), Lionel Reifler, Susan Lachance
Reifler, Gilbert Beall, and the Estate of John Knoblauch, jointly
and severally liable for $1,394,252.40, plus interest.
Additionally, the Court held those defendants, plus defendants
Howard Ackerman, Ira Victor, and Frederic Mascolo, individually
liable in varying amounts for a total disgorgement award of
$1,950,562.98, plus pre-judgment interest of $2,381,595.69, for
an aggregate award of $4,332,158.67.

          The Court concluded that the defendants, each of whom
had varying levels of participation, orchestrated a sham initial
public offering in which they acquired all of the offered units,
artificially inflated the securities' price by disseminating
false and misleading information about Hughes Capital's business
prospects, and then sold the securities at a substantial profit.
The defendants raised almost two million dollars through the
scheme, laundered the proceeds through numerous controlled-
accounts, and used the funds for their own personal purposes.

          Previously, by Order dated September 2, 1993, the Court
granted the Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment against
Hughes Capital, Reifler, Beall and Knoblauch, entering a
permanent injunction against them under Section 20(b) of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("the Securities Act") and Section 21(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Exchange Act"), and
finding as a matter of law that they violated Sections 5 and
17(a) of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

          By Order dated December 9, 1994, the Court granted the