-------------------- BEGINNING OF PAGE #1 -------------------

                SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 14768 / December 29, 1995

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. JAMES McCURRY and WILLIAM
E. POWDRILL, III. USDC/WD LA/Shreveport Div/Civil Action No. CA-
95-0552-S

     The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the
entry of Final Judgments of Permanent Injunction against James
McCurry ("McCurry") and William E. Powdrill, III ("Powdrill") on
December 19, 1995 by the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division.

     McCurry and Powdrill consented to the entry of the Final
Judgments, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
Commission's Complaint.  The Final Judgments permanently enjoined

them from violating the anti-fraud provisions (Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act ("Securities Act") and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
thereunder) and the securities registration provisions (Sections
5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act) of the securities laws.
Based upon the defendants' inability to pay, disgorgement and
prejudgment interest was waived as to Powdrill, and civil
penalties were not imposed against either defendant.

     The Commission alleged that McCurry was the compliance
officer and operations manager, and Powdrill was a registered
sales representative and a director, of Biedenharn Investment
Group, Inc. ("BIG"), a Shreveport, Louisiana broker-dealer.  BIG,
formerly registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer,
ceased its operations in April 1993.  The Commission alleged that
from at least April 1988 until September 1992, Powdrill and
McCurry raised $12.8 million through the offer and sale of
Secured Recourse Non-Negotiable Promissory Notes ("notes") issued
by Towers Credit Corporation and Towers Financial Corporation
("Towers"), of which $5.2 million subsequently defaulted.  The
Commission also alleged that the defendants misrepresented the
safety of the notes by comparing them to Certificates of Deposit
and by claiming the notes offered high yields without the risks
associated with high yield investments, when they knew, or were
reckless in not knowing that the notes were speculative and
subject to numerous risks.  The Commission's Complaint further
alleged that the defendants falsely told investors that certain