U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 17113 /SEPTEMBER 4, 2001

   Securities and Exchange Commission v. Samuel M. Fodale, MBD No.
   01-MC-10280-WGY (D. Mass. August 27, 2001)

   U.S. DISTRICT COURT ISSUES ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE IN SEC SUBPOENA
   ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST SAMUEL M. FODALE

   The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced that
   on August 27, 2001, the United States District Court for the District
   of Massachusetts granted its application for enforcement of an
   investigative subpoena against Samuel M. Fodale. The court ordered
   Fodale to comply with the subpoena by producing documents on or before
   August 31, 2001. Fodale, a resident of Detroit, Michigan, is a
   director and significant shareholder of Competitive Technologies, Inc.
   ("Competitive Technologies"), located in Fairfield, Connecticut.
   According to the Commission's court filings, documents were sought
   from Fodale in connection with an investigation to determine whether a
   former registered representative in the Hyannis MA office of a
   brokerage firm and/or others may have violated anti-fraud provisions
   of the securities laws by effecting manipulative transactions in the
   securities of Competitive Technologies that affected its price and
   market.

   According to Court filings, Commission staff in May, 2001 issued an
   investigative subpoena to Fodale for the production of certain
   documents relating to, among other things, the purchase and sale of
   Competitive Technologies stock, agreements between Fodale and others
   related to the sale of the stock, and brokerage and bank account
   records. Fodale, however, failed to produce requested documents by the
   return date of the subpoena and extended deadlines set by the
   Commission staff. The Commission filed its application for enforcement
   of its subpoena on August 2, 2001. Fodale opposed the enforcement
   application claiming, among other things, 1) that he should be allowed
   to provide brokerage account numbers and bank account numbers rather
   than producing the actual records for such accounts, 2) that the
   specified time period in the subpoena was overly broad because it
   called for the production of documents predating the time period
   specified in the Commission's Formal Order of investigation,
   notwithstanding the fact that the Formal Order referenced that
   information had been reported to the Commission tending to show
   potential violations of the law "from at least October 1, 1999 to at
   least October 31, 2000," and 3) any production by him beyond the time
   period specified in the Formal Order should be conditioned upon the
   Commission's payment of his production costs.