U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 17444 / March 27, 2002

   UNREGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISER CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT
   JUSTICE, FRAUD AND MONEY LAUNDERING

   U.S. v. REED E. SLATKIN, No. CR 02-313 (C.D. Cal.)

   The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that Reed E.
   Slatkin was charged with 15 felony charges, including mail and wire
   fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to obstruct justice during an
   SEC enforcement investigation, for soliciting nearly $600 million from
   over 800 investors during a 15-year period. Slatkin agreed to plead
   guilty to the 15 charges and he agreed to surrender to federal custody
   when he is arraigned in April.

   In his plea agreement, Slatkin admitted that, when the SEC began a
   formal investigation of his activities in 1999, he and other
   co-conspirators provided false documents to the SEC to obstruct the
   investigation and to conceal the fact that his investment program was
   a massive Ponzi scheme. These documents included fabricated
   correspondence and account statements. Slatkin also admitted that he
   had lied to the SEC under oath about the success of his investments,
   the accuracy of account statements, and his intention not to accept
   additional investor funds.

   On May 11, 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission")
   obtained a temporary restraining order and asset freeze against
   Slatkin, a co-founder, former director and substantial shareholder of
   Earthlink, Inc., in federal district court in Los Angeles. The
   Commission alleged that Slatkin defrauded hundreds of clients through
   his unregistered investment advisory business located in Santa
   Barbara, California.

   On June 7, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
   California entered a Judgment of Permanent Injunction against Reed E.
   Slatkin. The judgment enjoins Slatkin from future violations of the
   antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
   Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
   thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers
   Act of 1940 and the investment adviser registration provisions of
   Section 203(a) of the Advisers Act. The judgment provides that the
   amount of disgorgement and civil penalties that Slatkin will have to
   pay, will be determined later. Slatkin, without admitting or denying
   the allegations in the complaint, consented to the entry of the
   injunction. Slatkin has also been barred by the Commission from
   associating with any investment adviser.