Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C.

Litigation Release No. 17595 / July 1, 2002

(U.S.D.C. D.C., Case Number 1 02CV00044, filed January 8, 2002).

   The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on June 11,
   2002, the Honorable Reggie B. Walton entered an Agreed Order resolving
   the Commission's Application for an Order Directing Compliance with an
   Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission Under Section 21(e)(1)
   of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and requiring W.J. Nolan & Co.,
   Inc. to comply with the Commission's Order and pay $192,028.29 in
   disgorgement and prejudgment interest within ten days of the entry of
   the Court's Order. The Commission's Application, filed on January 8,
   2002, alleged that W.J. Nolan failed to comply with the Commission's
   September 24, 2001 Order Instituting Proceedings, Making Findings and
   Imposing Remedial Sanctions, which among other things, required W.J.
   Nolan to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the amount of
   $192,028.29 within 30 days of the entry of the order. As part of W.J.
   Nolan's settlement with the Commission regarding its alleged
   violations of the federal securities laws, W.J. Nolan had previously
   consented to the entry of the order without admitting or denying the
   Commission's findings.

   In its , the Commission also found that between April and November
   1997, ten registered representatives at W.J. Nolan's offices located
   in Chicago, Illinois and on Park Avenue in New York engaged in a
   pattern of sales practice abuses, including churning customer accounts
   and making unauthorized and unsuitable trades in microcap and penny
   stocks. In addition, the Commission found that W.J. Nolan did not have
   in place a system of supervision reasonably designed to prevent and
   detect sales practices violations by the registered representatives in
   its Chicago and Park Avenue offices. As a result of this conduct, the
   Commission Order found that Defendant W.J. Nolan failed reasonably to
   supervise individuals subject to its supervision with the meaning of
   Section 15(b)(4) of the Exchange Act and willfully violated Sections
   15(b)(7) and 15(g) of the Exchange Act and Rules 15b7-1, 15g-2, 15g-3
   and 15g-6 promulgated thereunder.

   For further information, see (January 16, 2002).

     _________________________________________________________________

Modified 07/03/2002