==========================================START OF PAGE 1====== SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 15114 / October 9, 1996 S.E.C. v. Axiom Security Solutions, Inc. and Paul L. Parshall, Civil Action No. 2:96CV-0825J (USDC UT). The Commission announced that on October 1, 1996, the Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah entered Final Judgments of Permanent Injunction against Axiom Security Solutions, Inc. (Axiom) and Paul L. Parshall (Parshall). The defendants were enjoined from further violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Axiom and Parshall consented to the injunctions without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations. Parshall was also barred from serving as an officer or director of a company filing reports with the Commission. In addition he must disgorge $150,000 and $7,594 in prejudgment interest, and pay a civil penalty of $100,000. The Commission alleged that Parshall set up a new Utah corporation, Republic International Corporation (New Republic), to assume the identity of a defunct, but publicly traded, Utah corporation with the same name (Old Republic). Through his own transfer agent, TransGlobal Securities, Inc., and working from a shareholder list for Old Republic, Parshall issued common stock in New Republic in the names of the shareholders of the defunct Old Republic and then sold the newly created shell corporation to Axiom, a private company, as a vehicle for taking it public. In addition, Parshall had New Republic assume the identity of Old Republic for purposes of delivering information to market makers and making filings with the Commission. Parshall prepared filings on Forms 10-K and 10-Q and caused New Republic to file them with the Commission. These filings falsely represented that New Republic was, in fact, Old Republic. Finally, after its merger with the New Republic shell, Axiom made filings on Forms 8-K and S-8 which contained material misrepresentations regarding the use of proceeds from the S-8 offering. ==========================================START OF PAGE 2======