==========================================START OF PAGE 1======


                SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                         Washington, D.C 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ANDREW S. PITT, CONECTISYS
CORP., DEVON INVESTMENT ADVISORS, INC., B & M CAPITAL CORP., MIKE
ZAMAN, and SMITH, BENTON & HUGHES, INC., United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Civil Action No.
96-4164 (MRP) (ANx)

Litigation Rel. No. 15272 / March 4, 1997

     The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") today
announced that the United States District Court for the Central
District of California has granted the Commission's motion for
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in its pending
enforcement action against Mike Zaman ("Zaman") and the brokerage
firm he controls, Smith, Benton & Hughes ("Smith Benton"). The
Second Amended Complaint alleges that Andrew S. Pitt ("Pitt"),
Conectisys Corporation ("Conectisys" or the "Company"), and B & M
Capital Corp. participated with Zaman and Smith Benton in a
fraudulent and manipulative trading scheme.  The Commission also
alleges that Pitt, Conectisys, Zaman, Smith Benton and Devon
Investment Advisors, Inc. ("Devon") engaged in the illegal
distribution of unregistered securities.

     The Commission previously had alleged that from February 14,
1996 through at least May 28, 1996, through prearranged trading
and other manipulative activities, defendants Zaman and Smith
Benton, with the cooperation of other broker-dealers, caused the
price of Conectisys stock to soar from $6 1/4 per share on
February 14, 1996 to $22 per share on May 9, 1996; and that
thereafter, the stock continued trading at high prices, ranging
from approximately $17 to $22 per share, as a result of
defendants' manipulative trading practices.  From February 14
through May 28, 1996, defendants' manipulative activities
resulted in deceptively high trading volumes in Conectisys
securities: average weekly trading volumes were approximately
2,200 percent higher than during the previous three month period.

These dramatic increases in the price and trading volume of
Conectisys shares were a result of defendants' illegal conduct
and not indicative of genuine market interest.  The Second
Amended Complaint alleges that B & M Capital Corp., under the
control of Zaman, participated in the above-described scheme by
effecting trades of Conectisys stock in furtherance of the
manipulation.

     Until July 24, 1995, when he was placed on administrative
leave, Pitt was an Assistant United States Attorney in the
Central District of California.  The Second Amended Complaint
alleges that Pitt purchased a controlling share of Conectisys
(then named "Coastal Financial Corp.") in late November 1994, and
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======

operated it as BDR Industries, Inc. until August 7, 1995, when
Pitt purported to sell his controlling interest in the Company
for $10.00.  The Commission alleges that Pitt, in fact, retained
control of the Company and participated with Conectisys in
drafting a business plan containing detailed financial and
product information regarding Conectisys and two development
stage companies that it recently had acquired, PrimeLink and
Technilink.  The Commission alleges that the business plan
contains numerous false and misleading statements concerning the
Company, and that Zaman and Smith Benton used the business plan
in selling shares of Conectisys stock to the public.  

     In addition, the Commission alleges that on or about April
25, 1995, Pitt caused the Company to issue 64,000 shares of
unregistered common stock to Devon, a company under his control
and that Devon subsequently sold those shares to Zaman and Smith
Benton, who then sold those shares to the public in furtherance
of the manipulative scheme.  

     Based on the above allegations, the Second Amended Complaint
charges: (i) Pitt, Conectisys, Zaman, and Smith Benton with
violations of Sections 5(a) and (c), and 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"); (ii) B &
M Capital Corp. with violations of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act; and (iii) Devon Investment Advisors, Inc. with violations of
Section 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act; seeking an
injunction, disgorgement, and other relief.