SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15392 / June 24, 1997 ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT RELEASE NO. 928 / June 24, 1997 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. BRUCE A. MILLIKEN and RICHARD A. CRAWFORD, Civil Action No. 97-D-1314 (D.Colo). The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission') announced the filing of an injunctive complaint on June 24, 1997 in federal district court in Denver, Colorado against the two former chief executives of Random Access, Inc. Random, a former publicly-held Colorado-based computer reseller, was acquired by privately-held Entex Information Services, Inc. in 1995. The complaint arose from Random's scheme to generate revenue by obtaining from its suppliers reimbursement for undocumented promotional expenses. The Commission's complaint alleges that from 1991 through approximately January 1993, Bruce A. Milliken, then the chairman of Random's board of directors, and Richard A. Crawford, then Random's president, knew of and condoned the company's practice of submitting false or inflated expense reimbursement claims to certain of the hardware and software manufacturers with which it did business. The complaint further alleges that, as part of the scheme, Random's employees created sham invoices and otherwise falsified the books and records of the company, and that Milliken and Crawford knew or should have known of these actions. Further, the complaint alleges that Milliken and Crawford knew or should have known that funds received on these claims had the effect of inflating the income reported in the publicly-distributed financial statements of Random. In addition, the complaint alleges that Milliken and Crawford made, and caused others to make, false statements to the company's independent auditors in an attempt to conceal the scheme. Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, Milliken and Crawford agreed, without admitting or denying the allegations, to the entry of an order requiring each of them to pay a $50,000 penalty, and enjoining them from further violations of Section 13(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 promulgated thereunder. The proposed settlement of the action is pending before the court. ======END OF PAGE 1======