UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 15534 / October 16, 1997 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. WHITWORTH ENERGY RESOURCES, LTD., ET AL., Civil Action No. 97-6980 DT (SHx) (C.D. Cal.) The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced that on October 14, 1997, the Honorable Dickran Tevrizian, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, entered an order preliminary enjoining all six Defendants, Whitworth Energy Resources, Inc.; Williston Basin Holding, Corp.; Amerivest Financial Group, Inc.; Peter Sacker; Jerry W. Anderson; and Robert M. Kerns, from further violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and Exchange Act. The Order also provides that a previously ordered asset freeze will continue in full force and effect and prohibits the Defendants from transferring assets or destroying documents. The Court also denied the Defendants' motion to remove or limit the powers of the receiver, Thomas F. Lennon, who was appointed permanently to take control of the three corporate Defendants, and their affiliates, which are all located in Woodland Hills, California. Previously, on September 22, 1997, the Commission obtained a Temporary Restraining Order And Orders: (1) Freezing Assets; (2) Prohibiting The Destruction Of Documents; (3) Appointing A Temporary Receiver; And (4) For Accountings; And Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction And Appointment Of A Permanent Receiver. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants raised between $16 million and $19 million from over 500 investors by offering and selling securities in the form of interests in oil and gas wells. It is alleged that the Defendants were operating a Ponzi-like scheme whereby the source of distributions to investors, although represented to be oil and gas revenues, in fact is mostly other investor monies. Additionally, the Defendants in some cases do not own the oil and gas wells they claim to own. The Defendants also sold the same interests in wells to at least three different groups of investors. Furthermore, contrary to the Defendants' representations, investor funds were commingled and not safeguarded in escrow accounts. ======END OF PAGE 1======