Gary Landon Davenport, dba Southwest Family Trust Service, Financial Marketing Service and Liberty Marketing Service, Russell Reeves, dba Enterra Marketing Service, Richard Earl Russell and Gregory Monroe Roberts

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 16585 / June 7, 2000

UNITED STATES v. GARY LANDON DAVENPORT, ET. AL. 7:99CR000013

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GARY LANDON DAVENPORT, dba Southwest Family Trust Service, Financial Marketing Service and Liberty Marketing Service, RUSSELL REEVES, dba Enterra Marketing Service, RICHARD EARL RUSSELL and GREGORY MONROE ROBERTS Case No. 7:99-CV-185-R, USDC, NDTX (Wichita Falls Division)

The Commission announced that on May 26, 2000, Judge Jerry Buchmeyer, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sentenced Russell Reeves to a term of 108 months in connection with his conviction for securities and mail fraud. Reeves is the third defendant to be sentenced for an investment scheme targeting senior citizens that had been ongoing since 1992. In addition, the Court ordered Reeves to pay $2,944,803 in restitution to the victims of the scheme. The Court previously sentenced Gary Landon Davenport, the ringleader, to a term of 20 years and Richard Earl Russell to 52 months.

Previously, on September 9, 1999, Judge Buchmeyer granted the Commission's request for a preliminary injunction in a related civil action. The Commission's Complaint alleged that approximately 100 elderly individuals were defrauded of over $2.5 million in the scheme. The indictments of the four defendants followed on October 20, 1999. Under the guise of providing estate and financial planning services, the defendants solicited information about senior citizens' assets and investments. Upon obtaining this information, the defendants encouraged the senior citizens to liquidate their retirement investments and to invest the proceeds in phony promissory notes offering higher rates of return. In fact, according to the Commission's Complaint, the issuers of the notes had no real business or did not exist and the defendants misappropriated, or stole, most of the elderly investors' funds.