SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                   Washington, D.C.

     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
     Release No. 38904 / August 6, 1997
        
     In the Matter of Ted Harold Westerfield,
     Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-9355

          The Commission has instituted public administrative proceedings
     pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
     ("Exchange Act") against Ted Harold Westerfield ("Westerfield").  In the
     Order, the Division of Enforcement alleges that from approximately April
     1990 through April 1991, Westerfield, while an account executive with
     Gruntal & Co., a registered broker-dealer, paid kick-backs to the portfolio
     manager of a mutual fund, which were generated from commissions on high-
     yield bond transactions by the mutual fund.
       
          The Order is based upon the entry of a permanent injunction against
     Westerfield and Westerfield's prior criminal conviction.  On  December 31,
     1996, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered
     judgment against Westerfield based on Westerfield's conviction for
     violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, for
     aiding and abetting violations of Section 206 of the Investment Advisers
     Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"), for conspiring to engage in fraudulent and
     deceptive business practices in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and for
     violations of the mail fraud statutes.  Westerfield was ordered to pay
     restitution of up to $105,465.50 to a mutual fund company, based upon the
     amount of his future income.  

          On June 3, 1997, the the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
     of New York entered a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction permanently
     enjoining Westerfield from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
     Rule 10b-5 thereunder, from violating, or aiding, abetting, counseling,
     commanding, inducing or procuring violations of, Section 204 of the
     Advisers Act and Rule 204-1(b)(1), (2) and (3) thereunder, and from
     violating or conspiring to violate Section 17(e) of the Investment Company
     Act of 1940.  Westerfield was ordered to pay disgorgement in the amount of
     $210,931, together with prejudgment interest in the amount of
     $133,896, with the proviso that Westerfield could offset restitution paid
     in the criminal case against the disgorgement ordered in the civil action.  


          A hearing will be scheduled to determine whether the allegations
     against Westerfield are true, and, if so, what, if any remedial sanction is
     appropriate in the public interest.  

             





                              ======END OF PAGE 1======