UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 7459 / September 29, 1997 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Release No. 39145 / September 29, 1997 Investment Advisers Act of 1940 Release No. 1673 / September, 1997 Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-9448 In the Matter of Abraham and Sons Capital, Inc. and Brett G. Brubaker The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") today announced the institution of administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Abraham and Sons Capital, Inc. ("ASCI"), a registered investment adviser, and ASCI's president and sole officer, Brett G. Brubaker ("Brubaker"). The Commission charged that during the second half of 1995, ASCI and Brubaker provided investors in a private hedge fund with false information about the fund's performance and the value of the investors' investments. The Commission further alleged that ASCI and Brubaker provided this false information to an investor in connection with the $1 million purchase of additional securities in the hedge fund. Finally, the Commission alleged that ASCI violated Rule 206(4)-2 by having custody of clients funds and failing to have the funds verified at least once during the year. The Commission's Order alleges that at the beginning of June 1995, the hedge fund, Abraham and Sons Limited Partnership (the Fund), had a net asset value of approximately $12.8 million and approximately 50 limited partners. The Order further alleges that from June 1995 through December 1995, the Fund lost about half of its value and that while the Fund's value was plummeting, ASCI and Brubaker misrepresented that the Fund was earning money. The Order alleges that ASCI and Brubaker violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 (Section 17(a)); the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder); and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) (Sections 206(1) and 206(2)). The Order further alleges that ASCI violated, and that Brubaker aided and abetted ASCI's violations of, the custody provisions of the Advisers Act (Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-2 thereunder). A hearing will be held to determine whether these allegations are true, and, if so, to determine what remedial sanctions are appropriate and in the public interest. ======END OF PAGE 1======