-------------------- BEGINNING OF PAGE #1 -------------------

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 14677 / October 4, 1995

SEC v. William P. Hoidas,  (U.S.D.C. N.D. Illinois, Civil Action
No. 95C5588, filed September 29, 1995)

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced
that on September 29, 1995, the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman,
U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois,
entered a Final Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction
("Order") against William P. Hoidas ("Hoidas") of Elgin,
Illinois, which enjoins Hoidas from further violations of
Sections 7(f) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 3(b) of Regulation X
promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.  Hoidas consented to the entry of the Order against him
without admitting or denying the allegations contained in the
Complaint.

The Complaint alleges that during the period from July 2, 1990
through August 6, 1990, Hoidas, the president of United
Environmental Corporation ("United"), which was located in Cary,
Illinois, engaged in a scheme to defraud broker-dealers
registered with the Commission and caused over $112,000 in losses
at those firms, by, among other things, making purchases of
United common stock without the ability or intent to fully and
timely pay for the purchases, manipulating the price of United
common stock, and making misstatements and omissions of material
facts.  The Complaint also alleges that Hoidas engaged in the
scheme for the purpose of supporting the price of United stock,
in an effort to directly affect the amount of financing United
would receive in a proposed loan, which was tied to the value of
United stock.

The Complaint alleges that, during the period described above,
Hoidas purchased a total of 106,000 shares of United common stock
in at least thirteen transactions at ten broker-dealers.  The
Complaint further alleges that Hoidas caused the price of United
stock to artificially increase from $1.16 to $3.35 per share
during the period by making purchases at increasing prices,
accounting for over 60% of the trading volume for United stock,
and purchasing United stock at new high prices on six trading
days.  The Complaint also alleges that Hoidas failed to fully and
timely pay for the United stock by failing to make deposits in
brokerage accounts and providing checks from bank accounts in
which he maintained insufficient funds.  In addition, the
Complaint alleges that Hoidas made misstatements and omissions of
material facts concerning his manipulation of the price of United
stock, his intention to support the price of United stock for the
purpose of affecting the amount of the proposed loan, his
delivery of funds to the firms, and his lack of ability or intent
to fully and timely pay for the United stock.