==========================================START OF PAGE 1======

             U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSI0N

Litigation Release No. 14935 / June 6, 1996  

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. MICHAEL CARNICLE, MICHAEL
HANSEN, WILLIAM STRAUGHAN, RANDY GLAD, LIONEL REIFLER, HOWARD RAY
and ARIE FROM, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-0110C (D. Utah).

     The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission")
announced that on February 13, 1996, Judge Tena Campbell of the
United States District Court for the District of Utah issued
Final Judgments of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief
("Judgments") by consent against defendants Michael Hansen
("Hansen"), William Straughan ("Straughan") and Lionel Reifler
("Reifler") enjoining them from future violations of the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.  Hansen also
was enjoined from future violations of the false reporting and
affiliated transaction provisions of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 ("Investment Company Act").  Additionally, Straughan was
enjoined from future violations of the affiliated transaction and
antitheft provisions of the Investment Company Act.  The
Judgments waive payment of civil monetary penalties against all
three defendants based upon their demonstrated inability to pay. 

     The Commission's Complaint alleges that, from January 1992
through mid-March 1992, Hansen, Straughan, Reifler and four other
defendants attempted to use shares of two new registered
investment companies known as Public Funding Portfolios, Inc. and
American Vision Funds, Inc. (the "Funds") as collateral for
millions of dollars of margin loans from securities brokerage
firms nationwide with knowledge that the publicly quoted net
asset values for the shares in the Wall Street Journal and other
newspapers had been grossly inflated.  

     The Commission's Complaint alleges that the defendants
became shareholders of the Funds by selling grossly overvalued
assets to the Funds.  These unmarketable assets, with a total
purported value of $165 million, consisted of stock and
promissory notes issued by shell corporations and nonexistent
shares of a Liechtenstein trust.  The Complaint further alleges
that after infusing these essentially worthless assets into the
Funds, the defendants, while seeking margin credit,
misrepresented material facts to brokerage firms concerning,
among other things, the net asset values for the Funds' shares
and the liquidity of the Funds' assets.

     The Funds were based in Los Angeles, California prior to
their dissolution by court order on March 31, 1992 in an action
brought by the Commission.  Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Public Funding Group, Inc., V. Thayne Whipple II, American Vision
Funds, Inc. and Public Funding Portfolios, Inc., Civil Action No.
92-1646 WDK (EEx) (C.D. Cal.).
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======