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

         UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 15030 / September 4, 1996

SEC v. GARY L. HAMBY and GARY B. ROSS  (United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, 96-Civil-1721, filed
August 30, 1996)

     The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on
     August 30, 1996, it filed a Complaint for Permanent
     Injunction and Other Equitable Relief (Complaint) in the
     United States District Court for the Eastern District of
     Missouri against Defendants Gary L. Hamby (Hamby) and Gary
     B. Ross (Ross).  The Complaint alleges that Hamby and Ross
     violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
     Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
     Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and that Hamby also violated Section
     207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act). 
     In addition, the Complaint alleges that Hamby and Ross aided
     and abetted violations of Sections 203(a), 204, 205(a)(1),
     206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rules 204-
     2(a), 206(4)-1(a)(5) and 206(4)-2 thereunder, and that Ross
     also aided and abetted violations of Section 207 of the
     Advisers Act.  The Complaint seeks a permanent injunction
     against the Defendants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and
     an accounting of funds received from the public.

     In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that from about
     April 1990 through about February 1995, Hamby and Ross
     engaged in an elaborate fraudulent scheme using the two
     investment advisers they operated, International Market
     Strategies, Inc. (IMS I) and International Market Strategies
     II, Inc. (IMS II).  During the course of the fraudulent
     scheme, they misappropriated client funds and made repeated
     misrepresentations in the offer and sale of securities.  In
     addition, IMS I and IMS II themselves committed several
     violations of the Advisers Act, all of which were aided and
     abetted by Hamby and Ross.  Among these violations were IMS
     I's failure to register as an investment adviser with the
     Commission, IMS I's collection of prohibited performance
     fees from clients, IMS II's filing a fraudulent registration
     form with the Commission and IMS II's distribution of false
     and misleading advertisements to the public.