UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

          Litigation Release No. 15871/ September 3, 1998

          SECURITIES  AND  EXCHANGE  COMMISSION v. JAMES MICHAEL COGLEY and
          THE OHIO ESTATE GROUP, DEFENDANTS,  United  States District Court
          for the Southern District of Ohio, No. C2-98-802.

          The Securities and Exchange Commission announced  that  on August
          18,  it  obtained  by  consent an Order of Preliminary Injunction
          (the "Order") against James  Michael Cogley (Cogley) and The Ohio
          Estate Group (OEG).  The Order  restrains  Cogley from continuing
          to engage in violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
          1933 (Securities Act), Sections 10(b), 15 (a)(1)  and 15(c)(1) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act),  Rules  10b-5
          and  15c1-2 promulgated thereunder and Section 206(1) and (2)  of
          the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Order restrains OEG from
          continuing  to  engage  in  violations  of  Section  17(a) of the
          Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and  Rule 10b-5
          promulgated  thereunder.   The  Order also freezes the assets  of
          Cogley and OEG with the exception  of  payroll  payments  to  OEG
          employees  for  the  pay period immediately preceding the Court's
          entry of a temporary restraining  order  (the  "Temporary Order")
          against  Cogley and OEG on August 11, and the liquidation  of  an
          annuity in  Cogley's  name  for purposes of paying for his living
          expenses.

          On  August 28, the Court entered  an  order  by  consent  on  the
          Commission's  emergency  motion  to show cause why the Defendants
          should not be held in contempt.  The  order,  among other things,
          finds that Cogley and OEG violated the provision of the Temporary
          Order that froze Cogley's and OEG's assets.

          Since at least August 1997, Cogley and OEG have been engaged in a
          scheme  to  defraud  primarily elderly and retired  investors  by
          misrepresenting facts  relating to the use of invested funds, the
          safety  of  those  funds, and  the  return  on  the  investments.
          Moreover, Cogley and  OEG  failed  to  tell investors of Cogley's
          disciplinary and financial history and OEG's financial condition.
          The defendants received approximately $2,400,000 from at least 44
          investors.   Investors  were  told  that  their  funds  would  be
          invested  in  real estate or business development  projects.   In
          fact, less than  10%  of  the funds received were invested in any
          real estate projects.  The  majority  of funds were actually used
          to pay Cogley's personal expenses, OEG's  business  expenses  and
          principal and interest payments to earlier investors.