UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

              LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 16121 \ April 22, 1999

              SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ENSERCO, INC., d/b/a ENERGY
              SERVICE COMPANY, JOHN P. BRINK, ANTHONY J. LEO AND FRANK BRAVO,
              JR.
              H-97-0983, USDC, SD/TX (Houston Division)

                   On April 14, 1999, United States District Judge Kenneth Hoyt
              entered final judgments by default against Frank Bravo, Jr.
              ("Bravo") and Anthony J. Leo ("Leo").  The default judgments
              impose a $100,000 civil penalty against each defendant, and
              continue the orders of permanent injunction and disgorgement
              entered previously against Bravo and Leo.  On August 15, 1997,
              Bravo was permanently enjoined by default from violations of
              Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
              ("Securities Act") , and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the
              Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
              thereunder and ordered to pay disgorgement in the amount of
              $699,975, plus prejudgment interest of $147,214.85.  Leo was
              permanently enjoined by default from violations of Sections 5(a),
              5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 15(a)
              of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and ordered to pay
              disgorgement in the amount of $244,066.60, plus prejudgment
              interest of $96,732.46.  Enserco Inc., dba Energy Service Company,
              which is now defunct,  was dismissed from the civil action on May
              15, 1998.

                   The Commission’s complaint alleged that the defendants raised
              approximately $3.6 million from investors in 39 states for the
              purpose of purchasing oil field equipment and pipe. Enserco was to
              resell the equipment and return a portion of the profits to
              investors. Investors were guaranteed returns of up to 25% per
              annum, with complete security of principal, and were told that
              there were no risks associated with the investment. Further, the
              complaint alleged that Leo and Bravo received undisclosed
              commissions for their efforts in selling Enserco securities.

              DEFAULT JUDGMENT ENTERED AGAINST FRANK BRAVO, JR. AND ANTHONY J.
              LEO


                   On April 14 United States District Judge Kenneth Hoyt entered
                   final judgments by default against Frank Bravo, Jr. and
                   Anthony J. Leo.  The default judgments impose a $100,000
                   civil penalty against each defendant, and continue the orders
                   of permanent injunction and disgorgement entered previously
                   against Bravo and Leo.  On August 15, 1997, Bravo was
                   permanently enjoined by default from violations of Sections
                   5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
                   (Securities Act) , and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the
                   Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5
                   thereunder and ordered to pay disgorgement in the amount of
                   $699,975, plus prejudgment interest of $147,214.85.  Leo was
                   permanently enjoined by default from violations of Sections
                   5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Sections
                   10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
                   and ordered to pay disgorgement in the amount of $244,066.60,
                   plus prejudgment interest of $96,732.46.  Enserco Inc., dba
                   Energy Service Company, was dismissed from the civil action
                   on May 15, 1998.

                   The Commission’s complaint alleged that the defendants raised
                   approximately $3.6 million from investors in 39 states for
                   the purpose of purchasing oil field equipment and pipe.
                   Enserco was to resell the equipment and return a portion of
                   the profits to investors. Investors were guaranteed returns
                   of up to 25% per annum, with complete security of principal,
                   and were told that there were no risks associated with the
                   investment. Further, the complaint alleged that Leo and Bravo
                   received undisclosed commissions for their efforts in selling
                   Enserco securities. [Securities and Exchange Commission v.
                   Enserco, Inc., et al., H-97-0983, USDC, SD/TX (Houston
                   Division)] (LR-               )

              Phillip W. Offill
              Fort Worth District Office
              817/978-6450