SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 44877 / September 28, 2001

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-10603

IN THE MATTER OF EDWARD BRACKEN AND DOUGLAS DIGGINS

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings

Pursuant to Sections 15(b) and 19(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Order") against Edward Bracken ("Bracken") and Douglas Diggins ("Diggins"). The two were formerly employed as registered representatives at a Solana Beach, California branch office of Cohig & Associates, Inc., a broker-dealer firm based in Denver, Colorado.

The Division of Enforcement alleges in the Order that on January 26, 2000, Bracken was convicted of one count of an information charging him with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud. United States v. Edward Bracken [No. CR-S-97-022-LDG (D. Nev.)]. In a plea agreement, Bracken admitted that, while associated with Cohig's office in Solana Beach, California, he conspired with others, including Michael Swan ("Swan"), then the president of Teletek, Inc., to receive undisclosed payments in return for selling Teletek stock to investors. In his plea agreement, Bracken further admitted that he failed to disclose this extraordinary compensation to investors.

The Division of Enforcement further alleges that on March 8, 2000, Diggins was convicted of one count of an information charging him with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud. United States v. Douglas Diggins [No. CR-S-96-271-PMP (D. Nev.)]. In a plea agreement, Diggins admitted that, while associated with Cohig's office in Solana Beach, he conspired with others, including Swan, to receive undisclosed payments in return for selling Teletek stock to investors. Diggins further admitted that he failed to disclose this extraordinary compensation to investors.

A hearing will be held at a time and place to be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are true, to provide Bracken and Diggins an opportunity to dispute these allegations, and what, if any, sanctions are appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors against Bracken and Diggins.