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

         UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 37272 / June 4, 1996

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AGAINST FORMER PARTNERS OF
MOORE & SCHLEY

     The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") has
instituted public administrative proceedings pursuant to Sections
15(b) and 19(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange
Act") against Robert Sayegh ("Sayegh"), Thomas Core ("Core"), and
John J. Cranley ("Cranley"), former partners at Moore & Schley,
Cameron & Co., a now defunct broker-dealer firm whose offices
were located at 45 Broadway, New York, New York.

     The Order Instituting Public Proceedings ("Order") alleges
that, between September 1987 and February 1989, Sayegh, the over-
the-counter trader at Moore & Schley, Core, the branch manager of
the 45 Broadway office and Cranley, the firm's managing partner,
participated in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the price of
American Depositary Receipts of the Institute of Clinical
Pharmacology, an Irish corporation.  The Order further alleges
that Cranley and Core, between August and December 1988,
participated in a course of conduct to manipulate the stock of
Chase Medical Group, Inc.

     On November 1, 1994, Cranley and Core were each enjoined, by
consent, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York from violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  SEC v. Militano, 89 Civ.
0572 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y. 1994).  

     On November 1, 1995, Judge John F. Keenan made findings,
after a two week trial, that Sayegh violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in connection with his
conduct in manipulating the price of ICP ADRs between September
1987 and February 1989 and permanently enjoined Sayegh from
future violations of these provisions.

     A hearing will be scheduled to determine if the allegations
against Cranley, Core and Sayegh are true and, if so, what
remedial sanctions, if any, are appropriate against each of them
in light of their conduct and the injunctions entered against
them.