-------------------- BEGINNING OF PAGE #1 -------------------

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Litigation Release No. 14700 / October 26, 1995        

SEC v. PAUL N. MOBLEY, JR., P.N. MOBLEY & CO., GARY R. DETTLOFF
AND THOMAS S. DRYSDALE, (E.D. Mich., No. 94 CV 70616, filed
February 17, 1994).

     The Commission announced that on October 13, 1995, the
Honorable Bernard Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan entered, by consent, final orders
against Paul N. Mobley, Jr. (Mobley), P.N. Mobley & Co. (Mobley &
Co.) and Thomas S. Drysdale (Drysdale).  The order against Mobley
and Mobley & Co. waived the previously imposed disgorgement in
the amount of $111,058 and prejudgment interest in the amount of
$18,588 and did not impose civil penalties based on their
demonstrated inability to pay.  The order against Drysdale
imposed disgorgement in the amount of $89,054 and prejudgment
interest in the amount of $17,500, waived the payment of
disgorgement and interest, and did not impose civil penalties
based on his demonstrated inability to pay.  The Court previously
had permanently enjoined Mobley and Mobley & Co., by their
consent, from future violations of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5 and 10b-9
thereunder for making false and misleading statements to
investors, misappropriating investor funds and violating the all-
or-none provisions of the offerings.  The Court also had
permanently enjoined Drysdale, by his consent, from future
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 10b-9 thereunder
for making false and misleading statements to investors and
misappropriating investor funds.  As a result, Gary R. Dettloff
(Dettloff) is the only remaining defendant to this action.

     The Complaint filed in this action alleged that from March
1991 to April 1992, Mobley, acting through Mobley & Co., promoted
a limited partnership offering for the Pensacola Limited
Partnership (Pensacola) and Cantonment Limited Partnership
(Cantonment).  These partnerships, which collectively raised at
least $766,000 from 44 investors, were formed to purchase
specific convenience stores.  In connection with these offerings,
the Complaint alleged that Mobley, Mobley & Co, and Dettloff, the
general partner of the partnerships, misrepresented and omitted
to state material facts to investors concerning the intended use
of investor proceeds, the all-or-none safeguards of the
offerings, the use of escrow bank accounts, Mobley's undisclosed
control of the partnerships and Mobley's criminal background.  

-------------------- BEGINNING OF PAGE #2 -------------------

                               -2-

     As to Drysdale, the Complaint alleged that from December
1991 to at least January 1992, in part to repay Pensacola and
Cantonment funds, Drysdale promoted a limited partnership
offering for the Omega Limited Partnership (Omega).  The
Complaint alleged that during this period, Omega raised at least
$87,000 from four investors.  In connection with this offering,
the Complaint charged that Drysdale misrepresented and omitted to
state material facts to investors concerning the use of investor
proceeds, and the risk, liquidity and profitability of the Omega
units.