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

         UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 15276 / March 7, 1997

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. FIRST INTERREGIONAL
ADVISORS CORPORATION, FIRST INTERREGIONAL EQUITY CORPORATION, AND
RICHARD GOETTLICH, CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-1144 (MTB) (D.N.J.)


     On March 6, 1997, the Commission filed a Complaint in U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that a New
Jersey broker-dealer, an unregulated affiliate, and their
president fraudulently obtained approximately $50 million in
connection with an ongoing Ponzi scheme involving the offer and
sale of revenue streams of equipment leases. Named as defendants
in the Complaint are: 

     First Interregional Advisors Corporation ("FIAC"), a New
Jersey corporation located in Millburn, New Jersey, which is
engaged in the finance and distribution of equipment lease
contracts in which federal and municipal government entities
typically are the lessees.

     First Interregional Equity Corporation ("FIEC"), a
registered broker-dealer located in Millburn, New Jersey at the
same premises as FIAC. 

     Richard Goettlich ("Goettlich"), 41 years old and a resident
of Mendham, New Jersey, who is the president of FIAC and FIEC.

     In its Complaint, the Commission seeks a temporary
restraining order, a preliminary and permanent injunction,
disgorgement and civil penalties against all defendants.  As
additional equitable relief against all defendants during the
pendency of this action, the Commission also seeks an asset
freeze, the appointment of a temporary receiver for the corporate
defendants, and an order prohibiting the destruction of
documents.

     Also on March 6, 1997, the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey issued an order: (1) temporarily
restraining FIAC, FIEC, and Goettlich from committing securities
fraud; (2) freezing the assets of the defendants (except the
assets of FIAC, which had filed for bankruptcy); (3) appointing
Richard W. Hill, Esq., as a temporary receiver for FIAC and FIEC;
(4) prohibiting the defendants from destroying documents; and (5)
directing the defendants to provide an accounting.  

     The Complaint alleges as follows: From 1992 to the present,
FIAC has been engaged in the financing and servicing of equipment
lease contracts which it purports to sell to individual
investors.  In exchange for an upfront payment, investors are
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======

told they have acquired a particular lease, or a group of leases,
with a specific government subdivision.  FIAC promises the 

                              - 2 -

investors a stream of specified monthly payments consisting of
principal and interest over the period of the lease.  FIAC has
purported to sell these leases to at least 1700 investor
accounts.  In fact, most of these investor accounts unknowingly
purchased a lease assignment that had already been sold to
another investor.  In furtherance of the scheme, FIAC, FIEC,
through which the leases are retailed to investors, and Goettlich
made material misrepresentations to investors including 1) that
investors were acquiring all rights, title and interest in bona
fide equipment lease obligations; 2) that the obligations
acquired by investors were obligations of federal or state
agencies and subdivisions and thus backed by the creditworthiness
of a government lessee; and 3) that interest payments on the
lease assignments were tax exempt.  The defendants also failed to
disclose that because FIAC had insufficient receivable streams to
back its sales to investors, FIAC's ability to continue making
ongoing payments to investors turned in part on its ability to
continue raising money from investors or from other borrowing.   


     In its Complaint the Commission alleges that FIAC, FIEC, and
Goettlich violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The Commission also
alleges that FIEC violated Section 15(c) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 15c1-2.

     The litigation is pending.