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

             U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15366 / May 15, 1997

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. STEPHEN J. MURPHY
Civil Action No. CV 97-2719 JMI (CWx) (C.D. Cal.)

     The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission")
announced that on May 13, 1997, the Honorable James M. Ideman,
United States District Judge, granted the Commission's
application for a preliminary injunction to continue a freeze on
the assets of Defendant Stephen J. Murphy ("Murphy").  The asset
freeze shall remain in effect pending final resolution of the
Commission's lawsuit, filed April 21, 1997.  To further protect
investor funds, the Court additionally ordered Murphy to provide
a detailed accounting of his assets and enjoined him from
dissipating any assets and from destroying any documents related
to the fraudulent scheme.

     In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that since at least
June 1996, Murphy has offered and sold limited partnership
interests through a company doing business as ATM Global, Inc.
("ATM Global").  The limited partnership was to raise $2.8
million from investors and then acquire, own and operate
automated teller machines ("ATMs") nationwide.  ATMs generate
revenue through transaction fees charged to customers who use
them.  The written offering materials state that the projected
return to investors would be over 176% in the first year and 203%
annually in the second through seventh years.  Murphy designed
the limited partnership program and led the promotional and sales
efforts.  To date, Murphy himself has raised at least $327,500
from investors.

     The Commission's preliminary injunction application alleges
that, in offering and selling the limited partnership interests
to investors, Murphy misrepresented his identity by using the
aliases "Jack Davis," "Gregg Davis" and "Mike Fox."  Furthermore,
as set forth in the Complaint, Murphy failed to disclose the
entry of, and the terms of, a 1994 Final Judgment entered against
him in an earlier Commission action enjoining him from future
violations of the registration and antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws.  SEC v. American Capital Investments, et
al., Civil Case No. CV-93-5280 CBM (JRx)(C.D. Cal.)(Lit Rel. No.
14185).  Murphy also failed to disclose that in 1994 the
Commission had revoked his registration as an investment adviser
and barred him from association with any broker, dealer,
municipal securities dealer, investment company or investment
adviser.  Murphy further failed to disclose that another company
he owned and managed, American Capital Investments, Inc., was
placed into receivership.
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======


                              - 2 -

     The Complaint also alleges that Murphy violated Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and
seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, and other relief,
including disgorgement and civil penalties, against Murphy for
his latest violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws.