UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
                         COMMISSION



         Litigation Release No.   15687  /   March  27, 1998

         SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. CITY SERVICES CORP.,
         et al., 98 Civ. 1867 (RPP), U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y.

         NEW YORK -- The Securities and Exchange Commission
         ("Commission") announced that on March 27, 1998, the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of New York
         issued a preliminary injunction on consent ("Order") against
         City Services Corp. ("City Services") and Joseph Burgio
         ("Burgio").   The  Order freezes the defendants' assets,
         preliminarily enjoins the defendants from violating the
         antifraud provisions of the securities laws, and
         preliminarily enjoins  Burgio from violating antifraud
         provisions applicable to broker-dealers and from violating
         the broker-dealer registration provisions.  The Order arises
         from a Complaint filed on March 16, 1998, in which the
         Commission alleges that City Services and Burgio
         fraudulently offered and sold City Services stock and that
         Burgio also was acting as an unregistered broker-dealer.
         The defendants consented to the Order.  The Court issued a
         temporary restraining order against the defendants on March
         16, 1998.

                  The Complaint alleges as follows:

              Since early January 1998, City Services and Burgio have
              fraudulently offered and sold City Services stock and
              have raised at least $350,000 from at least 33
              investors nationwide.

              City Services, Burgio and others working with them made
              telephonic "cold calls," and offered and sold the City
              Services stock to investors by means of a variety of
              false and misleading representations, including false
              claims that: (a) City Services would hold an initial
              public offering in the near future that would enable
              investors to more than double their money; (b) City
              Services was in the check cashing business; and (c) the
              funds raised in the offering would be held in escrow
              until the offering closed.  While soliciting investors,
              Burgio held himself out to be a registered
              representative of Three Arrows.  Burgio failed to
              disclose to at least some of the investors that he was
              also an officer of City Services.

              Burgio continued to solicit investors to purchase City
              Services after his association with Three Arrows
              terminated.  During the period he was associated with
              Three Arrows, he solicited investors without the
              authorization of Three Arrows.

              In its Complaint, the Commission seeks from both
              defendants an accounting and disgorgement of their
              unjust enrichment plus prejudgment interest, as well as
              civil penalties from Burgio.  The Commission also seeks
              permanent injunctive relief against (1) both defendants
              from violating the antifraud provisions of the
              securities laws, Sections 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;
              and (2) against Burgio from violating the broker-dealer
              antifraud provisions, Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange
              Act and Rules 15c1-2 and 15c1-5 thereunder, and from
              violating the broker-dealer registration provisions,
              Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act.

              The litigation is pending.