U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


     Litigation Release No. 15667 / March 11, 1998

     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ROB NITE; PHILIP L. THOMAS; DAVID V.
     SIMS, Civil Action No. 97-6546 DDP (RZx)  (C.D. Cal)

     On March 2, 1998, the District Court for the Central District of California
     entered final judgments of permanent injunction and other relief against
     Philip L. Thomas and David V. Sims prohibiting future violations of the
     antifraud provisions of Section 17 (a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
     Section 10 (b) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
     thereunder.  Thomas and Sims consented, without admitting or denying the
     allegations in the complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange
     Commission, to the permanent injunctions enjoining them from future
     violations of the federal securities laws.  The Commission waived payment
     of disgorgement and prejudgment interest, and did not assess civil
     penalties, based upon Thomas s and Sims s demonstrated inability to pay. 
     Litigation is still pending against Rob Nite, the sole remaining defendant,
     who is currently incarcerated in federal prison on charges unrelated to the
     Commission s action.

     On September 3, 1997, the Commission filed the complaint in federal
     district court in Los Angeles against Nite, Thomas and Sims alleging that
     they conducted a multi-million dollar fraudulent investment scheme
     involving the fictional trading of securities purportedly issued by major
     international banks.  The Commission s complaint alleged that from July
     1994 through October 1994, the defendants,  Nite, age 47, Thomas, age 43
     and Sims, age 47, offered and sold to the public interests in a phony
     program to trade these purported securities, amassing approximately $3.7
     million.  For their investment, the victims were promised astronomical
     returns on relatively small investments.  Specifically, the complaint
     alleges that the defendants guaranteed the victims that for an initial
     investment of either $50,000 or $150,000, they would receive returns of $1
     million per week for 40 weeks, or $40 million.  Contrary to their promises,
     the defendants did not invest the victims  funds, but instead
     misappropriated the funds for their own personal benefit, including
     donations to religious organizations, purchases of luxury automobiles and
     gifts to family members. 













                              ======END OF PAGE 1======