UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

          Litigation Release No.15851 / August 18, 1998

          SECURITIES  AND  EXCHANGE  COMMISSION v. JAMES MICHAEL COGLEY and
          THE OHIO ESTATE GROUP, DEFENDANTS,  United  States District Court
          for the Southern District of Ohio, No. C2-98-802.

          The Securities and Exchange Commission announced  that  on August
          11,  it  obtained  an  Order of temporary restraint against James
          Michael Cogley (Cogley)  and  The  Ohio  Estate Group (OEG).  The
          Order restrains Cogley from continuing to engage in violations of
          Section  17(a)  of the Securities Act of 1933  (Securities  Act),
          Sections 10(b), 15 (a)(1) and 15(c)(1) of the Securities Exchange
          Act of 1934 (Exchange  Act),  Rules  10b-5 and 15c1-2 promulgated
          thereunder and Section 206(1) and (2)  of the Investment Advisers
          Act of 1940. The Order restrains OEG from continuing to engage in
          violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities  Act, Section 10(b)
          of  the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.   The
          Commission  also  received an order freezing all of the assets of
          Cogley and OEG.

          On August 13, the Commission  moved  for  a  finding  of contempt
          against  Cogley  alleging  that  Cogley  had  violated  the Order
          entered on August 11.  In its motion, the Commission alleged that
          Cogley,  within  a  day of the Court entering the Order, violated
          two provisions of the  Order that froze his assets and prohibited
          him from receiving funds  for  investment.  The  Court  issued  a
          warning  to Cogley during the hearing on the Commission's motion,
          but  reserved   ruling   on  the  motion  until  the  preliminary
          injunction hearing scheduled for August 18.

          In it's complaint, the Commission  alleged  that  since  at least
          August  1997,  Cogley  and  OEG have been engaged in a scheme  to
          defraud   primarily   elderly   and    retired    investors    by
          misrepresenting  facts relating to the use of invested funds, the
          safety  of  those funds,  and  the  return  on  the  investments.
          Moreover, Cogley  and  OEG  failed  to tell investors of Cogley's
          disciplinary and financial history and OEG's financial condition.
          The defendants received approximately $2,400,000 from at least 44
          investors.   Investors  were  told  that  their  funds  would  be
          invested  in  real estate or business development  projects.   In
          fact, less than  10%  of  the funds received were invested in any
          real estate projects.  The  majority  of funds were actually used
          to pay Cogley's personal expenses, OEG's  business  expenses  and
          principal and interest payments to earlier investors.