==========================================START OF PAGE 1====== U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Litigation Release No. 14805 / January 31, 1996 SEC v. Victor Strevel, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-2097 (N.D. Ga.). The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on January 25, 1996, a Final Judgment was entered in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Victor H. Strevel ("Strevel"), permanently enjoining Strevel from violating 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. Strevel was associated as trading department liaison with First Alliance Securities, Inc. ("First Alliance"), a now-defunct, Atlanta-based penny stock broker- dealer. Strevel consented to the entry of the Final Judgment without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's complaint. The Commission's complaint, filed on August 22, 1995, alleged that Strevel, without registration, acted as a de facto principal, and that in that role, coached the First Alliance sales staff in high pressure sales tactics, assisted in setting fraudulent, arbitrary prices for the securities First Alliance sold, enforced the firm's policy prohibiting net selling, and caused First Alliance brokers to make unauthorized purchases in customer accounts. In addition, the complaint alleged that Strevel caused the First Alliance sales staff to make misrepresentations to customers about the liquidity, suitability, and level of risk of stocks promoted by First Alliance, the current available market prices for those stocks, the reasons for increases or decreases in the prices of those stocks, the operations, financial condition, and prospects of the purported issuers of those stocks, the cost of executing trades through First Alliance, and the prospects that the stocks promoted by First Alliance would be listed on a stock exchange and would be profitable. The complaint further alleged that Strevel caused the sales staff to fraudulently fail to tell First Alliance customers that the firm was manipulating the prices of stocks it promoted and that the firm had a policy prohibiting net-selling, effectively preventing investors from withdrawing their funds from the firm.