SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 14882 / April  17, 1996
Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 773

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. STEPHEN R.B. BINGHAM, SUSAN
MCKENNA GRANT, AND WILLIAM MCCLINTOCK (United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, C.A. No. 96-10793EFH)

     The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on
April 16, 1996 it filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against Stephen R. B.
Bingham ("Bingham"), Susan McKenna Grant ("Grant"), and William
J. McClintock ("McClintock"), former senior executives of Alias
Research, Inc. ("Alias").  The complaint alleges that, under the
direction of Bingham and with the participation of Grant and
McClintock, Alias recognized revenue from transactions that did
not meet the revenue recognition requirements of generally
accepted accounting principles.  One of these transactions
involved a purported agreement to distribute $1.5 million of
software, the fourth-largest sale ever for Alias.  The complaint
alleges that, at the time of the transaction, the customer did
not have the ability to sell $1.5 million of Alias's products,
nor the ability to pay for the software.  Thus, according to the
complaint, the parties understood that Alias would not receive
payment for the product unless and until the products had been
resold to an end user.  In addition, the complaint alleges that
Alias had significant continuing sales and support obligations,
that no product was shipped during the quarter in which revenue
was recognized, and that the size of the transactions was
governed, not by the quantity of product that the customer
required, but by the level of revenue needed to reach Bingham's
earnings targets.

     With respect to the other transactions, the complaint
alleges that Alias entered into agreements not to collect payment
and to attempt to obtain financing for a purported purchaser that
was unlikely, because of its financial condition, to obtain
financing.  With respect to a $1 million transaction for which
Alias recognized revenue during the second quarter of fiscal
1992, the complaint alleges that an Alias executive signed a side
letter which excused the purchaser from payment of $750,000 of
the purchase price if the customer was not satisfied.  The
complaint alleges that the Defendants knew, or were reckless in
not knowing, of the terms of these transactions.  The complaint
further alleges that, between May 31 and July 2, 1991, Bingham,
Grant, and McClintock, while in possession of material, nonpublic
information regarding the true nature of the company's financial
condition, sold shares of Alias stock and, thereby, avoided
losses of $1,713,000, $1,370,000, and $358,282, respectively.

     According to the complaint, as a result of the improper
recognition of those transactions, Alias issued materially false
and misleading financial statements for the first and second
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======

quarters of its fiscal year ended January 31, 1992.  The
complaint alleges that Alias overstated revenue in the first and
second quarters by $1,909,000 and $1,000,000, respectively, and
that Alias reported a pretax profit of $888,000 for the first
quarter, when in fact Alias should have reported a loss of
$906,000.  In addition, the Complaint alleges that Alias reported
a pretax profit of $$1,164,000 for the second quarter, when Alias
should have reported income of $164,000.  The complaint further
alleges that the defendants caused Alias's materially false and
misleading financial statements to be included in the company's
Form 10-Q quarterly reports filed with the Commission and that
they made repeated false statements to accountants in order to
cover up their actions.

     The complaint charges that Bingham, Grant, and McClintock 
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities
Act") and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-2 thereunder, that
Bingham and Grant violated, under a control person theory,
Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(a) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
and Rules 13a-13 and 12b-20 thereunder, and, in addition, that
Bingham and McClintock violated Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder.

     The Commission is seeking an order permanently enjoining the
defendants from future violations of those provisions, requiring
them to pay civil penalties and to disgorge the amount of losses
avoided plus interest, and prohibiting them from serving as
officers or directors of a publicly-held issuer.