==========================================START OF PAGE 1====== UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 14957 / June 20, 1996 SEC v. Alvis B. Rutland, Scofield Berthelot, William D. Cornett, Howard W. Jones, and Gerard A. Spataro (S.D. MS, Civil Action No. 1:93-CV-94 BrR) The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on June 7, 1996, the Honorable David C. Bramlette III, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, entered an order holding Gerard A. Spataro ("Spataro") in contempt for failing to pay disgorgement in the amount of $63,000, along with prejudgment interest, as previously ordered by the Court on June 17, 1994. The Court ordered Spataro to pay the disgorgement and prejudgment interest within 30 days of the date of the June 7, 1996 order. On September 24, 1994, the Commission filed a motion for an order to show cause why Spataro should not be held in contempt for failing to pay the $63,000 disgorgement as ordered by the court. In response to the Commission's motion, the Court entered an order on December 22, 1994, directing Spataro to show cause in writing, no later than January 3, 1995, why the Court should not hold him in contempt for non-payment of the disgorgement. Spataro neither responded to the Court's Order to Show Cause nor did he pay the disgorgement. In its complaint, the Commission alleged that, from January 1990 to May 1991, Spataro participated in a scheme to mislead investors by representing to the investors that he and others had obtained agreements with the Peruvian government and at least two international banks to encash or purchase 1875 Peruvian bonds. In fact, no such agreements existed. The bonds were considered unredeemable by the Peruvian government. On June 9, 1993, the Court entered an order of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief against Spataro from violating the antifraud provisions of the securities laws alleged in the complaint. On June 17, 1994, Judge Bramlette ordered Spataro to pay disgorgement in the amount of $63,000, plus prejudgment interest, which represented his proceeds from the scheme and which has not been paid. See also, L.R. 13601 (April 14, 1993), L.R. 13692 (July 1, 1993), and L.R. 14332 (November 15, 1994).