==========================================START OF PAGE 1======


                SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                         WASHINGTON, D.C.


LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15116 / October 9, 1996

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. MONARCH FUNDING CORP. et
al., 85 Civ. 7072 (S.D.N.Y.)

     The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on
October 3, 1996, the Honorable Leonard Sand, U.S. District Judge
for the Southern District of New York, issued an opinion and
judgment against the final two defendants, Richard Bertoli and
Richard Cannistraro, in a fraud action brought by the Commission
in 1985.  In addition to granting injunctive relief, the Court
ordered Bertoli to disgorge $1,466,000 in profits and
$1,076,079.16 in prejudgment interest.  

     In 1985, the Commission charged Bertoli, Cannistraro, two
other individuals, and one corporate entity with fraud and
registration violations arising out of their manipulation of the
stock of two issuers, Liquidation Control, Inc. and Toxic Waste
Containment, Inc.  The civil litigation was stayed from 1987
through 1993 pending a criminal proceeding against Bertoli.  On
June 24, 1996, the Court granted the Commission's motion for
summary judgment as to fraud against both defendants, based upon
Cannistraro's admissions in his plea allocution to charges of
securities fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States,
illegal transportation of stolen money, mail fraud, and
obstruction of justice, and the findings of the criminal court in
sentencing Bertoli for obstruction of justice.  The other three
defendants in the Commission's action previously entered into
settlements with the Commission whereby they were enjoined from
further violations of the relevant provisions of the securities
laws.  Two of the defendants agreed to be barred from association
with any broker, dealer, investment company, investment adviser,
and municipal securities dealer.

     In addition, the Commission has instituted an administrative
proceeding to determine what remedial sanctions, if any, are
appropriate against Richard Cannistraro based on his criminal
convictions and the entry of the injunction.  (See Administrative
Proceeding File No. 3-9140)