Litigation Release No.17399 / March 6, 2002

SEC v. Hawa Corporation, et al. Case No. 01-8220-CIV- Hurley (S.D. Fla.)(filed March 15, 2001)

SEC v. William J. Tishman, et al. Case No. 01-6952-CIV-Dimitrouleas (S.D. Fla.) (filed June 5, 2001)

SEC SETTLES CASES AGAINST ROBERT E. DUKE,
SAM SARA INVESTMENTS, INC. AND SHAVA CORPORATION

The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) announced today that it settled the civil injunctive action against Defendant Robert E. Duke, and Relief Defendants Sam Sara Investments, Inc. (Sam Sara) and Shava Corporation (Shava), in the matter of SEC v. Hawa Corporation, et al. Duke, Sam Sara and Shava, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's Complaint, consented to the entry of a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief as to Defendant Robert E. Duke and Final Judgment of Disgorgement as to Relief Defendants Sam Sara Investments, Inc. and Shava Corporation (Final Judgment), which the Court entered on February 20, 2002. The Final Judgment permanently enjoins Duke from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), Section 10(b) and 15(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5, thereunder. The Final Judgment also orders Duke, Sam Sara, and Shava to pay disgorgement in the amount of $274,295, but waives payment of all but $225,000 (to be paid to the Court appointed Receiver), and does not impose a civil money penalty, based on their sworn representations in their Statements of Financial Condition submitted to the Commission.

According to the Commission's Complaint, from at least December 1999 to March 2001, Hawa Corporation (Hawa), Hawa Communications, Inc. (HawaCom), and Hawa Med, Inc. (Hawa Med) raised approximately $6 million from the sale of shares to investors throughout the U.S., most of whom are doctors. The Complaint also alleged that Duke, among others, represented to investors, orally, through marketing brochures, and in an Internet website, that Hawa, HawaCom, and Hawa Med had combined assets of $160 million attributable to the companies' acquisitions of three "well-established telecommunications and technology firms" based in South America. The Commission's Complaint further alleged that, in reality, neither Hawa, HawaCom, nor Hawa Med actually owned any interest in the South American companies. [SEC v. Hawa Corporation, et al., Case No. 01-8220-CIV- Hurley (S.D. Fla.)(filed March 15, 2001)].

The Commission also settled the civil injunctive action against Defendants Duke and Sam Sara, in the matter of SEC v. William J. Tishman et al.. Duke and Sam Sara consented, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's Complaint, to the entry of a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief as to Defendants Robert E. Duke and Sam Sara Investments, Inc. (Final Judgment), which the Court entered on February 20, 2002. The Final Judgment permanently enjoins Duke and Sam Sara from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The Final Judgment further orders that no civil money is being imposed based upon the defendants' sworn statements of financial condition submitted to the Commission.

In the Tishman Complaint, the SEC alleged that, between 1996 and mid-1999, Medical Research Industries, Inc. (MRI) engaged Sam Sara, a South Florida boiler room headed by Duke, to complement its own sales force in the sales of MRI stock. MRI was a Ft. Lauderdale based company which allegedly manufactured and marketed homeopathic products, in patch form, for a variety of health concerns, including weight loss, sex, and sleep disorders. The Commission's Complaint further alleged that Duke and Sam Sara illegally sold MRI securities in unregistered transactions, and that Duke and Sam Sara acted as unregistered broker-dealers with respect to MRI stock. [SEC v. William J. Tishman, et al., Case No. 01-6952-CIV-Dimitrouleas (S.D. Fla.)(filed June 5, 2001)].

In a separate proceeding, on March 1, 2002, the Commission instituted settled public administrative proceedings against Duke pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act based upon the entry of the injunctions against him. The Commission's order bars Duke from association with any broker or dealer. Duke consented to the entry of the Commission's order without admitting or denying its findings, except as to the entry of the injunctions described above and as to the Commission's jurisdiction.