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

         UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No.  15315 / April 4, 1997

SEC v. Abul Bhuiyan, Nilkanth Patel, Hasmukh Patel, Janak C.
Patel, Janak M. Patel and Kanubhai Patel, 96 Civ. 4384 (JS)
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 1996)

     The Commission announced today that, on March 26, 1997, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entered final judgments against five defendants whom the
Commission charged with obtaining more than $128,000.00 through
illegal trading in securities of Royce Laboratories, Inc.
("Royce").  Specifically, Nilkanth Patel, Hasmukh Patel, Janak C.
Patel, Janak M. Patel, and Kanubhai Patel each was permanently
enjoined from future violations of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5.  The court
ordered these defendants to pay a total of $128,190.00 in
disgorgement, $51,604.87 in prejudgment interest, and $74,677.38
in civil penalties under the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud
Enforcement Act of 1988 ("ITSFEA") as follows:

     Nilkanth Patel's final judgment orders him to pay
     $49,190.00 in disgorgement plus $22,290.61 in
     prejudgment interest and an ITSFEA penalty of
     $49,190.00.

     Hasmukh Patel's final judgment orders him to pay
     $13,273.25 in disgorgement plus $6,014.82 in
     prejudgment interest and does not impose an ITSFEA
     penalty based on his demonstrated inability to pay.

     Janak C. Patel's final judgment orders him to pay
     $23,236.75 in disgorgement plus $10,529.81 in
     prejudgment interest and an ITSFEA penalty of
     $11,618.38 based on his demonstrated inability to pay a
     greater penalty. 

     Janak M. Patel's final judgment orders him to pay
     $28,621.00 in disgorgement plus $6,484.85 in
     prejudgment interest and does not impose an ITSFEA
     penalty based on his demonstrated inability to pay.

     Kanubai Patel's final judgment orders him to pay
     $13,869.00 in disgorgement plus $6,284.78 in
     prejudgment interest and an ITSFEA penalty of
     $13,869.00.


     Previously, the court had entered a final judgment against
the remaining defendant, Abul Bhuiyan, permanently enjoining him
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======

from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5, and ordering him to pay an ITSFEA penalty of
$1,811.00.  The Commission did not seek disgorgement or
prejudgment interest from Abul Bhuiyan because he repaid his
illegal profits to Royce, his employer.

     Any disgorgement and prejudgment interest paid by defendants
will be held by the court for the benefit of persons who submit
valid claims arising under the federal securities laws by reason
of the conduct alleged against the defendants in the Complaint,
which alleges two rounds of illegal trading.  In the first round,
Abul Bhuiyan, Royce's executive vice president, Nilkanth Patel,
formerly Royce's Director of Research and Development, and
Hasmukh Patel, a Royce chemist, purchased Royce securities in
September 1991 while in possession of material, nonpublic
information that Royce was about to receive or had received
tentative approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to
market the generic drug Piroxicam.  Also, Nilkanth Patel tipped
his friends Janak C. Patel and Janak M. Patel, Janak C. Patel
tipped his relative, Kanubhai Patel, and Hasmukh Patel tipped a
relative, each of whom illegally purchased Royce securities.  In
the second round, Nilkanth Patel learned material, nonpublic
information concerning an adverse change in the approval status
of Piroxicam and shared this information with Hasmukh Patel. 
Nilkanth Patel tipped Janak C. Patel, who tipped Janak M. Patel
and Kanubhai Patel.  Each then illegally sold Royce stock before
Royce's public announcement on April 22, 1992 that the FDA had
denied final approval of Piroxicam.

     Each defendant consented to the entry of the final judgment
against him without admitting or denying the allegations in the
Complaint.  

     For further information, see Litigation Release No. 15033
(Sept. 5, 1996).