UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

             Litigation Release No.  15715  / April 21, 1998

             SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. THOMAS EDWARD
             CAVANAGH, U.S. MILESTONE, ELECTRO-OPTICAL SYSTEMS CORP.,
             GEORGE CHACHAS, THOMAS R. BROOKSBANK, WILLIAM N. LEVY,
             OPTIMUM FUND, AGIRA TRADING, CUSTOMER SAFETY, S.L.,
             CAMBIARES, S.L., CONSTRUCCIONES SOLARIEGAS, S.L., THOMAS A.
             HANTGES, COSIMO TACOPINO, ET AL., 98 Civil Action No. 1818
             (S.D.N.Y.)

             On April 20, 1998, Judge Denise Cote of the United States
             District Court for the Southern District of New York entered
             a preliminary injunction prohibiting future violations of
             Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
             Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the
             primary perpetrators of  a market manipulation scheme in the
             stock of Electro-Optical Systems, Corp. ("EOSC").  Judge
             Cote also extended the asset freeze, initially ordered on
             March 13, as to all proceeds from the defendants' sales of
             EOSC shares as well as to any shares of EOSC that remain in
             their custody or control.  In a 122-page opinion, Judge Cote
             noted that the case "concerns a scheme through which the
             defendants reaped millions of dollars in profits at the
             expense of the American investor by creating active trading
             in the United States securities market without making the
             disclosures that were required for the benefit of the
             investing public by the Securities Act of 1933."

             On March 13, 1998, the Commission filed a complaint alleging
             that the defendants defrauded primarily small, on-line
             investors of at least $5 million over the course of the
             scheme, the profits of which allegedly were distributed
             among the 13 defendants and 19 relief defendants.  On the
             same day, Judge Cote issued a temporary restraining order
             which ordered the defendants to cease their fraudulent
             activities and froze the assets of the defendants and the
             accounts of the relief defendants that contained EOSC stock
             or the proceeds from sales of the stock.  On March 13 the
             Commission also suspended over-the-counter trading of the
             securities of EOSC for a single ten-day period.

             In her April 20 ruling, Judge Cote found that defendant
             Cavanagh was the mastermind and a central figure in the
             fraud who controlled various nominee accounts through which
             the fraudulent trades were made.  Hence, the Commission made
             a proper showing that defendants Cavanagh, Milestone,
             Customer Safety, Cambiares, Construcciones, and Chachas
             violated the antifraud and registration provisions, and that
             they may be found liable at trial for disgorgement of
             proceeds plus penalties for their violations.  The Court
             entered preliminary injunctions against each of these
             defendants, but based the preliminary injunction against
             Chachas on his violation of the registration provisions
             only.  While Chachas was found to have participated in the
             fraud, the Court concluded on the evidence available at this
             stage that "the consequences of this litigation have
             effectively deterred him" from further fraud violations.
             Judge Cote also found that Brooksbank, Hantges, Levy,
             Optimum, and Agira violated Section 5 of the Securities Act
             and entered a preliminary injunction against Levy based on
             the Commission's showing of a likelihood of repetition.  The
             Court observed that, in particular, Cavanagh and Levy "set
             in motion a plan that had little to do with raising funds"
             for the company, "but instead was designed to line their
             pockets."  In addition, defendant Tacopino consented to a
             preliminary injunction based on antifraud and registration
             violations, and deposited over $350,000 into the registry of
             the court pending resolution of the case.  The SEC had
             earlier withdrawn its request for a preliminary injunction
             against EOSC, while requiring the company regularly to
             report on it s expenditures.