Loeb & Loeb LLP 345 Park Avenue New York NY 10154-0037 March 10, 1997 DDN: 212-407-4827 e-mail: DFA@loeb.com Jonathan G. Katz Securities and Exchange Commission 450 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington DC 20549 Re: Rel. No. 33-7391 S7-07-97 Gentlemen: Hedging of restricted securities seems to circumvent the intent of Rule 144, but this conclusion raises the issue whether the Rule's resale restrictions are too broad. There are circumstances in which the immediate public resale of privately issued securities would not impair the interests of investors. Criteria for identifying these circumstances include whether the private sale was for a bona fide business purpose, the amount of information publicly available regarding the issuer, the length of time that the issuer was a reporting company, the depth of the market for the securities in question, and the amount of securities being resold. For example, if a public company with a market capitalization of several hundred million dollars issues shares constituting a small percentage of the public float to the owners of a closely held business as consideration for the sale of the business, presumably, the market for the public issuer's securities would not be adversely affected by the immediate resale of the shares by the sellers of the business. Nonetheless, Rule 144 would prevent immediate public resale of any of these securities, and a common strategy to circumvent the Rule would be to use a hedge. However, I question whether investor protection requires a holding period for the securities in these circumstances and submit, instead, that the Rule be amended to include specific criteria pursuant to which privately placed securities may be resold publicly without regard to any holding period. Very truly yours, David C. Fischer