UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


             Litigation Release No. 15932 / October 7, 1998

             SEC  OBTAINS  PRELIMINARY  INJUNCTION AGAINST TAMPA, FLORIDA
             INVESTMENT ADVISER THAT OBSTRUCTED SEC EXAMINATION

             SEC v. The Barr Financial Group,  Inc.  and  Alfred E. Barr,
             Civil Action No. 98-1806-CIV-17-T-17E

                  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced
             that on September 11, 1998, the U.S. District Court for the
             Middle District of Florida issued a preliminary injunction
             against The Barr Financial Group, Inc. (BFG), an SEC
             registered investment adviser located in Tampa, Florida
             that, the SEC alleges, claims to have over $72 million in
             client funds under management.  The preliminary injunction
             also applies to BFG's CEO, Alfred E. Barr (Barr), age 40, of
             Tampa, Florida.  The preliminary injunction enjoins BFG and
             Barr from violating or aiding and abetting violations of
             Section 204 of the Advisers Act and also specifically
             ordered BFG and Barr to produce to the SEC that same day
             five categories of documents that the Advisers Act and rules
             promulgated thereunder require registered investment
             advisers to maintain.  The Court entered the preliminary
             injunction over defendants' argument that the Advisers Act
             permits registered investment advisers to keep confidential
             client identifying information, even from the SEC's
             examination staff.

                  The preliminary injunction followed a temporary
             restraining order that the Court entered on September 3,
             following the SEC's filing of a complaint which alleged that
             BFG, aided and abetted by Barr, repeatedly refused to give
             the SEC records containing client identifying information,
             in violation of Section 204 of the Advisers Act.  The SEC's
             complaint alleges that the defendants "consistently . . .
             responded to the SEC's attempts to exercise its well-
             established examination rights with obstruction, veiled
             threats, and intimidation."  Additionally, the SEC's court
             papers provide evidence that BFG and Barr appear to be
             financially troubled and may have made fraudulent
             misrepresentations about Barr's credentials.

                  Also on September 11, the SEC filed a motion seeking to
             have Barr and BFG show cause why they should not be held in
             contempt for having failed to comply with the temporary
             restraining order and the preliminary injunction.  In a
             separate order entered on September 11, the Court ordered
             that the U.S. Marshal's Service take possession of computers
             maintained at Barr's house in order to maintain the status
             quo of the information contained therein.  The SEC
             subsequently alleged that Barr failed to provide all
             relevant computers to the U.S. Marshal's Service and also
             failed to provide to the SEC all of the documents that BFG
             possessed encompassed by the categories of documents
             specified in the preliminary injunction.

                  On September 24, 1998 the Court held a hearing on the
             SEC's motion to hold Barr in contempt of the preliminary
             injunction order.  On September 28, 1998, the Court issued
             an order finding denying the contempt motion because, at the
             contempt hearing, BFG and Barr produced additional documents
             to the SEC and represented to the Court that they would
             fully cooperate with the SEC, including cooperating by
             providing a computer that Barr had previously withheld from
             the U.S. Marshal's Service and providing access to the
             information on the computer so that the SEC can verify that
             BFG has provided all of the records it maintains.  In its
             order denying the motion to hold the defendants in civil
             contempt, however, the Court also referred the matter to the
             office of the United States Attorney to investigate the
             testimony Barr had given in Court.

                  The SEC's complaint charges BFG with having violated
             Section 204 of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. 80b-4 and charges
             that Barr is liable for BFG's violations as an aider and
             abetter under Section 209(d) of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C.
             80b-9(d).