U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 17471 / April 12, 2002.

   FINAL JUDGMENT SETTING DISGORGEMENT, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND CIVIL
   PENALTIES AGAINST GARRY P. ISAACS

   Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tamarack Funding Corp. and Garry
   P. Isaacs, Civil Action No. 00-6730 (S.D. Florida, filed May 31, 2000)

   The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced that
   on October 23, 2001, the United States District Court for the Southern
   District of Florida entered a Final Judgment Setting Amount of
   Disgorgement, Prejudgment Interest, and Imposing Civil Penalties
   ("Final Judgment") against Garry P. Isaacs ("Isaacs"). The Final
   Judgment was entered pursuant to a judgment of permanent injunction
   previously entered by the Court, on September 20, 2000, by consent,
   without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint, against
   Isaacs and Tamarack Funding Corporation, a Texas corporation ("TFC of
   Texas"), Tamarack Funding Corporation, a Florida corporation ("TFC of
   Florida") (collectively, "TFC"), in connection with the fraudulent
   sale of unregistered securities issued by TFC. In addition to
   permanently enjoining Isaacs and TFC from violating Sections 5(a),
   5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, the
   September 20, 2000 judgment provided for setting disgorgement and
   civil penalties against TFC and Isaacs.

   On May 31, 2000, the Commission filed a complaint ("Complaint") with
   the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
   alleging that Isaacs and TFC fraudulently raised approximately $4.7
   million from at least 125 investors nationwide by offering and selling
   unregistered securities in the form of interest-bearing "promissory
   notes." Specifically, the complaint alleged that from July 1995 to
   February 2000, TFC and Isaacs knowingly or recklessly made material
   false and misleading representations in the offer and sale of
   "promissory notes" to the investing public. According to the
   complaint, investors in the offering were told that their funds would
   be used to purchase retail automobile installment loan contracts
   ("vehicle loans") and that their investment would be 100%
   collateralized.

   Contrary to these representations, the complaint alleged that
   investments were not fully collateralized, as only $1.4 million was
   actually used by TFC to purchase vehicle loans. According to the SEC,
   the remaining investor funds were used to pay TFC's operating costs
   and unrelated expenses. The Complaint further alleged that TFC used
   some of the monies received from new investors to repay interest to