SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.

Litigation Release No. 17960 / February 3, 2003

   Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stewart, et al., Civil Action
   No. 98 CIV 2636 (S.D.N.Y.)

   COURT ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENT IN PRIME BANK CASE

   On January 15, 2003, the Honorable Loretta A. Preska of the United
   States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a
   Final Judgment against defendant Allen B. Gottlieb and relief
   defendants Americredit Commercial Corporation, Law Offices of Gottlieb
   and Associates, P.C. , and Finanzurich, Limited. Two other defendants,
   Kenneth R. Lagonia and Patrick J. Madden were found not liable for the
   charges filed against them in this case.

   The Court found that Allen Gottlieb violated the antifraud provisions
   of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
   permanently enjoined him from future violations. The Court also
   ordered Gottlieb to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling
   $2,005,443 and civil money penalties of $878,333. The Court ordered
   the relief defendants to pay more than $1.8 million in disgorgement
   and prejudgment interest.

   After a four day bench trial in early December 2002, the Court found
   that Gottlieb made numerous material misrepresentations in connection
   with his promotion of a fraudulent investment program that featured
   so-called prime bank instruments that were purportedly traded by the
   world's largest banks on a secretive international market. In
   connection with the scheme, three investors lost nearly $1.8 million
   in two separate transactions. In holding Gottlieb liable, Judge Preska
   noted that Gottlieb misrepresented his experience in dealing with
   prime bank instruments; misrepresented the financial capabilities of a
   bank that was to facilitate the prime bank trading; and omitted to
   tell the investors about prior failed transactions in which he played
   a similar role.

   The Court further found, citing expert witness testimony offered by
   the Commission, that the investments Gottlieb promoted were "nothing
   other than bogus attempts to make money." Among other things, the
   Commission's expert witness identified the similarities between
   Gottlieb's scheme and numerous other prime bank frauds that recently
   have emerged and remain a persistent hazard to unwary investors.

   For more information about this matter, see Litigation Release Nos.