Ultramar My 829 shares in this British oil company derive from its acquisition in the mid-1960's of Panama Refining and Petrochemical Company, Ltd., in which I purchased 2,750 shares in the late 1950's. My interest was never more than 1% and I was never active.

7. Miscellaneous investments in ventures involving no particular interest and no activity on my part.

Detwiler

In 1968 I invested $15,000 with a friend in a development company with an interesting approach to a safety tire.

Walsh, Killian & Co.

A venture company in which I invested with Jack Crowley, of McKinsey and Company, Lowell Thomas and other associates and friends of Capital Cities Broadcasting. It made two venture capital investments and owned an institutional brokerage firm. I owned about 5% and relied entirely on Jack Crowley to follow it. I disposed of this interest because the company is directly regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Thomas O'Connell Management - An investment advisory firm in which a trust for my wife and daughter invested $5,000 and I served as a director from 1969 to 1971.

Educational Development and Research This is a $5,000 investment with a friend who is working on a new approach for developing improved methods for teaching literacy, reading and language.

Capital Management Fund (1965), Winfield Capital Fund (1967) and Plan America Fund (1968) These are investment partnerships in which I have not been active in any way and in which I am liquidating my interest.

8. Companies in which I served as a director and owned

a minimum number of shares.

Univis, Inc.

an optical company merged into Itek in 1969. I served on its board from 1955 to 1969 and have no shares now.

Webrib Steel

a company leasing steel girders for construction purposes for which I served as a director in 1953I have no shares now.

1955.

as

Fund of America a mutual fund for which I served a public director from 1969 to 1971. I own no shares.

Roosevelt Raceway

A company operating a harness racing track and developing real estate for which I served as a director from 1969-1971. I own 200 shares.

Koster Dana a company with publishing activities and a newspaper syndicate for which I served as a director in 1963 and 1964. I own no shares.

9. Investments resulting from decisions of my investment adviser. On the list submitted to the Committee these are about 40 holdings purchased on the decision of my investment advisers, Cheswick, McRae & Co., or their predecessors who, since 1960, have had full discretionary authority over my investment portfolio, exclusive of the venture capital holdings detailed above.

10. Investments of a family foundation the holding of the Sophia & William Casey Foundation are filed with the Internal Revenue Service every year and are a matter of public record.

20

APPENDIX B

Review of Matters Raised Since Inception of Confirmation Hearing

To my knowledge, five matters have been raised since the inception of the confirmation hearing. Three of them have involved civil law suits in which I have been named as a defendant. Of the other two, one is a matter in which my only involvement is as a stockholder with no knowledge or responsibility for the matter in question. The other involves the reporting by a corporation of legal fees payable to my law firm.

At the outset of this Appendix, I would like to state that at no time did I have any intention of withholding anything from the White House or the Committee. These business disagreements had never, in my mind, reflected on my integrity in any way. In two of them, I considered that I had been imposed on by individuals who I had tried to help. The third civil suit was a suit against directors which fundamentally sought to substitute the judgment of a few stockholders for the unanimous judgment of 14 responsible directors ratified at a stockholders' meeting at which the dissenters aired their views. All of these matters were disagreements between businessmen which had been brought to court; two have been settled and the third is in the competent hands of people who were still active in the company.

Now, let me have a word as to "relevance." When I told a reporter recently that I did not consider the Boggs suit relevant, this was my meaning:

Certainly, if I had deliberately or even
inadvertently violated the securities law
it would have been quite relevant. But an
allegation which is made in a civil complaint
and is self-serving in character, does not
establish anything.

Lawyers know that anyone can make a complaint and it is not unusual for a civil complaint to allege anything which will help make the case in the hope that it can be proved. Indeed, allegations are frequently made so that the complainant will be able, in examining witnesses and other discovery proceedings, to look for evidence to prove something which is only a possibility.

In retrospect, I wish that I had recalled these law suits, insignificant as I consider them to be, when I was asked to undertake this job. But this should also be remembered:

A self-serving allegation is not an indictment
and the settlement of a disagreement is not

a confession.

does not stand

to impress his

In Anglo-Saxon law, a person

accused until evidence sufficient
peers has been presented.

This has not been the case with me. We have seen how a person involved in a business disagreement does not have this kind of protection.

Boggs Case

Roland J. Boggs vs William F. Casey et al, (62-3900) United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Advancement Devices was a company with two principal activities, the manufacture of cold cathode light tubing and the developmental work of a group of engineers. These engineers developed concepts and designed equipment, some based on patents owned by the engineers and licensed to the company, some based on patents which the company owned, some based on concepts where it was hoped a patent-structure could be developed. In the latter part of 1961 Advancement Devices was awarded a Signal Corps contract on a competitive bid basis. To quality for this contract it was necessary to show cash availability of another $100,000 to the Signal Corps. George Doundoulakis, President of Advancement Devices, considered this contract important to the future of his company. He asked me to a meeting attended by himself, some of his associates, two partners of L. H. Rothchild & Co., and a lawyer from Washington who represented Rothchild.

At the meeting there was general agreement that the $100,000 would be raised by a private offering to between 8 and 10 people. Because to begin the work on the Signal Corps contract, $100,000 was needed immediately, I agreed to borrow that amount from a bank and lend it to the company in the expectation that I would be repaid $80,000 from the proceeds of the private offering and apply the remaining $20,000 to the purchase of 20 shares of stock. Rothchild sold SU shares of stock to 11 individuals. It turned out that the buyers were three friends of Doundoulakis, six friends of mine who had been associated with me in other ventures and two customers of Rothchild. There was never any doubt in anybody's mind that this was intended to be, was handled and presented as, and was in fact a private offering.

When the Company got into financial difficulty because

of unanticipated costs on its government contract and manufacturing work and went into receivership, Roland Boggs,

a 40-year employee with Western Electric who had worked with George Doundoulakis on the DEW Line, tried to get his money back. Although I had not met Mr. Boggs until six months after he invested in the company and did nothing in any way to induce him to invest, he filed a lawsuit against me claiming: that the offer of shares to him should have been registered although it was presented to him in writing as a private sale;

that his purchase was based on false information,
despite the fact that he had asked Doundoulakis
for the opportunity to invest in his company,
had spent a lot of time with Doundoulakis and had,
after four months of close association with the
Company subsequent to an initial investment of
$5,000, made a further investment of $5,000;

that I was

a control stockholder although I owned

less than 7% of its shares.

It was ultimately decided to settle this lawsuit because it was our judgment that the trial of this case in court would cost more in time and money than to dispose of it by settlement.

There was another circumstance which was relevant. Doundoulakis and other engineers of the Advancement Devices group wanted to justify the confidence which the Advancement Devices investors had placed in them. They formed a new company into which they placed two new patents which had been licensed to Continental Capital and other patents and concepts which they undertook to work on in their spare time. They gave all the investors of Advancement Devices an opportunity to buy for a nominal price the number of shares in the new company comparable to the shares which each investor had had in Advancement Devices.

Boggs was offered a similar opportunity to obtain stock in the new company but he declined and insisted he wanted some cash. It was decided there was no reason why he should not get some of his money from the royalties which it was anticipated would come to the new company, provided he would wait for most of his money until the new company had a chance to earn royalties. His claim was settled for $1,500 in cash and $6,500 in notes payable over seven years. In fact, the new company, Electromechanical Devices, today has patents which I believe to be valuable and in which licensees have invested close to $1 million to develop equipment to apply technology developed by the Advancement Devices engineers.