Cold Cathode Corporation

Div. of Advancement Devices, Inc.

Cold Cathode Corp. was incorporated in 1947. From its inception, the original concept of the company was to develop and advance the cold cathode fluorescent light source. Cold Cathode Corp. holds a long and proud record of achievement in the development of the cold cathode lighting field, as follows:

1) Pioneered the first 8'0 bulb-1947.

2) Developed in 1949, 150 m.a. Cold Cathode Lamp & ballast.

3) Developed in 1951, 200 m.a. Cold Cathode Lamp & Ballast.
4) Developed in 1954, 240 m.a. T-12 Lamp & Ballast.

5) Developed in 1955, the first R. F. interference free fluorescent
lamp tested at the Materiel Lab, New York Naval Shipyard,
Brooklyn, New York

6) Developed in 1956, a sub-zero operating fluorescent Cold
Cathode Lamp.

Cold Cathode Corp. has been a prime factor since 1946 in the design and installation of modern illumination in the post-war construction of new office buildings, department stores, banks, schools, airports, etc. The scope of lighting in these installations ranges from decorative lighting in coves, showcase lighting, etc., to complete overall luminous ceilings and classroom fixtures in order to provide the total light sources for complete areas and buildings.

218

At your request we have reviewed the record in Roland H. Boggs vs. William J. Casey, a civil action instituted In November, 1962.

In

The complaint in the action contained two counts. substance, the first count alleged that in late 1961 and early 1962 you and Advancement Devices, Inc. (the "Company") used the mails to sell stock of the Company to the plaintiff that should have been, but was not, registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"), and the second count alleged that in connection with the sale of shares of the Company to the plaintiff, misrepresentations were made (but not by you) to him. The complaint further alleged that you were a "controlling person" of the Company. Judgment was demanded for $10,000 plus interest and costs. Your answer denied all of the material allegations of the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel, in a letter dated February 19, 1971, addressed to Hon. John Sparkman, states that in the course of the litigation it became apparent that you were not a direct participant in the sale to the plaintiff of the stock of the Company and that you were sued, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, only on the basis that you were a "controlling person" of the Company.