again, and there was a strict rule in the house that there be no copying and everything had to be analyzed.

Senator BENNETT. You didn't return the manuscript to him?

Mr. CASEY. I already returned it to him-I didn't return it to him, Prentice Hall did. I sent it on to Prentice Hall. Prentice Hall sent it back to him. When he raised this question, sometime thereafter, I learned there had been a thermofaxed copy made in our editorial shop and I got rid of that when this was brought to my attention.

Senator BENNETT. So, you have two claims really. One based on the Chinese copy of two and a half pages and the other based on his claimed ability to identify certain other material in the book which he covered in his manuscript?

Mr. CASEY. Yes; that was all denied and there was testimony showing that we covered all of this material prior to ever having received the Fields' manuscript.

Senator BENNETT. So, you personally did not become involved in the actual process by which those two and a half pages got into your material?

Mr. CASEY. Not at all.

Senator BENNETT. You didn't dictate it or tell them to put it in?
Mr. CASEY. Not at all.

Senator BENNETT. That is the only question I have, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator McIntyre?

Senator MCINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Casey, we talked here about Fields v. Casey and I see a memorandum, Boggs v. Casey and Argo Resources and Roosevelt Raceway. Now, have you been involved in any other lawsuits that have gone to trial or settlement that we have not been aware of?

Mr. CASEY. Thirty-three years in the publishing business, I have been involved in this one Fields case and in all of my experience I have been a defendant in two other cases. One, the Kalvan matter and the other, the Boggs case in which I was named as defendant on a technical claim by somebody seeking to recover an investment he made in a small company.

Senator MCINTYRE. So, we have about everything as far as lawsuits are concerned here?

Mr. CASEY. I indicated in the papers that I filed during the week there were two plaintiff situations where I had to begin legal action. both under written contract. One involved a case I tried in the tax court in which the after winning a verdict and being entitled to money under the agreement of retainer, I had to bring suit to collect the money. The other was a suit in Delaware which Mr. Roth alluded to in which I had sold property in which I invested $400,000 on the basis of a cash amount plus a contingent amount that was due 5 years later. In the intervening 5 years the company which had made the pur chase from which I had withdrawn from activity in, the principals of that company got into a family fight down in Delaware and I had to make a claim in liquidation in order to get the money that was due me So, it was two plaintiff actions and three defendant actions. Senator MCINTYRE. So, we have all the suits you have been involved Mr. CASEY. Yes.

in.

Senator MCINTYRE. You are an investor as well as a lawyer and a publisher, is that right?

Mr. CASEY. Yes, sir.

Senator MCINTYRE. Do you have any other fields of activities, in the fields of business?

Mr. CASEY. Well, that covers pretty much everything, I guess. Senator MCINTYRE. How long have you been at this rather vigorous business career?

Mr. CASEY. I have been active in the publishing business for 33 years with about 4 years out during the war. I have been active as a lawyer, I guess, for 25 years; as an investor, sort of a venture capitalist, I suppose I have been active for 22 or 23 years.

Senator MCINTYRE. Have you had opportunities during your legal activities to find that as a part and parcel of this legal activity that you would become a director or officer in a corporation that originally had been your client or perhaps you had created?

Mr. CASEY. Well, frequently it does develop that way. I think there are grave questions as to whether it is prudent for a lawyer to become a director. I try to avoid it. Sometimes the clients want you and you feel you have to do it. In the Roosevelt Raceway matter, for example, I was asked to go on that board because they wanted me as a negotiator to deal with other directors representing other interests in working out arrangements for the independent stockholders who were going to be merged out. In that case I had to be on the board to perform the function.

In these smaller ventures which are usually rather informal things, you serve on the board so you can be knowledgeable and be around when the decisions are made because you are likely to be more active in those situations and there your capacity is likely to be more in a business role than a legal role. In those cases I try to have other counsel or have other lawyers in my firm, at least, do the legal work.

Senator MCINTYRE. Do you feel you have a strong familiarity with the stock market in New York and all the ramifications that have to deal with the securities markets?

Mr. CASEY. I think that would be an overstatement. I feel I do have a good understanding and feel of the problems.

Senator MCINTYRE. Do you know all of their terminology?
Mr. CASEY. I am generally familiar with it, I think.

Senator MCINTYRE. How do you think you will go along with the present SEC bureaucracy over there?

Mr. CASEY. I have a great deal of respect for their experience, their ability; and I think I would get along well with them.

Senator MCINTYRE. Would you consider yourself in your business career as a rough-and-tumble fighter?

Mr. CASEY. Well, despite the testimony in the deposition of Mr. Garfield, I would think not. I have been in many activities, as I recalled to this committee. I think my role has always been a constructive one. I always have had the finest relationship with my associates. I haven't been in any great fights, proxy fights, or anything else. These lawsuits, they were very minor matters. Very minor matters. The Boggs case, Boggs wanted his money back and started a lawsuit, all of the other investors made no complaints. They indicated they understood it was a risk investment. There was no question it was a

private offering. The president of that company spent 10 years without compensation working on the technology which he started in that company for the benefit of these investors.

I would say one thing that characterizes my business activities is that I am a sticker. I see these things through if it is at all possible. I put effort in and additional money if necessary to protect the investor and protect the inventor. Many of these things are developed by somebody with an idea and had to get a few people around him to help finance the development of that idea. That is the kind of things I have been particularly active in.

Senator MCINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Casey.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Brooke?

Senator BROOKE. Mr. Casey, were you present in the courtroom during the entire trial of Fields v. Casey?

Mr. CASEY. No, sir; I was not. I testified, and I was there for part of the time.

Senator BROOKE. Did you make any trial notes while you were there? Mr. CASEY. NO; I did not. I left the trial of the case entirely to my lawyer. I was there when he felt he needed me.

Senator BROOKE. Do you know whether or not your trial counsel took trial notes?

Mr. CASEY. He took some, I know.

Senator BROOKE. Did you ever see those trial notes since the time the case was committed until the time you testified before this committee?

Mr. CASEY. No; I did not.

Senator BROOKE. So, when you testified before this committee, you did not have the benefit of any notes taken either by you or by counsel or by anyone else?

Mr. CASEY. That is correct, Senator.

Senator BROOKE. Now, as I understand your testimony, you state that the settlement was independent of the agreement to seal the record; is that correct?

Mr. CASEY. That is distinctly my recollection, and the record seems to support that.

Senator BROOKE. Well, that is not the same testimony which Judge Craven gave before this committee this morning.

Mr. CASEY. The judge's testimony does not square with the record. Senator BROOKE. You say that the judge was mistaken in his testimony as to whether the settlement preceded the agreement to seal the record?

Mr. CASEY. I am always reluctant to disagree with a judge, but it is perfectly clear here

Senator BROOKE. Would you cite that portion of the record that you rely upon to support your contention?

Mr. CASEY. Yes. I think I can find it.

Now, this will be reading.

Senator BROOKE. Have you read this transcript?

Mr. CASEY. I glanced through it, Senator.

Senator BROOKE. When did you first get a copy of it?

Senator BROOKE. And you have gone through the entire transcript? Mr. CASEY. I can't say I read the entire transcript. I have turned the pages. A lot of it deals with where certain paragraphs derived. Senator BROOKE. Did you read that portion of the transcript that you thought were pertinent before the committee today? Mr. CASEY. Yes, I did.

Senator BROOKE. That is the basis of your testimony now?

Mr. CASEY. That is the basis of my testimony. If I could go back to your earlier question, the court said on March 9, 10:30 a.m.Šenator BROOKE. What page are you reading from?

Mr. CASEY. EBA-59. It starts out with the court conferring in chambers with counsel, and counsel to both parties indicating they are able to reach an agreement and settle the entire matter in controversy.

This is the judge's statement: "Thereupon, the parties themselves were invited into chambers." Mr. Fields and Mr. Casey came in, reaffirmed the agreement and then after further discussion, later on on pages EBA62-EBA66. At that point I said: "I would like to have the record sealed entirely."

This was after six pages of discussion, after the judge announced the settlement had been arrived at $20,500.

Senator BROOKE. Now, when had settlement been arrived at?

Mr. CASEY. The settlement had been arrived at between the time the judge said he would take the plea to set the verdict aside under advisement, and issue a ruling and confer with the lawyers privately. After that settlement was arrived at.

Senator BROOKE. Was sealing of the record consideration to you for settlement?

Mr. CASEY. No, sir; because the settlement was arrived at before we talked about sealing the record.

Senator BENNETT. The judge testified that the case was closed rather late at night. He said he would reserve record. You testified that from the record it went over to the second day rather than the next morning. Mr. CASEY. That is right.

Senator BENNETT. Can you tell us at what point in time between the 9:30 or so at night when the judge said he would reserve judg ment, and the time 2 days later when he announced on page EBA 59 that the plaintiffs have a recovery by way of settlement, $20,500, and this action will be settled and discontinued.

You don't know when the settlement was arrived at?

Mr. CASEY. No, sir, I do not. I have no recollection there. Somewhere in between there. After that midnight conference between the two attorneys and the judge, my lawyer came out and said, or indicated to me, that the verdict was questionable and that the plaintiff was willing to settle, and I authorized him to work out a settlement. Somewhere in there they arrived at a number. When we went back to court 2 days later, the lawyers met privately with the judge and, as this record shows, reported to him that the settlement had been 'made and some 10 or 15 minutes later I raised the question of sealing the record.

Senator BROOKE. It is your testimony that it is clear in your mind and also clear in the record, that you agreed to a settlement without consideration in the form of a sealed record?

Mr. CASEY. Yes, Senator.

Senator BROOKE. And it was not a condition precedent to your settlement of this case?

Mr. CASEY. That is my recollection and this is what the record should indicate.

Senator BENNETT. I am not a lawyer; is there a difference between expunging the verdict and sealing the record?

Mr. CASEY. Yes, there is a difference. Expunging the verdict would be

Senator BENNETT. Because at the time the judge announced the settlement he said, it is stipulated and agreed that the verdict of the jury shall be expunged, and you raised the question of sealing the record and those are two different things?

Mr. CASEY. Yes.

Senator BROOKE. What was your relationship with Mr. Cuddahy? Mr. CASEY. I was his employer.

Senator BROOKE. Did you have control over his activities?

Mr. CASEY. Yes, if I wanted to exercise it. The way it was organized, I was the editor and chief. I didn't spend a great deal of my time at this. I was directing the whole process. I was conceiving product and so on. I had an editorial staff and I still have, which executed these projects. That is an executive editor, the man who runs the editorial staff. He directly and daily controlled Mr. Cuddahy's activities. Senator BROOKE. And they, in turn, were accountable to you? Mr. CASEY. He was accountable to me and they were accountable to him.

Senator BROOKE. Who is he?

Mr. CASEY. The executive editor.

Senator BROOKE. So, Mr. Cuddahy was accountable to the executive editor and he was accountable to you?

Mr. CASEY. That is correct.

Senator BROOKE. Did you personally supervise the work of Mr. Cuddahy?

Mr. CASEY. No; I did not.

Senator BROOKE. Did you review his work?

Mr. CASEY, I would sometimes review the work that came in from the editorial department. I didn't always do it and I would review those things I was particularly interested in.

Senator BROOKE. Did you review this particular manuscript?

Mr. CASEY. I don't have any recollection. It was not the kind of manuscript I would normally review. This editorial operation develops books and services which are then supplemented. I confined my activities to the outlining and additional editing of the new products coming out. I would not normally have read a supplement. If I had, I wouldn't have recognized where it came from anyway.

Senator BROOKE. When Judge Craven was testifying, I was very much concerned about punitive damages, the fact that the jury had awarded damages against you higher than the corporation. If you were in the room, you may recall that I asked the judge if he had given a charge to the jury concerning your case, different from that which he gave to the jury concerning the corporation, and the judge said to the best of his recollection he didn't think he did, but he had not read the transcript. I tried to make something of the transcript