was very happy with all of this and not at all concerned is writing a letter asking for $200,000 in compensation for aggressive overdrafting in valuation of what they understood to be your treatment with them? Mr. RAE. Since I wasn't there, I will certainly attempt to get a response from Cahill Gordon. It is difficult for me to address why an attorney did something in a meeting in which I wasn't present. I don't know what occurred. I don't know the circumstance of the document. But if you would like, I would be happy to get back to you a response to your question. Mr. MORRISON. Take it from us, this document was something that should have been disclosed earlier and was not disclosed through any initiative of the law firm or of E.F. Hutton, but came to light only because of questioning of a particular employee. That is unacceptable. That is not cooperation. That is not what we are looking for. And I would hope you would formalize your request to counsel that you say has been made in written form and supply this committee with a copy of it so we can see they are really being told in an affirmative way not to let anything languish in their files so we don't have another set of George Ball memos like the ones stashed away in some office, hidden away in some law firm records, that may come to light after we finish our investigation. Can we have that? Mr. RAE. Yes. I will try to find the facts and circumstances relating to your concern with Mr. Dipple and Cahill. [The information follows:] This responds to your request for clarification of the facts and circumstances relating to the fact that a 1981 document was produced to the Committee for the first time in an interview with Mr. Dipple. That document had been provided to Mr. Dipple by his counsel, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, who also included it in Hutton's principal production of documents pursuant to the schedule established with your staff in June. This production took place on July 19, and therefore followed the interview of Mr. Dipple. This responds to your request for clarification of the facts and circumstances relating to the fact that a 1981 document was produced to the Subcommittee for the first time in an interview with Mr. Dipple. I understand that the document in question had been given to Mr. Dipple by his counsel, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, in preparation for his interview by this Subcommittee and provided at that interview with his counsel's knowledge. Although the arrangements for when documents were to be produced predated our representation of Hutton, I understand that the facts are as follows. This document also was provided to the Subcommittee as part of Hutton's substantial production, which took place the week of July 17-22 and therefore followed the interview of Mr. Dipple. Included in that production was over 40,000 pages of correspondence and memoranda. As is customary in document production, documents are collected in a central location and provided in bulk rather than a file at a time as they are located. Of course, we had no control over the document production before we were retained, and the bulk of the documents you requested were provided within a week thereafter as a result of document collection efforts that had begun weeks before. This met the final production date discussed by yourself with Mr. Fomon at the June hearing. Any attempt at piecemeal production would Honorable William J. Hughes 11/11/85 - #2 have diverted Hutton lawyers and paralegals and delayed the final production date. Congressman Hughes has asked me to respond to your letter regarding my requests for information at the Subcommittee on Crime's July 19 hearing on the E.F. Hutton case. As you know, I asked for information on two different matters. In my opinion, your letter responds to neither. First, I asked Hutton's General Counsel Thomas Rae how it happened that a document clearly responsive to the Subcommittee ́s subpoena duces tecum, returnable on June 14, was not produced until counsel to the Subcommittee cet with Central Region Sales Manager Ernest Dippel and his lawyer, Thomas Curnin of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, on July 16. As you know, Mr. Curnin also represents Hutton. I refer, of course, to the letter from David W. Kemper, Senior Executive Vice President of the Commerce Bank of Kansas City, to Hutton Regional Vice President John Latshaw, complaining that his bank had incurred losses of $210,310.45 as a result of Hutton's overdrafting scheme. Lest ay concerns were not made perfectly clear at the hearing (and I think they were), let me state them again. The Subcommit- ་་ On June |