September 29, 1999

Mr. Richard A. Grasso,

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

New York Stock Exchange

11 Wall Street

New York, NY 10005

Dear Mr. Grasso:

A client of this law firm alleges that on Wednesday, September 8, 1999, he was assaulted on the floor of the NYSE. Our client is employed by a NYSE member and was allegedly assaulted by another employee. On information and belief, the assault was broadcast live and the NYSE is familiar with the incident. On information and belief, the NYSE maintains videotape devices for monitoring the Floor and such tapes may also have recorded the assault. Because of the pending nature of anticipated civil litigation in this matter, I will not undertake further description of the circumstances and parties involved in the lawsuit. Suffice it to say that there may also be liability on behalf of the NYSE.

Shortly after the assault, my client retained this law firm to advise him of his legal rights and to counsel him on related matters. In an effort to fully familiarize ourselves with the incident, we attempted to determine the identity of the media organization that allegedly broadcast the assault. Similarly, we attempted to obtain a copy of that tape. Additionally, we have also attempted to obtain confirmation that the NYSE undertakes videotape surveillance of its floor and, if so confirmed, to obtain copies of such tapes for the date and time of the alleged assault.

Pursuant to my efforts to identify the party(s) with whom I should speak concerning my requests, I have been bounced back and forth. I was initially directed to an area identified to me as "Security." They told me they would relay my request to the appropriate party. I was then told to contact a Ms. Boylan in the General Counsel's office and provided with a telephone number. I called the number and was told that Ms. Boylan was unavailable but would get back to me. I subsequently received a telephone call from a Sharon Davidson, who advised me that she was calling in response to my previous call to Ms. Boylan. Ms. Davidson also indicated that she wanted to conduct an on-the-record interview of my client. I indicated my client's willingness to appear, noted that he had visited an emergency room following the assault, had been prescribed two different medications, had been instructed to have X-rays, and was still experiencing pain from the assault. Nonetheless, we agreed that within two weeks, health permitting, he would attempt to present himself for testimony. However, I specifically requested the opportunity to review the broadcast video before the testimony and was informed that the NYSE was obtaining the tape and I would be given that opportunity.

Last Friday I returned a voice message to Ms. Davidson at 656-6419. She stated that she wanted to interview my client this Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. I again asked if she would be providing me with the copy of the videotape, as she had earlier offered. She said no. I asked if my client would be permitted to review the tape before testifying. She said no. I asked if he would be shown the tape during his testimony. She said it was under advisement. I asked with whom. She said the General Counsel's office. I said that I had been asking for the tape for two weeks (now three) and was under the impression from our last discussion that it had been obtained and would be provided to me. She said she couldn't discuss that as it was under advisement.

I complained that it was a questionable procedure to take my client on-the-record without giving him the opportunity to review the tape. She said that the OTR wouldn't be transcribed. I stated that such was unusual. I agreed to contact my client and attempt to arrange his schedule. I asked how long the testimony was scheduled for, and she said about one hour.

I then asked her what the status was concerning my request for permission to view the tape or to be provided with the name of the broadcast organization. She said that was under advisement. I then complained that there was an improper commingling of the NYSE's regulatory and proprietary functions, in that the General Counsel's office was or could be involved in defending a potential civil suit arising out of the assault. I also noted that I was growing concerned as to efforts to cover-up the assault in order to downplay the publicity and liability pertaining to the NYSE. I also reminded her of my prior requests for floor surveillance tapes. She suggested I speak with Geraldine Boylan at 656-5105 at the General Counsel's office.

I telephoned Ms. Boylan's office about two weeks ago on about three different occasions to inquire about the tapes and discuss the incident and Ms. Davidson returned the call, indicating that she had spoken with Ms. Boylan and was directed to deal with me. I explained to Ms. Davidson that I felt caught in a game, that my efforts to reach Ms. Boylan were directed to Ms. Davidson, and that she directed me back to Ms. Boylan, but that Ms. Boylan had not returned my prior three calls. Nonetheless, I again telephoned Boylan before noon. I was told she was on the phone and asked to leave my phone number, which I did. Not hearing from her by 2 PM. I called back. Now I was told she was at lunch, asked to leave my number and advised to call back at 3pm. At 3pm I called, was told she was on the phone, waited a few minutes, was told she was still on the phone, asked to leave my number, and told to try back in about 15 minutes.

At 3:15 PM I called back and was again told she was unavailable. I then asked if any other attorney could speak to me. I was told that she was probably the person most familiar with the matter. I said that her familiarity wasn't doing me any good because she wasn't taking my calls or returning them. I then said that if no one in the General Counsel's office would speak to me, I would contact Richard Grasso's office. I was asked to hold.

Shortly thereafter Mr. Andrew Richman, an attorney in the office, spoke with me. Without even giving me an opportunity to say anything beyond "hello," he told me that Ms. Boylan was busy, tied up in a phone conference, that they were trying to get information about the tape, that he would be on the road this past Monday, but would do his best to get me some information last Friday or this past Monday (and that if he were unable to reach me personally he would leave a message on my voice mail). I then said that it was odd that he knew everything about my call, yet I hadn't said a word. I also added that his response did not address the full purpose of my trying to reach Ms. Boylan for two weeks.

I proceeded to largely reiterate the discussion with Ms. Davidson and pointedly told him that I viewed the NYSE as conflicted and inappropriately involved in using its regulatory arm to intimidate my client. I also noted that I had previously been told by Ms. Davidson that she was obtaining the tape and would show it to me, but that now the whole story had changed. I also expressed surprise that after being told by an individual familiar with the matter that "Dick Grasso was livid about the tapes" and that the live broadcast had become an "international incident", that the NYSE was asking me to believe that it had no idea as to what company broadcast the assault and did not have a physical copy of the tape. I also reminded him that under law we deemed the broadcast tape and any NYSE surveillance tapes of the incident as material evidence, and that notwithstanding the issuance of a subpoena, that destruction of such material evidence would likely constitute illegal tampering.

I told Mr. Richman that my client's forbearance on initiating a civil action involving the NYSE was significantly related to the organization's good faith efforts in responding to his requests prior to his testimony. I noted that should the NYSE insist on conducting the interview without providing a prior viewing to my client and his counsel of the broadcast video, that we would infer from such a posture that the NYSE was seeking to intimidate my client and abusing its regulatory powers. I noted that my point in contacting the NYSE before contacting the news media (to find the tape) or filing a civil suit was to satisfy myself of the NYSE's role in the matter and to hopefully eliminate the organization from any civil caption. Finally, I specifically advised Mr. Richman that the whole matter smelled of a cover-up for the following reasons:

1. refusal to provide the broadcast and/or surveillance tape;
2. refusal to provide the source of the broadcast tape;
3. initially offering to provide a viewing of the broadcast tape and then withdrawing said offer; and
4. Ms. Boylan repeated efforts to avoid speaking with me.

In addition to the four points I raised with Mr. Richman, I must now add his unequivocal promise to contact me by this past Friday or Monday at the latest, yet as of today (Wednesday) not a word or message. Additionally, notwithstanding the regulatory issues raised by the alleged assault on the Floor and the civil issues involved in any lawsuit for damages arising therefrom, it is odd that I have not received a single piece of correspondence from Ms. Boylan, Ms. Davidson, nor Mr. Richman concerning any aspect of the incident. Why is the NYSE intent on not memorializing its involvement in this matter?

Mr. Grasso, this afternoon, shortly after 1 PM, I telephoned your office and asked for either your email address or facsimile so I could send you a confidential copy of the above letter. I did not request to speak to you because such would be presumptuous under the circumstances and unnecessary. The individual answering your phone declined to provide either your email or facsimile number. She suggested that I speak with the General Counsel's office. I advised her of the futility of that alternative and again asked for the opportunity to email or fax you. She politely, but firmly declined to provide me with that information. She did forward my call to an individual she identified as a Mr. Bernard in the General Counsel's Office. The individual answering his telephone similarly declined to provide me with his email or facsimile. I should note that both individuals answering the telephones asked to take my phone number and indicated that they would try to have "someone" get back to me. In light of the futility of the past three weeks I declined to take advantage of the offers. I did leave my client's name, my name, my law firm's name, and suggested that my telephone number should by now be a matter of record. I also specifically referenced Ms. Davidson, Ms. Boylan, and Mr. Richman in the event that anyone at the NYSE had even the slightest interest in contacting me. Consequently, I am presumably left with no option but to utilize snail mail in an effort to obtain some meaningful response from the NYSE.

Sincerely,

Bill Singer