From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:50 AM
To: Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US); Adlakha, Deepak (GE India); Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)
Cc: Lobo, David (GE India)
Subject: termination of my contract
All,
I was sorry to learn today that GE had decided to terminate my contract. This amounts to retaliation against me for making a harassment complaint and raising compliance concerns and for speaking the truth.
What does GE intend to do about my complaints? I would like a copy of all emails(received and sent) on my concerns because I intend to go to Court.
My complaint about a fraud regarding the reason for GE losing the D Loco bid in 2009 is a potential shareholder fraud and a SEC violation. I intend following up on this. Your response in terminating my contract is in violation of US whistleblower protection laws.
Please provide me with a copy of all my emails in the "concerns" outlook folder and my word documents in the "concerns" file folder on the laptop I was using. These are records of the complaints I made and I am entitled to retain a copy.
I have also requested that my emails and documents be preserved.
I was informed by Arvind that the decision on terminating my contract was jointly taken by Tara, Deepak, David, Prat, Arvind and Anil Chadha. I am surprised how people I have complained against could be a party to this decision.
I would also request that everyone who I worked with or interacted with regarding my concerns be asked to preserve their email records as evidence.
Regards,
Seema
–
Seema Sapra
From: Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate) [mailto:brackett.denniston@ge.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:01 AM
To: Seema Sapra
Cc: Lobo, David (GE India); Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US); Adlakha, Deepak (GE India); Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate); Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)
Subject:
Seema,
I have received your September 20th email. I want to assure you that a thorough and independent review of your concerns is being conducted. I have asked Jeff Eglash, who is senior counsel handling investigations for GE Corporate, to lead the investigation. Alex Dimitrief, who reports directly to me, will oversee Jeff’s work. Jeff will be assisted by other attorneys or investigators as needed. Please consider Jeff to be the appropriate point of contact for you going forward and direct your communications to him. His email is jeffrey.eglash@ge.com.
I trust that we can count on your continued availability and cooperation as we look into these matters. Jeff will be in touch with you shortly, and he will respond to your specific requests regarding documents and emails.
Sincerely,
Brackett
Brackett B. Denniston
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
General Electric Co.
3135 EastonTpke
Fairfield, CT 06828
203-373-2453
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM
Subject: Re:
To: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Cc: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Brackett,
Thank you very much for your email. I am currently evaluating my future course of action and am in the process of seeking legal counsel and counsel from friends. Jeff has emailed me and I am happy to talk with him.
I have not been informed by GE about the reason for termination of my contract. I would like to request that GE inform me why my contract was terminated.
Sincerely,
Seema
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Subject: termination of my contract
To: "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Tara,
I would like to know why my contract was terminated on 20 September 2010. GE’s decision must have been based upon certain reasons. I am entitled to know why this decision was taken. I would also like to know who took this decision and who was consulted.
I look forward to hearing from you on my request.
Regards,
Seema
–
Seema Sapra
—————————————————————————————-
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:10 PM
Subject: further response
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Jeff,
Wanted to add to my response earlier.
The name Amar Barua sounds familiar. If he is in Gurgaon, Finance then he is a good friend of Gaurav Negi’s. Gaurav has been involved in this whole unfortunate saga. I have no reason to doubt Amar but you should avoid using people who are close to those involved.
For Shruti Narang, I found these two links online. http://www.myspace.com/122196038and http://in.linkedin.com/pub/psychobitch-shruti-narang/4/139/781
These might have been created by someone disgruntled with her and perhaps she should be told about these.
I do wonder if you can find people within GE India who are not in some way connected to someone involved. You might want to undertake this investigation yourself.
I think on the basis of what I have shared in writing, in my conversations with Anil Chaddha and Liz Hackett and what I have on various occasions (both before and after my resignations) shared with Tara Plimpton, Jamie Winget and Deepak Adlakha, you can carry out an investigation.
You have access to the witnesses and the documents. I think undercover surveillance of people in AIFACS (including Prat, Ash, Praveena, Ramesh, Gaurav, Ashish, Alpna, Sanjeev Kumar, Radhika and others) will get you the truth. You might want to listen in to their conversations.
You really need to get people comfortable enough so that they tell the truth.
If my doubts about the Kazakhstan cert are correct, then speak to Ashish Malhotra (he seemed essentially a good guy) who I think unfortunately got enmeshed by Prat, Ash, Praveena and Ramesh in the mess. As ITO proposal leader he probably thought he would also take the rap for any disqualification because of filing a copy, If these is any wrong activity here, then you should get him to speak the truth. The idea must have come from the others and he must have been pushed into it.
Also, Prat has a software on his computer which can modify pdf documents. You need to look into that.
About the SEC issue, I believe the wrongdoing is so well-known that you can easily uncover it.
I read GE investigation guidelines and I believe these contain guidance on making sure that witnesses are not influenced. You need to get Prat and Praveena out of AIFACS and take away their power over witnesses if you want to ensure this.
It is worrying how you want me not to approach other people at GE, but all the wrongdoers are still able to do that un-hindered.
Regarding:
“Accordingly, I have not pre-judged the matter or arrived at any conclusions as to the reasons for your termination. I believe, therefore, that it would be premature for me to report to you on these reasons while the subject is under investigation.”
Just to clarify: I am not asking for your conclusions or judgment on why the contract was terminated. I want to know what were the reasons discussed among the group involved which took this decision and when the decision was taken. I was hoping that you would be more forthright on this.
On the harassment and targeting, I think any questioning of people at AIFACS, Tara Plimpton, Jamie Winget, Steve Siep, Deepak Adlakha, etc will get you the truth.
Finally, I am an aggrieved party here. Not a wrong-doer. My integrity and honesty is impeccable and un-impeachable.
I think there is nothing preventing you from getting to the bottom of this. I am ready to clarify any facts (including any inconsistencies or discrepancies), any questions about my conduct, and provide further information. But at this stage you need to get the truth from the people involved. I hope you will do this.
Thanks,
Seema Sapra
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) [mailto:jeffrey.eglash@ge.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:09 AM
To: Seema Sapra
Subject: Follow-up to our Discussion
Seema,
I am writing to follow up on our conversation earlier this week. As I indicated, my objective is to conduct a thorough, timely, and independent review of your concerns, and to report my conclusions to Brackett Denniston and my immediate supervisor, Alex Dimitrief. GE is treating your concerns with the utmost seriousness and considers your cooperation in the investigation to be very important.
During our call, you indicated that you wanted to know the reasons for the decision to terminate your contract. I understand that you feel that the contract was terminated in response to you having raised concerns about various compliance matters. Let me assure you that it is against GE policy to terminate an employment contract for such a reason and that, in addition to investigating your other concerns, I will be reviewing the reasons for terminating your contract as part of my investigation. Accordingly, I have not pre-judged the matter or arrived at any conclusions as to the reasons for your termination. I believe, therefore, that it would be premature for me to report to you on these reasons while the subject is under investigation.
You said in our call that you would be unwilling to cooperate with the investigation unless you were first provided with an explanation for the contract termination and a list of those involved in the decision to terminate your contract. Your cooperation is important to the investigation of your concerns, and I hope that you do not make your cooperation conditional in any way. Instead, I ask that you be forthright and open with information so we can conduct a thorough investigation into your concerns. I also reiterate the request I made that you not reach out to others at GE to discuss this matter while it is under active investigation. Instead, I ask that you trust me to conduct the independent evaluation of your concerns that I have been directed to do.
I have arranged for Amar Barua and Shruti Narang to meet with you on Monday. I hope that you will agree to the interview. Please confirm and I will get back to you shortly on the time and place for the meeting.
Thank you,
Jeff Eglash
Jeffrey Eglash
Senior Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy
GE
T +1 203 373 2825
M +1 203 895 0233
F +1 203 373 2523
E jeffrey.eglash@ge.com
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield CT 06828 USA
General Electric Company
Notice: This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:37 PM
Subject: email records pertaining to my concerns
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>
Mr Eglash,
This is to follow-up on my request that GE provide me with copies of the emails in the concerns folder and the documents in the concerns folder on the laptop I was using. I have not received any reply from you. I am entitled to these documents and GE cannot deny me copies. I once again request that these documents be provided to me.
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Review of Concerns
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Jeff,
Thank you for getting in touch. I would be happy to talk to you. You could call me on 0091 99588 69955 today, tomorrow or on Friday anytime between 4 pm to 8 pm Indian time.
I have requested that GE let me know the basis for the decision to terminate my contract on 20 September 2010. I would also like to know formally from GE as to who took that decision.
I look forward to speaking with you.
Thanks,
Seema
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com> wrote:
Seema,
I am following up on Brackett’s email to you from last Friday. I am with GE’s Corporate legal department in Fairfield. I have been asked to investigate the concerns that you have reported.
Recognizing the substantial time difference between us, could you suggest a couple of dates and times for us to talk? I look forward to speaking with you.
Thanks,
Jeff Eglash
Jeffrey Eglash
Senior Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy
GE
T +1 203 373 2825
M +1 203 895 0233
F +1 203 373 2523
E jeffrey.eglash@ge.com
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield CT 06828 USA
General Electric Company
Notice: This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: more information about week before D loco RFQ submission
To: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, "Adlakha, Deepak (GE India)" <deepak.adlakha@ge.com>, "Winget, James, Legal (GE Transportation, US)" <james.winget@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Seema,
Thank you for this information.
I will be in touch with you shortly to arrange a time to go over these issues with you, as well as any other concerns you have.
Regards,
Jeff Eglash
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 4:57 AM
To: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Cc: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate); Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US); Adlakha, Deepak (GE India); Winget, James, Legal (GE Transportation, US); Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)
Subject: more information about week before D loco RFQ submission
Jeff,
I have been spending a lot of time going over events from my time at GE. There is an important issue about which I now have doubts in my mind.
In my review of the Diesel Loco RFQ (due on 12 July 2010), I found that some customer certs were deficient. I also raised and communicated concerns that the certs might not adequately meet the technical capacity pre-qualification criteria in the RFQ. All this is on record.
Week of 5th July 2010
In the last week before the submission date, during a meeting where Vinod Sharma ( an external consultant) was also present, Prat and Ash took the decision to submit scanned copies of a couple of certs as the originals were not available. This according to them was the only available option at that time. I pointed out then (as I had before and did again subsequently), that the RFQ required originals and there was a risk of disqualification without originals. Mr Sharma agreed with me on the need for originals and said efforts must be made to get originals but if these did not arrive in time then scanned copies were the best option. Later that evening, Prat and Ash assured me that they would record their decision as a business decision.
My advice to Ashish all through the last week was to delay binding and wait for the originals. I emailed and spoke to Tara and Jamie about this issue. And I also spoke to Deepak on Friday evening. The papers were sent for binding on Friday late evening. Earlier in the evening Ashish had given me the original set to review and it had two scanned certs, the Vale and the Kazakhstan cert. Both of these were black and white copies.
Weekend (10 & 11 July 2010)
On Saturday morning I sent an email on this issue because I was concerned and because Deepak had given some advice. This email is on record. Deepak called me on Saturday and told me to now leave the issue/ decision to Prat and Ash.
I went into office on Saturday later and saw the bound version. I was surprised to find the Kazakhstan cert (one of the missing originals) in color. It looked like the original. I asked Ashish and Ramesh (I do not remember if Praveena was in the room) “Are you guys playing games with me?” Basically I asked them have you got the original because you told me it had not arrived. Ashish told me this was a color printout. I said I got confused. It looked like an original. I asked Ashish where did you get this. He said they had a color scan and they decided to take a color printout.
Prat came in later and Ashish told him Seema had gotten confused about the color printout.
Even though Ashish told me this was a color print-out, I now have doubts about this. Prat and Ash were very angry about my Saturday email. There was a lot of tension because of my email.
On Sunday, Ash tried to trap me into getting a non-compliant Power of Attorney (POA) as he raised a big hue and cry about a small mistake in the POA. I refused to get the non-compliant POA and insisted that use the document we had. [This was confirmed by three lawyers, Amit Kumar (Amarchand), Deepak Adlakha and I. All three were of the view that there was no defect in the POA we had.] When I said the existing POA was OK, Ash got upset and said I had been going on for weeks about the customer certs and now I was not concerned about the POA.
On Sunday, Praveena claimed to have found a notary on the internet who could notarise a new POA. Ash and Praveena wanted to send an office assistant to this notary. I said I would go myself as I wanted to make sure it was all genuine. I found the notary set-up a con and refused to get a new POA from there. Despite my telling Ash (I called Ash from the notary’s office) my concerns about this notary, he suggested I get the document and then we could decide. I refused and said the existing POA could be used. Later I found a genuine stamp paper vendor who issued stamp paper on Sunday. I also located a genuine notary who could notarise the POA. When I asked Ash to send his car for the stamp paper, Prat stepped in, called up Amit Kumar (Amarchand) and decided we did not need a new POA. I think there was an attempt to harass me over a minor defect in the POA and to trap me into getting a non-compliant POA. Did Praveena really find the con notary on the internet on Sunday? Was this a pre-planned conspiracy? Was this intended to deflect my attention from the customer cert issue?
Prat bullied and humiliated me in front of everyone on Sunday over other issues (i.e., me questioning Ramesh sending out E Loco RFP queries to the Government without review) leading me to tell him I would resign. Deepak called me about this on Sunday evening.
I have given these and subsequent events a lot of thought in the past few weeks.
I am concerned about the Kazakhstan cert that was submitted. Was it a color print-out of a color scan like I was told? The earlier scan I had seen was in black and white. Was this a doctored/ manipulated document?
It is important that GE ascertain whether the scan was in color or not? Where did the color printout come from?
Were Prat and Ash intending to pass off the Kazakhstan cert submitted as original? Was this why my email of Saturday made them so angry?
If the color copy filed is not a genuine print-out of a genuine color scanned copy then the document could be seen as a forgery. GE must inform the Government about any such forgery.
I have another concern about this weekend.
My email stopped working after my Saturday morning email. I tried to resolve the problem on the phone with Varun (IT) on Saturday but could not. He could not explain why my connection to the GE servers was down. There was something wrong about my IP address. My email started working again on Monday morning on its own. Did someone deliberately interfere with my network connectivity? Why was my connection down on Saturday and Sunday.
Incidentally, all through this weekend, I had severe lower back pain and was on pain-killers.
All of this also happened soon after I had spoken to Radhika about Prat and Praveena and after I suspect Radhika warned Praveena.
Some other thoughts:
Prat, Ash, Ramesh and Praveena’s entire interaction with me as legal counsel for GE was in bad faith.
While I was still at AIFACS I noticed how anxious Prat, Ash, Ramesh and Praveena became when I started talking about raising concerns.
I can prove everything that happened on a day-to-day basis. There are so many people who can bear me out on facts. But no one in GE was interested in listening to what happened. GE’s response was to push me out, move me to Gurgaon and then to ask me to leave. The paramount concern of people I tried to speak to was that nothing should come in the way of the D loco deal. And since Prat was not working well with me, I should be removed from the role.
Thanks,
Seema
–
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:50 PM
Subject: concerns
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, "Adlakha, Deepak (GE India)" <deepak.adlakha@ge.com>, "Winget, James, Legal (GE Transportation, US)" <james.winget@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Jeff,
Yesterday, I was waiting for you to get in touch shortly but did not hear from you. After you requested me on 28/9 to indicate when we could speak, I suggested that you could call me on any day between the 29th and the 1st. I did not hear from you.
I had in my email of 20thSeptember requested copies of my complaints. I had also earlier requested this during the summary termination of my contract with GE (with no reasons given) and my “eviction” from the premises earlier on the afternoon of the 20th. (I was told of my termination and asked to leave immediately.) Arvind told me I would be informed about the decision on my request the next day, but I was not.
Brackett in his email of 25/9 had said you would respond to my specific requests about emails and documents. I have not heard anything on this.
I had in emails dated 28th and 29th September requested that GE inform me of the reasons why it terminated my contract. Again there has been no response.
Tara, Deepak,
Since you two were among the people I was reporting to, could you please let me know why I was let go in this humiliating fashion.
Really, what does GE intend to do about my complaints? I believe I have been treated atrociously.
I call upon GE to reinstate me in the role of Legal Counsel, Transportation India. I believe I performed well under very difficult circumstances. I was harassed and targeted by Prat and by others at Prat’s instance. I was prevented from doing my job by Prat and others at his instance. Deepak Adlakha failed to support me as he should have. Finally I felt compelled to resign. Both Tara and Jamie told me they were happy with my work and were aware of the hostile work environment I was in. As indeed was Deepak.
Despite this, the message was that the next two months were too important for the D loco deal and Prat was indispensable whereas I was dispensable. Deepak tried to pressure me to leave. I refused and said I wanted to raise my harassment complaints within GE. I was subtly discouraged to do this but I persisted. I was told I could do other work for Tara but because of my persisting with my concerns I was let go.
There are strong reasons for me to believe that some people at a very high level committed a securities fraud and violated SEC regulations by suppressing the fact that the GE bid in 2009 was non-compliant. False information was published to the effect that GE was not awarded the bid because it was the sole bidder. Rejection of the GE bid for being non-compliant in Feb 2009 was clearly price-sensitive information. Instead of being disclosed, false and misleading information was given out., I have reason to believe that besides Prat and Ash, Lorenzo Simonelli and Dave Tucker were also aware that the GE bid was non-compliant. When discussing how the mistake was suppressed, I was told by a senior management level employee at Transportation that Dave Tucker “did it”.
I became aware of the mistake in the 2009 bid about a week after joining GE and I believe that Prat and Ash since then systematically targeted me and tried to get me out.
I also complained that Prat and Praveena targeted me and created a hostile work environment. It is common knowledgein AIFACS that Praveena is “very close” to Prat. I have heard gossip about them. (This is something that GE ought to have easily investigated and confirmed by now.) I was excluded by Praveena and was not given administrative support right from the time I joined. Later I believe she was warned that I had been asking about Prat and her. The targeting by Prat and Praveena got worse after this. This kind of targeting and harassment on gender grounds amounts to sexual harassment and discrimination. But again no one in GE wanted to look into this. Till date, no one has asked me for my reasons for raising this in my complaint.
The problems in the GE Transportation AIFACS office arising out of the management style of Prat and Ash are well-known within GE. Tara and Jamie and even Deepak are aware of these problems. People in Corporate at Gurgaon who I spoke to all agreed with me. Bullying and intimidation of employees is common as is exclusion when people don’t comply or raise issues that Prat does not want highlighted. Prat, Ash and Praveena are all very close and basically run a clique which manages the office. Obviously in this they are supported by some others. After my resignation on 3 August, Arvind Subramanian suggested I leave immediately with compensation in lieu of notice. He wanted me to leave without even having spoken to Tara or Jamie. Obviously, Prat was concerned I would start talking.
I believe I was eventually asked to leave to prevent me from uncovering more information about what was going on. And because my complaints were seen as an unwelcome distraction from the D Loco deal. But is this how GE uses and discards people? I worked hard for GE, fought to protect GE interests, and faced hostility and intimidation which I should not have had to face. I even came in to work when I could barely move, couldn’t straighten my back and had to take painkillers to move. All this in the interest of GE.
As I communicated earlier, I intend to go to Court both in India and in the United States. Please provide me with a copy of the emails and documents in my concerns folder by the end of next week. I also intend to file a complaint with the SEC on the SEC violation. If you have any objection to my seeking these remedies, do let me know by 6 October. Please also let me know by 6 October why my contract was terminated.
I find it disrespectful that neither Tara nor Deepak told me I was being let go. They should be the ones talking to me now.
I have yesterday communicated my apprehension that an offence of forgery might have been committed. Given the seriousness of this and the SEC violation, it is imperative that GE take steps to protect my laptop. I hope it is not lying with people in GE Transportation in India including with Arvind Subramanian.
Also other parties involved must be told not to destroy evidence.
Jeff, I would really appreciate if we could talk on Monday morning your time.
Thanks,
Seema
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:18 PM
Subject: RE: Discussion
To: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Seema,
We’ll try and get a meeting room at the Taj Mahal hotel.
Jeff
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 1:53 AM
To: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: Re: Discussion
Jeff,
We can meet on Monday at 10. I would prefer another venue.
Seema
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com> wrote:
Seema,
Can we plan on meeting on Monday, Nov 29 at 10 am at the Gurgaon office?
Jeff
Jeffrey Eglash
Senior Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy
GE
T +1 203 373 2825
M +1 203 895 0233
F +1 203 373 2523
E jeffrey.eglash@ge.com
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield CT 06828 USA
General Electric Company
Notice: This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:24 PM
Subject: RE: New plan
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Jeff,
Who else will be there along with you? You seem to be setting this up as an interview. Do you intend to record this? I have already stated that these are offences that need to be investigated by law enforcement. I am not going to provide GE with an opportunity to create material to use against me. And this does not mean that I have anything to hide. Merely that I cannot put my faith in GE blindly. I have raised concerns about serious offences. Plus I have been harassed and have been unfairly discharged from my contract. I have valid grounds to sue GE and it is not in my interest to share my evidence (on this aspect) with GE at this stage.
I need some confirmations from you:
1. Have you established that the Kazakhstan certificate was faked? Further have you established who faked it and who were involved in the conspiracy to use it?
2. Have you established that the fact of GE’s 2009 bid being non-compliant was fraudulently covered up?
3. Have you established that I was harassed and targeted throughout my brief employment?
4. Have you established how Deepak Adlakha (General Counsel India) assisted Prat in getting me out of my job right from 11 July 2010? Have you asked Deepak about this? I don’t know who all might be involved in the fake certificate issue.
I am really not sure I can place my trust in GE. Being interviewed in this manner is not in my best interest. Much as I want to assist any genuine response by GE, my experience so far does not inspire confidence.
I do want to help your investigation but I see a big conflict of interest here. I’m sorry but on my better judgment I will not be able to attend this kind of an interview.
Maybe the best way is for you to ask me questions in writing and for me to reply. Please send me your questions on email and I will reply on email.
I apologize for any inconvenience. I do want to help but I need to protect my interests as well.
Regards,
Seema
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) [mailto:jeffrey.eglash@ge.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 5:19 PM
To: Seema Sapra
Subject: New plan
Seema -
We have arranged a meeting room at the Radisson Hotel in Gurgaon. The room is "board room 1" upper basement. We will see you there at 10 am Monday. My cell phone number is 203-895-0233 if you need to reach me. Thanks and I look forward to seeing you.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeffrey Eglash
Senior Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy
GE
T +1 203 373 2825
M +1 203 895 0233
F +1 203 373 2523
E jeffrey.eglash@ge.com
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield CT 06828 USA
General Electric Company
Notice: This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Discussion
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Jeff,
Please call me on my mobile phone 0091 99588 69955.
Thanks,
Seema
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com> wrote:
Seema,
Good morning. I am in Delhi today and tomorrow, and am again requesting an opportunity to speak with you. I would like the chance to review some documents with you that bear on some of the concerns that you have raised. I’ll also try and answer some of your questions as best I can.
Thanks you,
Jeff Eglash
Jeffrey Eglash
Senior Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy
GE
T +1 203 373 2825
M +1 203 895 0233
F +1 203 373 2523
E jeffrey.eglash@ge.com
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield CT 06828 USA
General Electric Company
Notice: This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:54 PM
Subject: some news reports on the issue of false information published about the 2009 bid
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Jeff,
As I mentioned here are some news reports that you might find useful for your investigations. Also attached is the investor update/ press release sent out by GE.
Best Regards,
Seema
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:23 PM
Subject: criminal action
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, deepak.adlakha@ge.com, james.winget@ge.com, jaiswal.rajneesh@ge.com, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, john.flannery@ge.com, jchesley@gibsondunn.com
Jeff,
This is with reference to our conversation on 13 December 2010.
I am very concerned at what looks like your unwillingness and reluctance to listen to what I have to say. You have not asked me the most basic questions that are in my view crucial to the concerns I have raised and have not thought it necessary to obtain valuable information from me. At the same time, I am surprised at your statement that you believe you have sufficient information from me. I requested you to sit with me so that I could take you through evidence from the laptop I was using. But it seems you do not think that necessary either. I further believe that you are keeping from me crucial information that supports my claims. Your investigation is obviously and clearly vitiated by bias.
You also stated that I might be disappointed because you might not eventually agree with my allegations. Further, you also stated that you would not be in a position to give me much detail about your findings and that if people are disciplined, I might not be told about that on account of reasons of privacy. I will not be satisfied by this.
As I said, I believe crimes might have been committed against me by persons employed by GE. I believe these crimes can only be investigated through a criminal investigation process. As you yourself said, I have made serious charges and that you cannot rely merely upon what I have said in the absence of evidence. I agree and evidence can only be adduced in a criminal or civil trial where I have the ability to examine and cross-examine witnesses under oath and examine documentary records. I find your investigative process a farce that seems designed to cover up the truth and to reach conclusions that protect GE and its employees. Please be aware that by doing this you will be covering up crimes committed against me.
I thought the right course was for me to first approach GE with my concerns. However, I now intend to either file a police complaint against the persons responsible or bring criminal charges in a Court of law. I also intend to call upon the Railway authorities to help me uncover whether the Kazakhstancertificate was faked or not. I intend to request the Railway authorities to disqualify GE in the event the certificate was forged. If necessary, I will approach the High Court myself to ensure that no fraud was committed in the Diesel Locomotive factory bid.
I now no longer view this as an employment or harassment concern. I am now approaching this as a case of possible criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy and fraud among other possible offences committed against me. I put you and others at GE on notice that any tampering with records including the laptop I was using, intimidation or influencing of witnesses, and any other attempted cover-up will amount to destruction of evidence and violate sections 201, 202, 203 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code.
Regards,
Seema
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Subject: customer certificates
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Jeff,
I have set out in great detail what happened on the customer certificates including the Kazakhstan certificate. Please find this note attached.
Best Regards,
Seema
Seema Sapra
————————————————————————————–
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:10 PM
Subject: ITP contract for Pakistan
To: "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>
Cc: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Tara,
When I was at GE, I had in the month of June reviewed an ITP contract for Pakistan recommended by Ash Nainar. Mari Herold had requested me to do this. Given what I now know about Ash Nainar, his criminal character and complete lack of integrity, I would recommend that you review the ITP approval again and not rely upon any approval given by me.
Thanks,
Seema
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:58 PM
Subject: possible criminal offences
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Jeff,
If the Kazakhstan certificate was forged then the following offences have been committed against me:
Section 415 Indian Penal Code – Cheating
Section 463 Indian Penal Code – Forgery
Section 464 Indian Penal Code –Making a false document
Section 468 Indian Penal Code –Forgery for purpose of cheating
Section 120A Indian Penal Code – Criminal conspiracy with intent to deceive, defraud, and cheat in order to commit forgery and fraud
Section 120A Indian Penal Code – Criminal conspiracy with intent to blackmail in order to commit forgery and fraud
Section 120A Indian Penal Code – Criminal conspiracy with intent to conceal forgery and fraud
Regards,
Seema
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:07 PM
Subject: FW: GE’s RFQ for Marhowra Project
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Jeff,
I had sent the following email to the Indian Railway Board. Have they contacted GE about it and has any further communication taken place? I request you to let me know because as I have stated I have a personal interest in uncovering the truth.
Thanks,
Seema
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:23 AM
To: ‘dmew@rb.railnet.gov.in‘
Cc: ‘mm@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘crb@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in‘
Subject: GE’s RFQ for Marhowra Project
Dear Mr Santosh Sinha,
I was employed as Legal Counsel with GE Transportation in Indiabetween April 2010 and September 2010. I am writing in connection with the RFQ Application submitted by GE for the Marhowra project on 12 July 2010.
This application contained a customer certificate from Kazakhstanrailways. I would like to bring to your notice that the Kazakhstan certificate submitted is not an original copy. GE received the original of this certificate a few days after the RFQ was submitted on 12 July.
I have reasons to suspect that the copy filed was faked to look like an original. I believe that GE might have had a scanned copy of the original sent on email. However, I suspect that this scanned copy was modified to look like an original and therefore a faked certificate was submitted along with the RFQ.
I request you to investigate this matter thoroughly.
Regards,
Seema Sapra
Advocate
Seema Sapra
————————————————————————————
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:49 AM
Subject: Government procurement fraud
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Brackett, Jeff and Alex,
It is very important that you listen to what I need to tell you. The events after 12 July and the resistance from Tara Plimpton and Deepak Adlakha to my raising compliance concerns point to a broader conspiracy to cover up the possible certificate fraud. I had to practically fight to stay on after 10 August. Taradid not support me either. The investigation that was proposed was also aimed at a cover-up. This is evident from the leaks that took place despite Anil Chaddha telling me categorically that he had not yet spoken to anyone.
When I discussed the leaks with Tara, she simply refuted my statement. She suggested Anil could come down to Delhiand meet me. She suggested Mona Dange as an alternative. Mona was in Transportation India earlier and seemed like a strange choice to me. I eventually put down my concern about the leaks in writing. Plus I sent an email to Tara pointing out the role that Deepak had played. And the immediate result was that my contract was terminated by a joint decision taken by Tara Plimpton, Deepak Adlakha, Prat Kumar, Anil Chaddha, David Lobo and Arvind Subramanium. This happened in the middle of a compliance investigation and with the intent to shut down that investigation. I had named both Prat and Arvind in that investigation. Was Fairfieldalso consulted on the termination of my contract? When I came in on the 20th, the HR person from Corporate and Arvind were already waiting for me. I was handed over a termination notice and asked to leave with immediate effect.
I have more and detailed information on the conspiracy (to cover up the possible fake certificate) that was I believe executed between 12 July and 20 September 2010. You need to hear me on this.
Jeff, when we met you asked me what federal criminal law was involved. If an eligibility certificate was faked, then this amounts to procurement/ government fraud and public corruption by GE and its employees under USfederal law. I believe the FBI and the United States Department of Justice have jurisdiction to investigate such offences.
GE’s failure to act on my complaint until I wrote to Jeff Immelt and the Authorities, and its continued unwillingness to hear everything I want to share amounts to willful ignorance of a possible crime.
Further I believe, that GE needs to confirm to me in writing whether the Kazakhstan certificate that was filed on 12 July was faked or not. I have a legal right to know this and I will if required enforce my right through legal proceedings.
I look forward to receiving an early response from you.
Regards,
Seema
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Subject: further note
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Jeff,
I have prepared a summary of important events that happened between 12 July to 3 August 2010. You already have my earlier note on the customer certificates issue. Both are attached.
Regards,
Seema
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:16 AM
To: ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’
Subject: RE: customer certificates
Jeff,
I want to clarify on my note. I said that “Ashish asked me sometime in the latter part of July, if I did not want GE to prequalify? I thought that was a strange question.”
I don’t think Ashish used these exact words. What he said was more like if I did not want GE to get the loco deal. I thought that a strange question. And it was said in a different context. We were not discussing the RFQ. I was fighting a lot of battles after July 12. At the time, I only thought it was a strange thing to ask me when my job was to work on the deal.
Regards,
Seema
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 11:43 PM
To: ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’
Subject: RE: customer certificates
Jeff,
As I want to be as clear as possible on the topic of the customer certificates, I have added to my earlier note. Please see attached.
Thanks,
Seema
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 6:10 PM
To: ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’
Cc: ‘Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)’
Subject: RE: customer certificates
Jeff,
I have added some additional information and clarifications to my note on the customer certificates. This is attached.
Thanks,
Seema
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:27 PM
To: ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’
Cc: ‘Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)’
Subject: customer certificates
Jeff,
I have set out in great detail what happened on the customer certificates including the Kazakhstan certificate. Please find this note attached.
Best Regards,
Seema
Seema Sapra
————————————————–
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Subject: RE: brief summary of some events between 3 August and 20 September 2010
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Jeff,
I have made some corrections. These are highlighted.
Thanks,
Seema
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 12:51 PM
To: ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’
Cc: ‘Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)’; ‘Denniston, Brackett(GE, Corporate)’
Subject: brief summary of some events between 3 August and 20 September 2010
Jeff,
I have attached a brief summary of some events that took place between 3 August and 20 September 2010.
Regards,
Seema
Seema Sapra
———————————————————
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Subject: Vale certificate for the E Loco RFQ
To: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Cc: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, john.flannery@ge.com
Brackett,
I am writing in connection with the E Loco RFQ submitted by GE to Indian Railways on 17 May 2010.
Originally, the set included a copy of a Vale customer certificate. On 13 May 2010, a mistake was discovered in this certificate. The certificate was for the supply of 10 locomotives of 6000 HP each. However the total HP in the certificate was mentioned as 6000 instead of 60,000 HP.
Apparently, Ashfaq Nainar managed to obtain a fresh certificate from Vale (in Brazil) on email with the correct figure of 60,000 HP over the night of 13-14 May 2010. This email copy was then produced before KPMG India which relied upon it to issue an auditors certificate for this customer on 14 May 2010.
Given the concerns about the Kazakhstan certificate for the D Loco RFQ and other concerns about illegal and unethical conduct in GE Transportation in India, I believe that GE should also probe into the authenticity of the Vale certificate used for the E Loco RFQ.
I also place on record another concern that I communicated to Jeff Eglash when I met with him in New Delhi on 1 December 2010. This pertains to the consultancy contract with Vinod Sharma who was apparently advising Prat on the three loco deals for Madhepura, Marhowra and Dankuni. Subsequent to my leaving GE, while researching news reports I discovered information that points to the possibility that Vinod Sharma might have also advised the Indian Railways on these three projects. If this is indeed the case, then this is a serious conflict of interest and a potential corrupt practice under the three RFQs.
I urge GE to look into these issues as well.
Regards,
Seema
Seema Sapra
—————————————————————————–
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 3:56 PM
Subject: whistleblower protection
To: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Cc: jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, james.winget@ge.com, john.flannery@ge.com, lorenzo.simonelli@ge.com, rjs22@cornell.edu
Brackett,
In continuation of my reply below, you might not realize it but it is very easy and common in India for people to get away with “murder”. Life is cheap here. People I have complained against are wealthy and powerful. I am a single woman who lives alone. I am not sure that you or GE can assure me that I might not face a violent reprisal from any one of them. They might already have committed serious offences like fraud, forgery and criminal conspiracy. How can one know the extent to which they might be willing to go to prevent discovery.
Until the issues I have raised including that about the 2009 securities fraud and possible corruption are resolved, I would be naïve to assume that I face no risk to my safety. As I stated earlier, if someone at GE considers me a threat and decides to arrange to harm me, I doubt I will have any prior notice or opportunity to take preventive action or inform GE.
Some links to news stories that highlight the risk in Indiato lives of people who dared to speak up:
http://business.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267067
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/02/world/asia/02iht-india.1.6443659.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/11/AR2010091105565.html
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?700841
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?688142
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/27/india-rti-activists-deaths
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/rti-activist-who-exposed-land-scams-in-maharastra-killed/108639-3.html
Seema
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 12:40 PM
To: ‘Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)’
Cc: ‘Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)’; ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’
Subject: RE: whistleblower protection
Brackett,
Thank you for your reply. However, if someone at GE considers me a threat and decides to arrange to harm me, I doubt I will have any prior notice or opportunity to take preventive action.
I look forward to hearing from the investigating team. There is a lot of information that I still want to share if they are interested in getting it.
Seema
From: Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate) [mailto:brackett.denniston@ge.com]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 6:09 PM
To: Seema Sapra
Cc: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate); Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US); Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate); Flannery, John L (GE India, GE Officer); Winget, James, Legal (GE Transportation, US); Jeffrey.Immelt@ge.com (GE, Corporate); rjs22@cornell.edu; Simonelli, Lorenzo (GE Transportation, GE Officer)
Subject: RE: whistleblower protection
Seema,
I acknowledge receiving this message as well as a number of previous messages from you, all of which have been made available to the team investigating the concerns you have raised.
I know of no reason whatever as to why you should fear in any way for your safety in connection with raising these concerns, but if you should become aware of any specific threat or information of this kind, please let us know promptly.
There has been no delay in investigating your concerns, and you can expect to hear from the investigating team shortly.
Brackett
Brackett B. Denniston
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
General Electric Co.
3135 Easton Tpke
Fairfield, CT06828
203-373-2453
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:32 AM
To: Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)
Cc: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate); Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US); Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate); Flannery, John L (GE India, GE Officer); Winget, James, Legal (GE Transportation, US); Jeffrey.Immelt@ge.com (GE, Corporate); rjs22@cornell.edu; Simonelli, Lorenzo (GE Transportation, GE Officer)
Subject: whistleblower protection
Brackett,
Some friends of mine have expressed fear and concern for my physical safety and asked me to be careful because of the serious fraud and corruption charges I am raising against GE Transportation in India. People who expose corruption in Indiaare often at grave risk of physical harm. Many whistleblowers have been murdered.
I have told these friends that this is GE, an American company and I am interacting with American attorneys and that I would not have gone this far if I was dealing with an Indian company. Nevertheless, some friends have suggested that I should be careful on account of the individuals in India(including GE employees and contractors) who might be involved in commission of crimes.
I am a little concerned about these messages from my friends. The delay by GE in investigating and bringing these matters to their logical conclusion only adds to these concerns. I have not been receiving any responses from GE to my emails. I need assurance from GE that I need not worry about my physical safety.
Regards,
Seema
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: note about call from Joydev
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Jeff,
Some additional comments on the attached note:
Joydev first told me to forget about GE and to consider the Microsoft job.
He asked me later about what had happened. I remember him saying something like: but Prat (or they) hired you so what was the problem.
I asked him what he thought about Deepak Adalakha after this.
I think Joydev was conveying a message when he said that Deepak was only asking Prat about me to get feedback. This statement was not a part of our earlier conversation about Deepak. It was a separate statement made later.
It was at the end of our conversation that I told Joydev I had already emailed Brackett Denniston. I was referring to my emails of 9 or 10 September 2010. He then said “oh shit”.
After that I thanked him for calling and we hung up.
Thanks,
Seema
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 11:40 AM
To: ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’
Cc: ‘Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)’; ‘Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)’
Subject: note about call from Joydev
Jeff,
Please find attached a note about a call I received from a GE lawyer and former classmate on 22 September 2010.
Thanks,
Seema
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:55 PM
Subject: FW: GE’s RFQ for Marhowra Project
To: john.flannery@ge.com
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:18 PM
To: ‘dch@nic.in‘; ‘g.haldea@nic.in‘
Cc: ‘r.mital@nic.in‘; ‘sonjoy.saha@nic.in‘; ‘dmew@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘john.flannery@ge.com‘; ‘prat.kumar@ge.com‘; ‘Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)’; ‘jeffrey.immelt@ge.com‘; ‘lorenzo.simonelli@ge.com‘;’Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)’; ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C(GE, Corporate)’; ‘Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)’; ‘crb@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘ml@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘me@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘mm@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘msra@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘me@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘cvc@nic.in‘; ‘vigilance@nic.in‘; ‘r.sri_kumar@nic.in‘; ‘jmg.vc@nic.in‘
Subject: GE’s RFQ for Marhowra Project
Dr. Ahluwali and Mr. Haldea,
I am a lawyer and have brought a possible forgery to the notice of the Railway Board in respect of the RFQ submitted by GE for the diesel locomotive factory (Marhowra) project. My email to the Railway Board is set out below.
I request that this matter be looked into. I request that the Government obtain a clarification from GE about this issue.
Regards,
Seema Sapra
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:35 AM
To: ‘dmew@rb.railnet.gov.in‘
Cc: ‘mm@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘crb@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in‘; ‘john.flannery@ge.com‘; ‘prat.kumar@ge.com‘; ‘Denniston, Brackett(GE, Corporate)’
Subject: GE’s RFQ for Marhowra Project
Attn:
Shri Santosh Sinha
Director (Mech Engg)/ Works
Room No. 312A, Rail Bhawan
Ministry of Railways, Rafi Marg
New Delhi 110001
Fax: 011 23386693
Ref: RFQ for Diesel Locomotive factory at Marhowra submitted by GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd
Dear Shri Santosh Sinha,
I was employed as Legal Counsel with GE Transportation in Indiaat their Rafi Marg office between April 2010 and September 2010. I am writing in connection with the RFQ Application submitted by GE for the Marhowra project on 12 July 2010.
This application contained a customer certificate from Kazakhstanrailways. I would like to bring to your notice that the Kazakhstan certificate submitted is not an original copy. GE received the original of this certificate a few days after the RFQ was submitted on 12 July. I have reasons to suspect that the copy filed was faked to look like an original. I believe that GE might have had a scanned copy of the original sent on email. However, I suspect that this scanned copy was modified to look like an original and therefore a faked certificate was submitted along with the RFQ.
I request you to investigate this matter thoroughly. I had communicated my concern to GE on 1 October 2010. Since then, GE has not confirmed to me that the certificate filed was not forged. I have shared the reasons for my concern with GE senior management and attorneys in their headquarters in the United States.
As a lawyer who was involved in the preparation of the RFQ application and as a citizen of India, I have a legal right to know if the certificate was forged. If it was forged, then I believe criminal offences have been committed. Further GE is liable to be disqualified from the tender process. I request the Railway Authorities to ascertain the truth from GE and kindly let me know. I am copying GE on this request.
Kind Regards,
Seema Sapra
Advocate
G-4 First Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi 110014
Ph. 99588 69955
Copy to:
John Flannery
GE India Industrial Private Limited
Building 7A, 5th Floor
Sector 25A, DLFCyber City
Phase III, Gurgaon
Haryana 122 022
–
Seema Sapra
————————————————
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:01 PM
Subject: RE: brief summary of some events between 3 August and 20 September 2010
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Jeff,
I have revised my note for the period 3 August to 20 September 2010. It is attached.
Thanks,
Seema
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:44 AM
To: ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’
Subject: RE: brief summary of some events between 3 August and 20 September 2010
Jeff,
I have made some corrections. These are highlighted.
Thanks,
Seema
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 12:51 PM
To: ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’
Cc: ‘Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)’;'Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)’
Subject: brief summary of some events between 3 August and 20 September 2010
Jeff,
I have attached a brief summary of some events that took place between 3 August and 20 September 2010.
Regards,
Seema
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:51 PM
Subject: RE: Message
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Jeff,
I am surprised at your surprise. My email reflects my unsuccessful requests in the past that you sit and hear me for as long as it takes, and to give me access to the laptop I was using. I could go into more detail on our exchanges on this topic but will not.
The concerns I have raised include:
1. possible corruption and fraud regarding the 2009 bid
2. sustained harassment and abuse by Prat and others for the entire duration of my time at GE for various reasons
3. the Kazakhstan certificate issue and possible criminal conspiracy extending right up to and beyond the termination of my contract on 20 September 2010. This termination was clearly intended to prevent me from raising this issue while still at GE and to make it difficult for me to raise this from outside GE.
4. Other compliance violations of law and GE policy
5. Retaliation i.e., constructive discharge and eventual termination
6. violation of whistleblower protection laws
Further, I am increasingly of the view that perhaps my engagement itself by GE on contract was in bad faith and intended to obtain amenability. I was brought in on contract under false pretences and then not provided adequate support and was not allowed to fulfill the role I was recruited for. My insistence upon doing my job properly exposed me to various forms of retaliation, harassment and abuse.
Frankly, I think GE has screwed me enough. I am being forced to explain whereas the culprits are being protected even as they remain with GE while I write this. Did GE have no responsibility towards me?
I look forward to your findings. I reserve my right to challenge them. I will send you more information if I consider that in my best interest, but please don’t hold back your investigation for this. At present, I think it might not be in my interest to furnish further information in writing as GE’s interest seems adversary to mine. Further, I reiterate that the information provided by me in writing is not exhaustive and I reserve the right to supplement it or clarify further if required. In many instances, it is not possible to capture the detail and various nuances of a situation or thought process. Thus what I have provided is a broad brush outline of selected events and I reserve the right to fill in the detail. Further this information is being provided with various gaps in my knowledge. As and when I have more information on these gaps, I might want to clarify further.
I must also point out that in my written notes, at some places I capture my view of events as they occurred and at other places, I am looking back at events with hindsight and after reflection. I hope you will be able to appreciate this distinction. What my notes may convey might not correspond to my understanding or state of mind at the time an event happened. Further in my notes, I also speculate in some places. As stated, once I get answers to my many questions, I might reach different conclusions.
I look forward to receiving GE’s response expeditiously so that this matter can move forward. I believe my complaints can only be redressed through legal proceedings which I intend to initiate after I receive GE’s response.
I am available to answer any question or provide clarification.
I have one more request. Are you able to share with me the truth about the Kazakhstan certificate?
Thanks,
Seema
—–Original Message—–
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) [mailto:jeffrey.eglash@ge.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:20 PM
To: Seema Sapra
Subject: RE: Message
Seema,
This surprises me. I welcome any information you want to provide. I always
prefer to receive your information via email or in writing, because it is
generally more efficient, allows me to share information with others that
I’m working with, and avoids problems associated with our time zone
differences, but we will take your information in whatever form you choose
to provide it.
Jeff
—–Original Message—–
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:24 AM
To: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: RE: Message
Jeff,
I do not think you have all relevant information or even my full complaint.
You however seem to not want to hear me in full. Despite that, I have
voluntarily provided some information in writing.
Still, if you have any questions, do let me know.
As I have stated before, I do not expect an internal GE report to be
unbiased or fair. And certainly your refusal to hear me fully, and GE’s
conduct so far only confirms my negative expectations.
Nevertheless, it will be one step forward to hear GE’s official position. I
do think this matter can only be resolved through appropriate legal
proceedings where evidence can be led and I reserve my right to challenge
your findings in Court.
Thanks,
Seema
—–Original Message—–
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) [mailto:jeffrey.eglash@ge.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:53 PM
To: Seema Sapra
Subject: RE: Message
Seema,
I do expect to complete matters and send you a summary shortly — hopefully
within the next week or so.
Thanks,
Jeff
—–Original Message—–
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:49 AM
To: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: RE: Message
Jeff,
You had said that you would complete your investigation by the end of
December 2010. Brackett Denniston also stated on 7 Jan 2011 that I would
hear from the investigating team shortly.
Could you indicate by when I should expect to hear from GE on its
investigation into the complaints that I have made.
Thanks,
Seema
—–Original Message—–
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) [mailto:jeffrey.eglash@ge.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:46 PM
To: seema.sapra@googlemail.com
Subject: Message
Seema,
I received your message. I am out of the office on business much of this
week and next. I’m worried that it will be tough given time zones and my
meeting schedule to find a block of time to talk. Do you want to send me a
note telling me what’s up?
Thank you.
Jeff
Jeffrey Eglash
Senior Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy
GE
T +1 203 373 2825
M +1 203 895 0233
F +1 203 373 2523
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield CT 06828 USA
General Electric Company
Notice: This message may contain confidential and privileged information.
If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of
the error and then immediately delete this message.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:48 PM
Subject: complaints
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Jeff,
I was reading these articles on mobbing and workplace bullying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobbingand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_bullying.
I believe I was subjected to such treatment right from the time I joined and until I left GE. I think Prat is a psychopath.
I really think you should come down to India and listen to me at length. I want to talk in detail about everything that happened right from the time I joined. I was victimized. I apologize if my earlier email was rude but I was telling a friend that I feel as if someone thought I was vulnerable and decided to beat me to pulp.
It has taken me 3 months just to begin to think about and analyze what happened.
Unfortunately Prat and his cronies selected the wrong victim. I intend to be heard and to get redress for everything that I was made to go through.
There was definitely mobbing with Prat, Ash and Praveena being helped by Gaurav, Ramesh, Alpna, Sanjeev, Ashwani, Arvind and later by Ashish. Others chipped in as well occasionally.
Can we talk?
Thanks,
Seema
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:55 AM
Subject: engagement of Vinod Sharma
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>
Jeff,
I believe sometime in late August 2010, Mona Dange sent an authorization/ approval for the engagement or re-engagement of Vinod Sharma as a consultant. This document was addressed to Prat Kumar. It came to my notice accidently when Sanjeev Kumar received it from Mona along with the signed vakalatnama for the SVB application.
Thanks,
Seema
Seema Sapra
—————————————————————————–
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM
Subject: revised notes
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Jeff,
I have made further revisions to the attached notes.
Thanks,
Seema
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:09 PM
Subject: additions
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Jeff,
I have added some information to the attached notes.
Thanks,
Seema
Seema Sapra
————————————————————————————
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:56 PM
Subject: Mona Dange
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Jeff,
It appears Mona Dange was counsel for GE Transportation in India during the period of February 2009. She must therefore have been there when the bid price mistake was covered up. How then could Tara Plimpton propose her name as an alternative to Anil Chaddha to investigate my complaint about the lies and cover-up of the 2009 mistake?
FYI: here is her bio on the net.
She has done PhD in Computer Law from PuneUniversity. She got married in 2000 and moved to Hyderabadand started a consultancy in Legal work. She was catering to software companies in setting up operations and drafting agreements. In 2002, she moved to Bangalore and started teaching in IIM. She joined GE Healthcare in 2004 She has taken over the role of Compliance Counsel for GE Healthcare for South Asia. She moved from GE’s Healthcare division to their Infrastructure Division at the beginning of 2008 Then due to a re-organization in the company with effect from 1st October she has taken over as General Counsel for GE Transportation in India.
http://www.lilapoonawallafoundation.com/html/ourachievers.html
Seema
Seema Sapra
———————————————————————-
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:10 PM
Subject:
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Fyi – attached presentation appears relevant to the 2009 bid mistake cover-up issue.
Seema Sapra
–
Seema Sapra
Attachment:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: GE investigation
To: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Seema, my expectation is that you will receive something in the next day or two; almost certainly before the end of the week. If not I will follow up and let you know when to expect it.
Thanks,
Jeff
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:18 AM
To: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: GE investigation
Jeff,
When we last spoke on 20 January, you indicated that I would soon receive a letter setting out the results of your investigation. I have not received anything yet. Could you please let me know by when I can expect to hear from GE on the outcome of its investigation.
Thank you,
Seema
Seema Sapra
–
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:46 PM
Subject: RE: response on the issue of the February 2009 securities fraud
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com
Dear Mr. Dimitrief,
I find that the Form 10 K filed by GE for the year 2010 contains the following statement regarding the shareholder class action legal proceedings I refer to in my attached response.
“As previously reported, in March and April 2009, shareholders filed purported class actions under the federal securities laws in the United States District Court the Southern District of New York naming as defendants GE, a number of GE officers (including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer) and our directors. The complaints, which have now been consolidated, seek unspecified damages based on allegations related to statements regarding the GE dividend and projected losses and earnings for GECC in 2009. Our motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was filed in November 2009, is now fully briefed and, following an oral argument held in November 2010, is currently under consideration by the Court. A shareholder derivative action was filed in federal court in Connecticut in May 2009 making essentially the same allegations as the New York class actions. GE’s motion to transfer the derivative action to the Southern District of New York as a related case was granted in February 2010, and our motion to dismiss is currently pending. The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously.”
It appears that GE and other defendants in these proceedings made oral arguments on their motion to dismiss in November 2010. Is this why Tara Plimpton told me in August 2010 that she did not want the shit to hit the fan in the next two months?
The issue of fraudulent misrepresentation and non-disclosure regarding the failed GE bid for the diesel locomotive tender had been brought to your express notice by me. No wonder GE was in such a hurry to get rid of me. I will presume that the facts regarding this fraudulent misrepresentation and failure to disclose were not brought to the attention of the Court. I urge GE and the other defendants in these proceedings to disclose the full and true facts regarding this fraud to the Court.
Regards,
Seema Sapra
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: 13 April 2011 16:34
To: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)
Cc: Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate); Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: response on the issue of the February 2009 securities fraud
Dear Mr. Dimitrief,
Please find attached my response on the issue of the 2009 securities fraud.
Thank you,
Seema Sapra
——————————————————————————————
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:26 PM
Subject: FW: GE’s Review of Your Concerns
To: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, john.flannery@ge.com, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com
Mr. Denniston,
I have not received a reply or even an acknowledgement to my email below. However, I presume GE has received my mail. I once again reiterate my requests and in particular that GE provide me with a copy of any agreements/ documents I was made to sign including non-disclosure agreements. I recall that I was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement sometime in late August 2010 on the pretext that the one I signed earlier mentioned an incorrect entity.
The manner in which my contract was terminated on the spot, and I was asked to hand over GE equipment forthwith, and to leave the premises (escorted by security) meant that I had no opportunity to keep a copy of these documents I was asked to sign. Since these are contractual documents between me and GE, I am entitled to a copy. I call upon you to provide me with these.
I also reiterate that GE must preserve all pertinent records including the laptop I was assigned.
I look forward to a reply.
Thank you,
Seema Sapra
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 10:18 AM
To: ‘Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)’
Cc: ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’; ‘Denniston, Brackett(GE, Corporate)’
Subject: FW: GE’s Review of Your Concerns
Mr. Dimitrief,
I am writing to you with a delay because I was unwell. I am extremely disappointed at your letter below. GE is covering up at least three instances of major fraudulent and corrupt conduct. Your letter misrepresents and caricatures my complaints and concerns. It also misrepresents facts. I intend to take this matter to a court of law and to follow up with the Authorities.
I will send you a detailed reply shortly, but in the meantime I request that:
(1) GE preserve all relevant records including (but not limited to) my email and documentary records and the laptop I was using – this is important because we are talking about criminal conduct.
(2) GE provide me with a copy of any confidentiality agreement that I might have signed –My position is that my contract/ retainer with GE is vitiated by fraud and any confidentiality agreement is consequently without legal effect.
(3) GE provide me with the names of the persons who were part of the investigating team.
(4) GE provide me with a copy of the emails and documents filed under the folder marked concerns in the laptop I was using.
Thank you,
Seema Sapra
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:56 AM
To: Seema Sapra
Subject: Fwd: GE’s Review of Your Concerns
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)<alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:31 AM
Subject: GE’s Review of Your Concerns
To: seema.sapra@googlemail.com,seemasapra@hotmail.com
CONFIDENTIAL
I am sending you the attached letter via e-mail/PDF for ease and speed of delivery.
Alex Dimitrief
Vice President & Senior Counsel
Litigation & Legal Policy
General Electric
T +1 203 373 2233
F +1 203 373 2523
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
GE imagination at work
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:22 PM
Subject: Your engagement by GE
To: fwarin@gibsondunn.com
Cc: jchesley@gibsondunn.com, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com
Dear Mr. Warin,
I am the Indian Attorney who has raised serious concerns of corruption, securities fraud, and forgery against GE employees that I became aware of during and as a result of my employment with GE Transportation in India as Legal Counsel.
I learnt about your involvement for the first time in Mr. Alex Dimitrief’s letter to me dated February 3, 2011. Prior to that, I was aware that Mr. John Chesley had been brought in to sit in on my discussion with Mr. Jeff Eglash. I had objected to Mr. Chesley’s presence. I was not aware of his full role or that you and Mr. Chesley had (in Mr. Dimitrief’s words) been engaged by GE to “assist in the investigation and give an independent, external assessment” of my concerns.
I am in the process of responding to Mr. Dimitrief’s letter and the responses sent by me thus far are attached.
I believe that GE is covering up very serious fraudulent and criminal conduct. Besides the forgery/ tampering with a customer certificate that has been submitted to the Government of India as part of a tender application, GE and some GE employees are covering up conduct and evidence that potentially establishes material fraudulent or reckless misrepresentations/ omissions by GE management as alleged by shareholders in their class action legal proceedings against GE, GE officers and GE Directors that are pending before the United States District Court, the Southern District of New York.
It appears that after the institution of these shareholder legal proceedings in March 2009, GE and GE employees put into effect an elaborate conspiracy to cover up misrepresentations made by GE and GE officers and employees in February 2009 about the outcome of GE’s bid for a $6 billion tender in India for a potential order to supply 1000 diesel locomotives. As part of this conspiracy to protect GE officers and Directors against charges of fraudulent misrepresentation, some GE employees were asked to lie to other GE employees and to also issue misleading accounts of the events of February 2009 to the media. Official communications received from the Government of India by GE were suppressed. In order to perpetuate this illegal cover-up, GE employees continued to lie throughout 2009 and 2010. I was also the recipient of these lies when I joined GE in April 2010. As I have pointed out, I accidentally found out information that could have uncovered this fraud and as a result faced retaliation, targeting, bullying and harassment. My job responsibilities were curtailed and the compliance role was taken away from me. I believe that the intent was to pressure me into not drawing attention to and into not inquiring further about what I had learnt.
My raising formal concerns with GE about this matter resulted in further retaliation, attempted cover-ups and eventual termination that violated whistleblower protection and GE’s own assurances of no reprisal for raising concerns.
It gets worse. GE alleges that it has investigated my concerns after terminating my contract. However, in an unfortunate and obvious attempt at a cover-up, Mr. Dimitrief’s letter dated 3 February 2011 misrepresents my concerns and completely buries the issue of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the 2009 bid that I had described as a securities fraud. He does not even mention the subject.
I believe that GE employees have obstructed the course of justice by asking other employees to lie, by fabricating false evidence, by concealing evidence and by covering up the matter after I blew the whistle. This deception and fraud continues to be perpetuated.
I would request you to let me know what has been your and Mr. Chesley’s role in this matter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: General Electric
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Cc: jchesley@gibsondunn.com, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, fwarin@gibsondunn.com
Correction
The last paragraph of my email below should read –
“Let me also make clear that I did not give you or GE any right to investigate into and ‘dispose off’ my concerns and complaints. GE had that opportunity before 20 September 2010 but lost it when it illegally terminated my contract. I will leave no stone unturned to ensure that my complaints are heard, adjudicated upon and that I obtain justice. You and your colleagues have tried your best to intimidate me and have failed and your present threats do not affect me at all.”
Seema Sapra
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: 22 April 2011 23:07
To: ‘Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)’
Cc: jchesley@gibsondunn.com; ‘Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)’; ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’;jeffrey.immelt@ge.com; fwarin@gibsondunn.com
Subject: RE: General Electric
Dear Mr. Dimitrief,
I take strong exception to your tone and wild accusations and allegations in your email dated 20 April. I reiterate and reaffirm the content of all my previous communications and note that you do not point out any specific inaccuracy therein. On the other hand, as I have detailed in my communications, your letter of February 3 misrepresents and caricatures my complaints, misrepresents facts and covers up fraudulent and criminal acts. .
I will continue to respond to your February 3, 2011 letter on the remaining issues.
I would request that you do not question my judgment. I have put forward my claims with the utmost responsibility and care. I am deeply troubled by the position I find myself in and must remind you that it is not of my making. General Electric has left me with no option but to assert my legal rights and seek redress in a Court of Law. I consider the statements, lies and insinuations in your February 3 letter as slanderous. I have been the victim of multiple frauds and crime. My very employment by GE was based upon fraud and deception. I was hired with a fraudulent intent on the part of GE employees. My contract with GE was itself vitiated by fraud. I was subjected to sustained harassment, retaliation and bullying. GE breached almost all its contractual, legal and ethical obligations towards me. Your alleged tainted and dishonest investigation falsely brands me a liar and you would like me to walk away? I have suffered irreparable damage and harm to my reputation and career. My employment with GE caused me such emotional distress that it contributed to making me physically ill. I feel betrayed, used and violated.
I am fully cognizant of my legal obligations. These include ensuring that I do not allow a client (whether it be General Electric) to use my legal services for the commission and perpetuation of any criminal or fraudulent activity. Rather, I would urge that you and others at GE reflect on how your conduct violates your contractual and legal obligations towards General Electric and its shareholders.
Let me also make clear that I did not give you or GE any right to investigate into and‘dispose off’ my concerns and complaints. GE had that opportunity before 20 August 2010 but lost it when it illegally terminated my contract. I will leave no stone unturned to ensure that my complaints are heard, adjudicated upon and that I obtain justice. You and your colleagues have tried your best to intimidate me and have failed and your present threats do not affect me at all.
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
From: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate) [mailto:alexander.dimitrief@ge.com]
Sent: 20 April 2011 00:53
To: seema.sapra@googlemail.com; seemasapra@hotmail.com
Subject: General Electric
Confidential
Dear Ms. Sapra:
I write in response to the numerous e-mails that you have sent to Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and various GE executives and officers since receiving my letter of February 3 and my e-mail of April 9. We remain grateful for your efforts to ensure that your concerns were addressed appropriately. In this respect, we undertook an exhaustive and independent investigation of your allegations and determined that they were without merit, as detailed in my letter of February 3. Regrettably, the increasingly shrill tone and inaccurate content of your latest communications make it clear that there is no constructive purpose to be served by further dialogue between you and General Electric on the topics that you have raised. Accordingly, please do not expect any response to any further e-mails that you send to employees, officers, or representatives of GE, including our outside counsel.
But I would be remiss if I did not make a final request that you exercise sounder judgment in conveying your allegations about General Electric to others. As we have said from the outset, we would never discourage you or anyone else from raising issues with authorities when it is necessary to do so. That is not the case here. Accordingly, we reserve all of our rights to seek appropriate redress if you persist in crossing the line from honestly raising issues of legitimate concern to slandering General Electric and its employees, mischaracterizing our extensive investigation of your concerns and otherwise violating your contractual and other legal obligations to your former client.
Alex Dimitrief
Vice President & Senior Counsel
Litigation & Legal Policy
General Electric
T +1 203 373 2233
F +1 203 373 2523
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
GE imagination at work
———————————————————————————————–
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: GE’s Review of Your Concerns
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Cc: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Alex,
Thank you for sending this explanation on GE’s review of my concerns. I am disappointed by its content but not surprised. I will send a detailed response in due course.
Seema
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate) <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com> wrote:
CONFIDENTIAL
I am sending you the attached letter via e-mail/PDF for ease and speed of delivery.
Alex Dimitrief
Vice President & Senior Counsel
Litigation & Legal Policy
General Electric
T +1 203 373 2233
F +1 203 373 2523
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
GE imagination at work
–
Seema Sapra
————————————————————————————————
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:23 AM
Subject: RE: GE’s bid for diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra
To: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Seema,
I’m glad we’ll be able to talk. I am trying to figure out when I can get there. I need to get my visa renewed and for reasons that I won’t bore you with, it is a challenge. I’m reasonably certain I will not be able to meet next week but am looking to try and get there the week of Nov 29th.
Thanks again,
Jeff
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:39 AM
To: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate); Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: RE: GE’s bid for diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra
Alex, Jeff,
I am ready to meet with Jeff in New Delhi. Am open to a meeting next week?
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
From: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate) [mailto:alexander.dimitrief@ge.com]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 2:23 AM
To:seema.sapra@googlemail.com
Cc: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: RE: GE’s bid for diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra
Confidential
Seema:
As Jeff Eglash has advised you on numerous occasions, we are conducting a thorough investigation of your various allegations and will address any concerns substantiated by our investigation as may be warranted by the evidence. Please rest assured that we have heard you each and every time that you have stated your frustration with the pace of our work, but responsible investigations take time to complete appropriately. If you are genuinely interested in helping us get to closure as soon as possible, you should change your mind and cooperate with our work by meeting with Jeff for a constructive interview – again, at a time and place that is convenient to you. Meanwhile, neither missives like the one below to our senior management nor your increasingly shrill threats to report your suspicions and allegations to various authorities are going to influence our investigation or its results. To the contrary, some might say that communications like the one below serve only to cast doubt on the motivations for your allegations and communications.
Finally, although I would never discourage you or anyone else from raising issues with appropriate authorities when reasonably necessary to do so, I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that GE has not waived the attorney-client, work product or any other privileges that attach to your work at GE and that we expect you to honor your obligations to maintain the confidentiality of information subject to GE’s various privileges and other rights to confidentiality.
Alex
Alex Dimitrief
Vice President & Senior Counsel
Litigation & Legal Policy
General Electric
T +1 203 373 2233
F +1 203 373 2523
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
GE imagination at work
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:21 AM
To: Jeffrey.Immelt@ge.com (GE, Corporate); Jeffrey.Immelt@ge.com (GE, Corporate)
Cc: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate); Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate); Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US); Adlakha, Deepak (GE India); Winget, James, Legal (GE Transportation, US); Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate); rjs22@cornell.edu; Flannery, John L (GE India, GE Officer)
Subject: GE’s bid for diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra
Mr Immelt,
I am writing in connection with GE’s bid for the diesel locomotive factory in India. As I communicated to some GE lawyers on 1 October, I have reason to suspect that a fake certificate was filed by GE along with its RFQ application on 12 July 2010.
It is surprising that despite this, you used your recent visit to India and President Obama’s visit to India to lobby for pre-qualification. Such lobbying during a live public procurement process is in any event undesirable. However, in the present circumstances where the integrity of GE’s application is questionable, your lobbying gives the impression that GE does not really stand by its pledges of integrity and believes that it can behave with impunity in a country like India.
I have communicated my concerns to the Indian Railway Board. Plus I have also communicated these to the United States SEC and the United States Department of Justice.
I hope GE will do the right thing and not engage in any cover-up.
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:27 PM
To: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Cc: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate); Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US); deepak.adlakha@ge.com; james.winget@ge.com; Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)
Subject: more information about week before D loco RFQ submission
Jeff,
I have been spending a lot of time going over events from my time at GE. There is an important issue about which I now have doubts in my mind.
In my review of the Diesel Loco RFQ (due on 12 July 2010), I found that some customer certs were deficient. I also raised and communicated concerns that the certs might not adequately meet the technical capacity pre-qualification criteria in the RFQ. All this is on record.
Week of 5th July 2010
In the last week before the submission date, during a meeting where Vinod Sharma ( an external consultant) was also present, Prat and Ash took the decision to submit scanned copies of a couple of certs as the originals were not available. This according to them was the only available option at that time. I pointed out then (as I had before and did again subsequently), that the RFQ required originals and there was a risk of disqualification without originals. Mr Sharma agreed with me on the need for originals and said efforts must be made to get originals but if these did not arrive in time then scanned copies were the best option. Later that evening, Prat and Ash assured me that they would record their decision as a business decision.
My advice to Ashish all through the last week was to delay binding and wait for the originals. I emailed and spoke to Tara and Jamie about this issue. And I also spoke to Deepak on Friday evening. The papers were sent for binding on Friday late evening. Earlier in the evening Ashish had given me the original set to review and it had two scanned certs, the Vale and the Kazakhstan cert. Both of these were black and white copies.
Weekend (10 & 11 July 2010)
On Saturday morning I sent an email on this issue because I was concerned and because Deepak had given some advice. This email is on record. Deepak called me on Saturday and told me to now leave the issue/ decision to Prat and Ash.
I went into office on Saturday later and saw the bound version. I was surprised to find the Kazakhstan cert (one of the missing originals) in color. It looked like the original. I asked Ashish and Ramesh (I do not remember if Praveena was in the room) “Are you guys playing games with me?” Basically I asked them have you got the original because you told me it had not arrived. Ashish told me this was a color printout. I said I got confused. It looked like an original. I asked Ashish where did you get this. He said they had a color scan and they decided to take a color printout.
Prat came in later and Ashish told him Seema had gotten confused about the color printout.
Even though Ashish told me this was a color print-out, I now have doubts about this. Prat and Ash were very angry about my Saturday email. There was a lot of tension because of my email.
On Sunday, Ash tried to trap me into getting a non-compliant Power of Attorney (POA) as he raised a big hue and cry about a small mistake in the POA. I refused to get the non-compliant POA and insisted that use the document we had. [This was confirmed by three lawyers, Amit Kumar (Amarchand), Deepak Adlakha and I. All three were of the view that there was no defect in the POA we had.] When I said the existing POA was OK, Ash got upset and said I had been going on for weeks about the customer certs and now I was not concerned about the POA.
On Sunday, Praveena claimed to have found a notary on the internet who could notarise a new POA. Ash and Praveena wanted to send an office assistant to this notary. I said I would go myself as I wanted to make sure it was all genuine. I found the notary set-up a con and refused to get a new POA from there. Despite my telling Ash (I called Ash from the notary’s office) my concerns about this notary, he suggested I get the document and then we could decide. I refused and said the existing POA could be used. Later I found a genuine stamp paper vendor who issued stamp paper on Sunday. I also located a genuine notary who could notarise the POA. When I asked Ash to send his car for the stamp paper, Prat stepped in, called up Amit Kumar (Amarchand) and decided we did not need a new POA. I think there was an attempt to harass me over a minor defect in the POA and to trap me into getting a non-compliant POA. Did Praveena really find the con notary on the internet on Sunday? Was this a pre-planned conspiracy? Was this intended to deflect my attention from the customer cert issue?
Prat bullied and humiliated me in front of everyone on Sunday over other issues (i.e., me questioning Ramesh sending out E Loco RFP queries to the Government without review) leading me to tell him I would resign. Deepak called me about this on Sunday evening.
I have given these and subsequent events a lot of thought in the past few weeks.
I am concerned about the Kazakhstan cert that was submitted. Was it a color print-out of a color scan like I was told? The earlier scan I had seen was in black and white. Was this a doctored/ manipulated document?
It is important that GE ascertain whether the scan was in color or not? Where did the color printout come from?
Were Prat and Ash intending to pass off the Kazakhstan cert submitted as original? Was this why my email of Saturday made them so angry?
If the color copy filed is not a genuine print-out of a genuine color scanned copy then the document could be seen as a forgery. GE must inform the Government about any such forgery.
I have another concern about this weekend.
My email stopped working after my Saturday morning email. I tried to resolve the problem on the phone with Varun (IT) on Saturday but could not. He could not explain why my connection to the GE servers was down. There was something wrong about my IP address. My email started working again on Monday morning on its own. Did someone deliberately interfere with my network connectivity? Why was my connection down on Saturday and Sunday.
Incidentally, all through this weekend, I had severe lower back pain and was on pain-killers.
All of this also happened soon after I had spoken to Radhika about Prat and Praveena and after I suspect Radhika warned Praveena.
Some other thoughts:
Prat, Ash, Ramesh and Praveena’s entire interaction with me as legal counsel for GE was in bad faith.
While I was still at AIFACS I noticed how anxious Prat, Ash, Ramesh and Praveena became when I started talking about raising concerns.
I can prove everything that happened on a day-to-day basis. There are so many people who can bear me out on facts. But no one in GE was interested in listening to what happened. GE’s response was to push me out, move me to Gurgaon and then to ask me to leave. The paramount concern of people I tried to speak to was that nothing should come in the way of the D loco deal. And since Prat was not working well with me, I should be removed from the role.
Thanks,
Seema
–
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: GE’s bid for diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Cc: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, deepak.adlakha@ge.com, james.winget@ge.com, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, rjs22@cornell.edu, john.flannery@ge.com, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com
Alex,
I have already contacted the Indian Railways Board about the fake certificate concern. Plus I have made preliminary contact with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the fraud division of the United States Department of Justice and shared concerns about the 2009 SEC violation and the fake certificate. So I am not making any “threats”whether “increasingly shrill” or otherwise. I have also shared my concerns with the White House through their website.
If offences were committed, then these need to be investigated by appropriate law enforcement agencies and not by GE internally.
GE has had sufficient time to at least verify whether the document filed (I refer to the copy of the Kazakhstancertificate) was faked or not. If it was faked then the matter needs to be reported to the Railway Ministry and the Police.
Can GE confirm to me today that the certificate was not faked? A month and a half has elapsed since I first communicated my suspicion. GE ought to have ascertained this fact by now. If it was not faked then please show me the email it was printed from.
The reason I emailed Jeff Immelt is because I was both surprised and disappointed that he would lobby for prequalification under the present circumstances. I fail to see what doubt this casts on my motivations.
I believe I am required on ethical grounds to report any wrongdoings or illegal acts to appropriate authorities. I draw your attention to the Bar Council of India standards on professional conduct and Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act (extracted below):
Bar Council of India Standards on Professional Conduct
· Advocates have the dual responsibility of upholding the interests of the client fearlessly while conducting themselves as officers of the court. Accordingly, they are expected to adhere to the highest standards of probity and honour. An advocate’s conduct should reflect their privileged position in society which derives from the nobility of this profession. In a nut shell, if you are an advocate your service to the common man should be compassionate, moral and lawful.
· The rules mentioned in the Chapter II, Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules on standards of professional conduct and etiquette shall be adopted as a guide for all advocates in conducting matters related to law.
· Advocates, in addition to being professionals, are also officers of the courts and play a vital role in the administration of justice.
· Accordingly, the set of rules that govern their professional conduct arise out of the duty that they owe the court, the client, their opponents and other advocates.
· Rule 7. Not disclose the communications between client and himself – An advocate should not by any means, directly or indirectly, disclose the communications made by his client to him. He also shall not disclose the advice given by him in the proceedings. However, he is liable to disclose if it violates Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act
126. Professional communications – No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil, shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’s express consent to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for thee purpose of his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment.
Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure –
1. Any communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose,
2. Any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, in the course of his employment as such showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.
It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client.
Explanation – The obligation stated in this section continues after the employment has ceased.
Illustrations
(a) A, a client, says to B, an attorney – "I have committed forgery and I wish you to defend me."
As the defense of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose, this communication is protected from disclosure.
(b) A, a client, says to B, and attorney – "I wish to obtain possession of property by the use of forged deed on which I request you to sue."
The communication being made in furtherance of criminal purpose, is not protected from disclosure.
(c) A, being charged with embezzlement retains B, an attorney to defend him, In the course of the proceedings B observes that an entry has been made in A’s account book, charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement of his employment.
This being a fact observed by B in the course of his employment showing that a fraud has been committed since the commencement of the proceedings, it is not protected from disclosure.
I believe that I am not only permitted by but also required by the above code of conduct to report any illegal acts to authorities.
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
From: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate) [mailto:alexander.dimitrief@ge.com]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 2:23 AM
To: seema.sapra@googlemail.com
Cc: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: RE: GE’s bid for diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra
Confidential
Seema:
As Jeff Eglash has advised you on numerous occasions, we are conducting a thorough investigation of your various allegations and will address any concerns substantiated by our investigation as may be warranted by the evidence. Please rest assured that we have heard you each and every time that you have stated your frustration with the pace of our work, but responsible investigations take time to complete appropriately. If you are genuinely interested in helping us get to closure as soon as possible, you should change your mind and cooperate with our work by meeting with Jeff for a constructive interview– again, at a time and place that is convenient to you. Meanwhile, neither missives like the one below to our senior management nor your increasingly shrill threats to report your suspicions and allegations to various authorities are going to influence our investigation or its results. To the contrary, some might say that communications like the one below serve only to cast doubt on the motivations for your allegations and communications.
Finally, although I would never discourage you or anyone else from raising issues with appropriate authorities when reasonably necessary to do so, I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that GE has not waived the attorney-client, work product or any other privileges that attach to your work at GE and that we expect you to honor your obligations to maintain the confidentiality of information subject to GE’s various privileges and other rights to confidentiality.
Alex
Alex Dimitrief
Vice President & Senior Counsel
Litigation & Legal Policy
General Electric
T +1 203 373 2233
F +1 203 373 2523
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
GE imagination at work
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:21 AM
To: Jeffrey.Immelt@ge.com (GE, Corporate); Jeffrey.Immelt@ge.com (GE, Corporate)
Cc: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate); Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate); Plimpton, Tara (GE Transportation, US); Adlakha, Deepak (GE India); Winget, James, Legal (GE Transportation, US); Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate); rjs22@cornell.edu; Flannery, John L (GE India, GE Officer)
Subject: GE’s bid for diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra
Mr Immelt,
I am writing in connection with GE’s bid for the diesel locomotive factory in India. As I communicated to some GE lawyers on 1 October, I have reason to suspect that a fake certificate was filed by GE along with its RFQ application on 12 July 2010.
It is surprising that despite this, you used your recent visit to Indiaand President Obama’s visit to India to lobby for pre-qualification. Such lobbying during a live public procurement process is in any event undesirable. However, in the present circumstances where the integrity of GE’s application is questionable, your lobbying gives the impression that GE does not really stand by its pledges of integrity and believes that it can behave with impunity in a country like India.
I have communicated my concerns to the Indian Railway Board. Plus I have also communicated these to the United States SEC and the United States Department of Justice.
I hope GE will do the right thing and not engage in any cover-up.
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Subject: RE: your email dated 7 October 2010
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Jeff,
I believe Amarjyoti Barua is a friend of Gaurav Negi’s. I don’t see how he can be independent here. Also, I am not getting any answers to my questions from you. Your response practically ignores most of the content from my two emails from today. We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.
I have no reason to have faith in an internal GE investigation and see no reason to submit to be interviewed by Amar Barua and Shruti Narang who I know nothing about. Are they in any way qualified to interview me? How can I be sure of their independence?
I reiterate that I will seek my own recourse including legal remedies available to me. Given your lack of good-faith response to my requests, and your avoidance in answering my queries, I am not interested in any GE investigation.
Thanks,
Seema
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) [mailto:jeffrey.eglash@ge.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:08 PM
To: Seema Sapra
Cc: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate); Barua, Amarjyoti (GE India); Narang, Shruti SN (GE India)
Subject: RE: your email dated 7 October 2010
Seema,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Based on the concerns you have voiced, I and my team will proceed with our investigation.
It is true that you have provided us with information that we can pursue without speaking with you. But I believe that an interview at the outset of the investigation will help us understand the full nature and scope of your concerns. Amar, Shruti and I are all new to this matter and our understanding would be enhanced by the chance to talk with you. Further, while we can certainly read your previous emails outlining your concerns, speak with Anil and others at Transportation to hear from them what you told them, and engage in a written Q&A with you via email, experience has taught me that there is no substitute for a face-to-face interview.
In the event you will reconsider, Amar and Shruti have blocked off time in their calendars for Monday, beginning at 9:00 am, and have reserved space at the Gurgaon office for your interview. If you would be willing to sit and speak with them, please let me know.
Thank you,
Jeff Eglash
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 4:20 AM
To: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Cc: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)
Subject: your email dated 7 October 2010
Jeff,
Thank you for your email.
Given my experience with the following:
(i) raising concerns at GE;
(ii) the kind of power and influence Prat seemed to wield;
(iii) my contract getting terminated obviously for my persistence in ensuring that a fair investigation took place;
(iv) my apprehension that my conversations with Anil Chaddha might have been passed on to Prat and Ash;
(v) a message has gone out to witnesses (current GE employees) on account of my ouster to the effect that GE at the highest level did not support me;
(vi) that the SEC issue possibly involves people occupying very high positions in GE;
(vii) that people wanted to isolate me from the group at AIFACS;
(viii) that current GE employees who report to Prat or are compromised in some way will have a disincentive to speak the truth in any internal investigation;
(ix) that besides your assurance, I have no other reason to believe that an internal GE investigation will be fair or will not attempt a cover-up;
(x) that GE is unwillingly to even tell me in writing why my contract was terminated and by whom;
(xi) that a serious offence of forgery might have been committed;
I am reasonably apprehensive whether to trust an internal GE investigation over which I have no control and where information will presumably not be shared with me. I am already the outsider.
I ask again: What was the ostensible reason why a group of people took the decision to terminate my contract on 20 September? Your investigation can only look into whether that decision was legitimate or not. Your investigation in the future cannot subsequently supply the reasons for a decision that took place in the past. You write:
“During our call, you indicated that you wanted to know the reasons for the decision to terminate your contract. I understand that you feel that the contract was terminated in response to you having raised concerns about various compliance matters. Let me assure you that it is against GE policy to terminate an employment contract for such a reason and that, in addition to investigating your other concerns, I will be reviewing the reasons for terminating your contract as part of my investigation. Accordingly, I have not pre-judged the matter or arrived at any conclusions as to the reasons for your termination. I believe, therefore, that it would be premature for me to report to you on these reasons while the subject is under investigation.”
This statement appears to obfuscate the issue. Are you saying that you do not know why the contract was terminated or that the people who took that decision did not know why they were taking that decision. Or are you suggesting that I was and am not entitled to be told why the contract was terminated.
Jeff, without making any suggestion as to your objectivity in the matter, I think it would be foolish and naïve on my part to place my implicit faith and trust in GE to investigate this. I intend to make sure that the truth is uncovered.
I therefore am not agreeable to ceding all control over uncovering the truth to GE. I will participate in any GE investigation but on my own terms so that I am sure about the integrity of the investigation. I am ready to answer questions in writing. I am also entitled to ask questions. Why should I not reach out to others at GE besides you?
I have already shared enough information on all concerns with GE to enable an internal investigation. May I ask if other people named by me or who were obvious witnesses have been questioned? Have they also been spoken to in the presence of external counsel like I was? Has Prat been questioned? Has Lorenzo been examined? Has Ashish Malhotra been questioned on the Kazakhstancertificate? Has Gaurav Negi been questioned? Has Radhika been questioned? Ramesh? Praveena? Others? The list is quite long …
I would request that you do carry out your investigation and talk to everyone involved. I am ready to help by answering further questions and clarifying facts. I want access to what statements are recorded from witnesses.
Here are two immediate questions I have:
- Do phone records establish whether there was contact between Prat, Ash and Anil Chaddha in the relevant period?
- Have you verified if there was a color scan of the Kazakhstan certificate like I was told? Please let me know the position on this? I would like to get to the truth of this. Have you spoken to the concerned people about what happened on this issue?
I do not think GE needs to interview me at this stage. I have already shared the crucial details. Please carry out your investigation. I am ready to help by answering further questions in writing. I am ready to be forthright and open as I have been. I hope I can expect the same from GE.
Regards,
Seema Sapra
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)<jeffrey.eglash@ge.com> wrote:
Seema,
I am writing to follow up on our conversation earlier this week. As I indicated, my objective is to conduct a thorough, timely, and independent review of your concerns, and to report my conclusions to Brackett Denniston and my immediate supervisor, Alex Dimitrief. GE is treating your concerns with the utmost seriousness and considers your cooperation in the investigation to be very important.
During our call, you indicated that you wanted to know the reasons for the decision to terminate your contract. I understand that you feel that the contract was terminated in response to you having raised concerns about various compliance matters. Let me assure you that it is against GE policy to terminate an employment contract for such a reason and that, in addition to investigating your other concerns, I will be reviewing the reasons for terminating your contract as part of my investigation. Accordingly, I have not pre-judged the matter or arrived at any conclusions as to the reasons for your termination. I believe, therefore, that it would be premature for me to report to you on these reasons while the subject is under investigation.
You said in our call that you would be unwilling to cooperate with the investigation unless you were first provided with an explanation for the contract termination and a list of those involved in the decision to terminate your contract. Your cooperation is important to the investigation of your concerns, and I hope that you do not make your cooperation conditional in any way. Instead, I ask that you be forthright and open with information so we can conduct a thorough investigation into your concerns. I also reiterate the request I made that you not reach out to others at GE to discuss this matter while it is under active investigation. Instead, I ask that you trust me to conduct the independent evaluation of your concerns that I have been directed to do.
I have arranged for Amar Barua and Shruti Narang to meet with you on Monday. I hope that you will agree to the interview. Please confirm and I will get back to you shortly on the time and place for the meeting.
Thank you,
Jeff Eglash
Jeffrey Eglash
Senior Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy
GE
T +1 203 373 2825
M +1 203 895 0233
F +1 203 373 2523
E jeffrey.eglash@ge.com
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield CT 06828 USA
General Electric Company
Notice: This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:03 PM
Subject: RE: Today
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Jeff,
I do want to make it clear for the record that our discussion was rather limited and not exhaustive. Even though you say 5 hours, the effective time was much less. The discussion was not very efficient from my perspective in terms of sharing all relevant and useful information that I am relying upon. I see events as they unfolded in a chronological manner. There is a lot that happened in five months. There is a lot of evidence to back up my claims. Plus in many instances, a chronological pattern is important to explain what was going on. I don’t think touching superficially on a few issues can do justice to my concerns. So for the record, it is important that I note that I have not made a complete or exhaustive statement to you. Since I have legal claims against GE that I intend to enforce I need to clarify this without meaning any offence. I apologize for the tone of my email if it disappointed.
Our discussion barely touched the surface. Some of your questions did seem as if you had pre-conceived views probably from what you have heard from others. For instance what you said about the BHEL meeting (that it was not necessary that I be taken for it) and what you said about the environment at GE transportation/ AIFACS not being very different from other GE businesses are things that I have heard from Deepak Adlakha. (These were I believe Deepak’s uninformed views without being in possession of the facts.) For the former, the part that I was able to narrate about the meeting is a small component of what transpired on this issue and for the latter, the kind of hostile work environment and harassment I experienced is not I believe and hope “usual” even in tough corporate environments.
I need to clarify this on record to prevent GE from claiming at any point of time that I have made a full statement to you. Further I don’t want GE to question later as to why something I might rely upon was not disclosed to them.
Also for the record, I did meet with you but I am not relying upon GE to investigate this and for GE to reach conclusions on my claims. I do not expect a GE investigation to be fair and neutral. Given the seriousness of some claims, an internal GE investigation is also not appropriate. I intend to follow up on my concerns and claims independently.
Best Regards,
Seema
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) [mailto:jeffrey.eglash@ge.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 5:14 PM
To: Seema Sapra
Subject: RE: Today
Seema,
I appreciate the additional information, but must also tell you that I’m disappointed by the tone of your note, which sounds like you are trying to make some kind of a record, and which doesn’t reflect my view of our roughly 5 hours of discussions. I viewed the investigation process as one involving give and take and question and answer. I’m used to asking a lot of questions to help me understand what is being said. What you term interruptions was simply my effort to try and both understand and focus on the core issues. It was not my intent to diminish your concerns or limit your discussion of them and if I did give that impression then I apologize.
Regards,
Jeff
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:22 AM
To: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: RE: Today
Jeff,
Thanks. Unfortunately, as you know we could cover only a few things as we ran out of time.
Also, there were a few times during our conversation when you interrupted me and this resulted in me not completing what I was in the process of saying. Hence some clarifications. I would have made these points if I had not been interrupted.
- On the certificate issue: I did inform Prat and Ash that even if the Railways accepted a copy, EMD could always raise this issue in a court challenge. I also mentioned this to Tara and possibly to Deepak as well when I spoke with him on Friday (9 July) evening. And my bringing this to Ash and Prat’s notice was accompanied by the usual bullying behavior that they resort to when someone tries to raise a concern they do not want to hear.
- It is not the case that I was "offended" as you put it by not being “told” about the compliance investigation concerning Yashdeep Sule. What I heard from two people (Alpna and Anand) and what I heard and observed regarding the dynamics between the involved people causes me concern that there was an attempt to “manage” the investigation and get Yashdeep off with a light punishment. However, someone intervened and insisted that a stronger punishment be meted out. Yashdeep was expecting to be let off but towards the end things went awry and many things that I observed pertain to this period. The real intent of the plan (that went wrong) might have been to let off someone else.
- On my experience with Praveena, my concerns are not limited to what you called "minor issues" like delay in getting the laptop and stationary. I had just started on this when you interrupted me and pronounced my concerns "minor". There was a whole sustained pattern of behavior over the course of my employment that demonstrated her intentional non-cooperation, resentment and her excluding me from resources, assistance and information necessary for me to do my job. These were not the only items delayed and the delays were intentional. She was very clearly a participant in the harassment and I believe she instigated others against me as well.
- The issue about the GE-BHEL joint RFQ submission is different from the GE-BHEL MOU issue. And the former issue is what I was trying to talk about yesterday. I had just started with how Ramesh answered my request to attend the BHEL meeting by being aggressively rude and saying “he would not go if I went”. His intent was clearly to prevent me from finding out what was going to be discussed with BHEL while at the same time he wanted me to provide legal assistance for this meeting. And as it became clear subsequently, there was no business approval for this meeting and these discussions. These discussions were completely against GE’s interest. Once again you interrupted me and I was not able to proceed.
- There has been no GE investigation on the petty cash external auditors report in the Vineet Sood issue. So no one has been held to account for the compliance violations on the unfair labor practice concern and fake invoices.
- My telling Praveena and Ramesh that I would raise the issue with Prat when I was unable to convince them to not destroy essential documents during the E Loco RFQ preparation was completely justified and was not in any way as you suggested “confrontational”. I was simply doing my job.
I hope what ever little I had the opportunity to communicate over the phone on the 29th and during our meeting on the 30th is helpful.
Best Regards,
Seema
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) [mailto:jeffrey.eglash@ge.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:53 PM
To: Seema Sapra
Subject: Today
Seema,
Thank you very much for your time today. I enjoyed speaking with you and am glad we had the chance to go over things. I’m always available to talk further.
Best regards,
Jeff
Jeffrey Eglash
Senior Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy
GE
T +1 203 373 2825
M +1 203 895 0233
F +1 203 373 2523
E jeffrey.eglash@ge.com
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield CT 06828 USA
General Electric Company
Notice: This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
—————————————————————————-
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Subject: RE: Today
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Jeff,
OK. Monday is fine.
Thanks,
Seema
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) [mailto:jeffrey.eglash@ge.com]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 9:07 PM
To: Seema Sapra
Subject: RE: Today
Seema,
I have meetings starting late Monday morning in New York. Can we talk from about 10 to 1030 am eastern on Monday, with John Chesley on the line, and then if more time is needed, you can either continue with John after I drop off or we can continue the discussion at a later date (which would likely have to be the following week, as I’ll be on the road Tuesday thru Friday)?
Jeff
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:06 AM
To: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: RE: Today
Thanks, could we schedule for Monday.
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) [mailto:jeffrey.eglash@ge.com]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 4:43 PM
To: Seema Sapra
Subject: RE: Today
Of course. We can talk this morning if its going to be fairly brief. You can call me at the office, 203-373-2825. If it is going to be longer and go into the substance of the issues, we should try and schedule something for Monday when I can have someone on the call with us.
Thanks,
Jeff
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:27 AM
To: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: RE: Today
Jeff,
Would it be possible to speak with you?
Thanks,
Seema
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM
Subject: RE: tomorrow
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Thanks. I’ll be there.
From: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) [mailto:jeffrey.eglash@ge.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:55 AM
To: Seema Sapra
Subject: Re: tomorrow
Yes. 130 shangri la business ctr.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:30 AM, "Seema Sapra" <seema.sapra@googlemail.com> wrote:
Jeff,
Is there a number I can call you on. Have tried your US cellphone but can’t connect. Or please cal back.
Thanks,
Seema
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com> wrote:
Jeff,
Could you please confirm that we are meeting at 1.30 at Shangri-La Hotel. Going over everything should require about 4-6 hours.
I hope the laptop will be available.
Thanks,
Seema
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com> wrote:
Thanks Seema. I’ve got a message in to my IT connection in Fairfieldwho I delegated responsibility to. I haven’t heard back but it is still early; however, he was out on military leave last week and I don’t know if he’s back in the office today or not. In addition, CAS has reached out to IT support here and I haven’t heard back from them yet.
Jeff
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 6:58 AM
To: Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)
Subject: Re: tomorrow
Jeff,
OK. If not Shangri-La, we can even meet at AIFACS.
Please do bring the laptop along. I am sure you will be able to trace it.
Thanks,
Seema
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate) <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com> wrote:
Seema,
I’m pretty sure we’ll have space tomorrow at the Shangri-La hotel which I understand is very near AIFACS. (If this falls thru I’ll let you know.) But so far I’ve not been able to reschedule my previously-scheduled morning meetings. So if alright with you, I’d like to start at 130 tomorrow. Regarding your laptop, I’m making inquiries, but in any event will come with hard copies of many pertinent documents.
Thanks. See you tomorrow.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeffrey Eglash
Senior Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy
GE
T +1 203 373 2825
M +1 203 895 0233
F +1 203 373 2523
E jeffrey.eglash@ge.com
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield CT 06828 USA
General Electric Company
Notice: This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: Response on GE’s alleged investigation
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Cc: jchesley@gibsondunn.com, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, fwarin@gibsondunn.com
Dear Mr. Dimitrief,
I have revised my response dated 25 April 2011 to correct inadvertent typos and to ensure that my meaning is more clearly conveyed. A revised response is attached. This replaces the response dated 25 April.
Thank you,
Seema Sapra
From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@googlemail.com]
Sent: 25 April 2011 23:23
To: ‘Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)’
Cc: jchesley@gibsondunn.com; ‘Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)’; ‘Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)’;jeffrey.immelt@ge.com; fwarin@gibsondunn.com
Subject: Response on GE’s alleged investigation
Dear Mr. Dimitrief,
Please find attached my response to your letter dated February 3, 2011 on the issue of GE’s alleged investigation.
Thank you,
Seema Sapra
———————————————————————————————
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:15 AM
Subject: queries
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Cc: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, fwarin@gibsondunn.com, jchesley@gibsondunn.com
Dear Mr. Dimitrief,
As I continue to decipher your letter of February 3, 2011, I have queries that I would request you to answer.
1. On page 5 of your letter, you state:
“We have compared the printout of the certificate from the July 7 e-mail with GETI’s copy of the Request for Qualification (“RFQ”) submitted to Indian Railways and they are identical. GETI submitted the scanned copy of the Kazakh certificate received on July 7 to Indian Railways without alteration”.
What evidence do you base your second statement (reproduced in the above extract) on?
You refer to GETI’s copy of the RFQ. When was this copy made?
During my meeting with him, Mr. Eglash at one point asked me if someone had added a date to the undated original Kazakh certificate that was received in December 2009/ January 2010. I answered that a new certificate was obtained. However, since that meeting I have wondered if what Mr. Eglash suggested might have happened. Have you verified that this did not happen?
2. On page 2 of your letter, you state;
“GE and Gibson Dunn reviewed thousands of documents obtained from relevant witnesses and GETI’s leadership.”
Could you clarify at what point of time did GE and Gibson Dunn review these thousands of documents? Were these reviewed before or after my email to Mr. Immelt on 10 November 2010.
I look forward to a response.
Thank you,
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:56 PM
Subject: my complaints against General Electric and some General Electric employees
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Cc: jchesley@gibsondunn.com, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, fwarin@gibsondunn.com, rjs22@cornell.edu
Dear Mr. Dimitrief,
I would request that you and Mr. Brackett Denniston recuse yourselves from representing and advising General Electric on the complaints and claims that I have made. There is a clear conflict of interest.
There is also a conflict of interest between my claims and complaints and GE Directors and Officers who are named as Defendants in the shareholder class action legal proceedings (for the period including February 2009) that have been filed before the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Subject: copy of report
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, fwarin@gibsondunn.com
Dear Mr. Eglash,
I presume that you would have produced some kind of a detailed report as a result of the “investigation”you claim to have undertaken. I request that you provide me with a copy of this report.
Thank you,
Seema Sapra
——————————————————————————————–
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Your Allegations
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Cc: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Dear Mr. Dimitrief,
Please find attached my response on the forgery issue.
Thank you,
Seema Sapra
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate) <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com> wrote:
Confidential
Dear Ms. Sapra:
My February 3rd letter did not misrepresent or caricature your concerns, as you contend in your March 25th email. We conducted a comprehensive investigation of your allegations and determined that they are without merit for the reasons that I detailed in my February 3rd letter. My letter also described the broad scope of the investigation, which was conducted by a team of independent lawyers and auditors and included an exhaustive review of pertinent documents, 20 witness interviews (including five separate interviews with you) and the review of the 21 separate written complaints that you have submitted. The exhaustive scope of our investigation belies your renewed accusation of some sort of a cover-up. Each of your concerns has been carefully evaluated, exhaustively investigated, and ultimately found to be baseless.
With respect to your particular requests, we will comply with applicable legal obligations regarding the preservation of evidence – again, as we have previously advised you. We expect that you will likewise comply with your obligations. In that regard, per your request, we draw your attention to two separate confidentiality agreements that you signed as a consultant to GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. In your Consulting Services & Retainer Agreement, you agreed to "maintain in confidence and safeguard all business and technical information" that became available to you during the course of your consultancy, and not to disseminate such information to outside parties. In your Employee Innovation and Proprietary Information Agreement, you agreed "not to use, publish or otherwise disclose . . . either during or subsequent to [your] employment, any secret or confidential information or data of the Company." To the extent you have any company documents in your possession, you were also obligated under both agreements to return these documents upon your termination. Finally, these contractual confidentiality obligations are supplemented by your ethical duties of confidentiality to a former client under Indian bar regulations. These contractual duties and ethical obligations remain in full force and effect, and we know of no rule of law that permits you unilaterally to declare them null and void.
I am puzzled by your request for the names of the investigators. You already know very well that our investigation was led by Messrs. Eglash and Chesley and was carried out under my direction. Mr. Eglash has previously (and repeatedly) advised you that, for the reasons that we have already explained numerous times, we decline to provide you with the balance of the materials and documents you seek.
With respect, we consider this matter to be concluded. It remains my sincere hope that you will be able to move on to achieve success and more satisfaction in your future endeavors.
Alex Dimitrief
Vice President & Senior Counsel
Litigation & Legal Policy
General Electric
T +1 203 373 2233
F +1 203 373 2523
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
GE imagination at work
—————————————————————————————————-
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:55 PM
Subject: your email dated April 9, 2011
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, fwarin@gibsondunn.com, john.flannery@ge.com
Dear Mr. Dimitrief,
I write in response to your following statement in your email dated April 9, 2011:
“In your Consulting Services & Retainer Agreement, you agreed to "maintain in confidence and safeguard all business and technical information" that became available to you during the course of your consultancy, and not to disseminate such information to outside parties. In your Employee Innovation and Proprietary Information Agreement, you agreed "not to use, publish or otherwise disclose . . . either during or subsequent to [your] employment, any secret or confidential information or data of the Company." To the extent you have any company documents in your possession, you were also obligated under both agreements to return these documents upon your termination. Finally, these contractual confidentiality obligations are supplemented by your ethical duties of confidentiality to a former client under Indian bar regulations. These contractual duties and ethical obligations remain in full force and effect, and we know of no rule of law that permits you unilaterally to declare them null and void.”
First, it is now clear that GE (through GE employees) hired my legal services with the fraudulent, dishonest and criminal intent to perpetrate and perpetuate ongoing crimes under United States law, comprising of conduct amounting to obstruction of justice in regard to the shareholder class action law suits against GE Officers and Directors pending before the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The criminal intent was to use me as the scapegoat/ victim in the commission of these crimes while providing distance and cover to buffer/ protect other GE lawyers (namely Ms. Tara Plimpton, Ms. Mona Dange and Mr. Deepak Adlakha) who were an integral part of the conspiracy to commit these crimes.
GE Transportation employees felt entitled and emboldened to commit other corrupt and fraudulent acts as a direct result of the above conspiracy,. The engagement of Mr. Vinod Sharma as consultant despite a conflict of interest is an example. And so is the forgery of the Kazakh certificate. In addition, there was widespread non-compliance and other corrupt and illegal conduct that was a routine part of GE’s efforts to win the Dankuni, Madhepura and Marhowra tenders. So corrupt was the environment and culture that multiple frauds and conspiracies were going on simultaneously. Tara Plimpton, Deepak Adlakha and Mona Dange were all involved in conspiracies to commit fraud. They were conspiring with the people in my team against me with the result that the whole team treated me as the scapegoat.
It is my position therefore that my contract with GE was vitiated by fraud. Specifically, the confidentiality clauses that you cite are vitiated by fraud and are unenforceable. These clauses along with other provisions of the two agreements you mention are void under Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act as the real object of those agreements was unlawful. The real object of those agreements was the perpetration and perpetuation of criminal and fraudulent conduct and its subsequent cover-up. The object of those agreements was immoral; opposed to public policy; fraudulent; intended to defraud and cause injury to the United States District Court, GE shareholders and the Indian Government; and forbidden by law.
Without prejudice to my claim that the confidentiality clauses you cite are void ab initio under Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act, it is my position in the alternative that these clauses are voidable at my option under Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, my consent having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. I have already exercised my right to avoid/ rescind these clauses and hereby do so again.
The Employee Innovation and Proprietary Information Agreement was signed by me on 26 July 2010 on the request of Arvind Subramanian, the HR Manager. At that time I asked him why this was necessary as I had already signed a non-disclosure agreement when I joined GE. He replied that the earlier agreement was with the wrong entity and therefore I needed to sign a new one which all employees were being asked to sign. He pointed out that the new document contained Mr. John Flannery’s name instead of the earlier CEO for GE India. The timing of this request by Mr. Subramanian and the manner in which I was asked to sign this agreement show that the intent was to prevent me from exposing the various frauds and crimes being perpetrated by GE employees. The request that I sign this agreement was motivated with the intent to cover up crime and fraud.
Under Indian law and Indian Bar Council regulations, it remains my legal and ethical obligation not to allow my legal services to be used in furtherance of crime or fraud. The Consulting Services and Retainer Agreement that I signed on 23 April 2010 required that both GE and I comply with all laws including the laws of India. It also required me to comply with General Electric Company policies on business integrity including the booklet entitled “Integrity: The Spirit & Letter of Our Commitment”.
In these circumstances, I disagree with your statement that “To the extent you have any company documents in your possession, you were also obligated under both agreements to return these documents upon your termination.” The timing of your statement is also suspicious. I had informed Mr. Jeffrey Eglash when I spoke with him and Mr. Chesley on 13 December 2010 that I had printed out certain emails before I left GE. Mr. Eglash did not at that time request that I return these emails. I mentioned these emails again when I spoke with Mr. Eglash on 20 January 2011. He again did not request that I return them. I am therefore surprised at your statement of 9 April 2011.
I have been reading about GE’s dispute with Ms. Adriana Koeck, another GE lawyer who claimed she was fired for reporting fraud. I notice some similarities between her case and mine. In both cases, there was an on-going fraud and conspiracy and a new legal counsel was brought in as a scape-goat and victim. In both cases the lawyer faced retaliation and harassment for failing/ refusing to go along with the fraud. In Ms. Koeck’s case you smeared her reputation by accusing her of leaking confidential documents to the media. You are now raising the same confidentiality issue vis-à-vis me after I have rejected your bogus and dishonest investigation that covers-up the criminal and fraudulent activity. There seems to be a disturbing pattern here.
Given all of the above and when I have been the direct target of fraudulent and criminal conduct by GE employees, I am fully within my legal rights in retaining these emails so that I can pursue my claims and complaints against GE. Further, I have reasonable grounds to believe that GE employees including GE lawyers are capable of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. I must also point out that it is GE and GE employees that have violated almost all legal, contractual and ethical obligations owed to me. GE employees have attempted to commit crimes against me and to embroil me in their crimes.
In this view of the matter, I am unable to agree with your statement.
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
From: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate) [mailto:alexander.dimitrief@ge.com]
Sent: 09 April 2011 18:49
To: seema.sapra@googlemail.com; seemasapra@hotmail.com
Subject: Your Allegations
Confidential
Dear Ms. Sapra:
My February 3rd letter did not misrepresent or caricature your concerns, as you contend in your March 25themail. We conducted a comprehensive investigation of your allegations and determined that they are without merit for the reasons that I detailed in my February 3rd letter. My letter also described the broad scope of the investigation, which was conducted by a team of independent lawyers and auditors and included an exhaustive review of pertinent documents, 20 witness interviews (including five separate interviews with you) and the review of the 21 separate written complaints that you have submitted. The exhaustive scope of our investigation belies your renewed accusation of some sort of a cover-up. Each of your concerns has been carefully evaluated, exhaustively investigated, and ultimately found to be baseless.
With respect to your particular requests, we will comply with applicable legal obligations regarding the preservation of evidence –again, as we have previously advised you. We expect that you will likewise comply with your obligations. In that regard, per your request, we draw your attention to two separate confidentiality agreements that you signed as a consultant to GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. In your Consulting Services & Retainer Agreement, you agreed to "maintain in confidence and safeguard all business and technical information" that became available to you during the course of your consultancy, and not to disseminate such information to outside parties. In your Employee Innovation and Proprietary Information Agreement, you agreed "not to use, publish or otherwise disclose . . . either during or subsequent to [your] employment, any secret or confidential information or data of the Company." To the extent you have any company documents in your possession, you were also obligated under both agreements to return these documents upon your termination. Finally, these contractual confidentiality obligations are supplemented by your ethical duties of confidentiality to a former client under Indian bar regulations. These contractual duties and ethical obligations remain in full force and effect, and we know of no rule of law that permits you unilaterally to declare them null and void.
I am puzzled by your request for the names of the investigators. You already know very well that our investigation was led by Messrs. Eglash and Chesley and was carried out under my direction. Mr. Eglash has previously (and repeatedly) advised you that, for the reasons that we have already explained numerous times, we decline to provide you with the balance of the materials and documents you seek.
With respect, we consider this matter to be concluded. It remains my sincere hope that you will be able to move on to achieve success and more satisfaction in your future endeavors.
Alex Dimitrief
Vice President & Senior Counsel
Litigation & Legal Policy
General Electric
T +1 203 373 2233
F +1 203 373 2523
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
GE imagination at work
————————————————————————————————
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM
Subject: my request for return of my property (email communications with GE and other documents)
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, john.flannery@ge.com
Dear Mr. Dimitrief,
I have made repeated requests that General Electric return to me my property and supply me copies of all email communications exchanged between GE and me (while I was still at GE and therefore saved on the company laptop) on the subject of my employment including my complaints and concerns regarding harassment, retaliation and targeting.
Mr. Eglash responded to my request for these documents with the following statement on November 4, 2010:
“It is not GE’s normal practice to provide documents or information from the company’s computers to former employees. If you are aware of some particular legal requirement to the contrary, please let me know; otherwise I am unable to fulfill your request.”
In your email dated April 9, 2011, you state as follows:
“Mr. Eglash has previously (and repeatedly) advised you that, for the reasons that we have already explained numerous times, we decline to provide you with the balance of the materials and documents you seek.”
I am again compelled to follow-up and request that GE hand over my property to me. Since Mr. Eglash questioned the basis for my request, I am happy to elucidate my legal right to these documents.
During my employment with GE, I exchanged a number of email communications with Human Resources personnel and with others (namely, Ms. Tara Plimpton, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Ms. Praveena Yagnambhat and Mr. Deepak Adlakha) on matters touching upon my employment. These included routine matters like raising invoices, supplying documents and information requested by HR, and my requests for access to facilities, support and resources. I filed these emails in appropriate folders on the company laptop.
Further, during August and September 2010, I exchanged email communications with various persons at GE on the matter of the complaints and concerns I formally raised.
All these email exchanges were communications between me as an individual (acting in my individual capacity and not as GE Legal Counsel) and GE. These emails record communications, decisions, requests and actions taken on matters pertaining to my employment and are my legal property. GE cannot refuse to provide me copies merely because they were sent/ received using the company laptop.
When I was informed about the termination of my contract by Mr. Arvind Subramanian on 20 September 2010, I was asked to hand over the laptop and leave immediately. I was not allowed to make copies of these emails and documents. I asked for copies but was told that my request would be answered the next day. It never was. My subsequent requests for return of my property have been unlawfully denied.
I would add that even though the Employee Innovation and Proprietary Information Agreement is (as I state in my email dated May 17, 2011) vitiated by fraud and therefore null and void, the emails exchanged with GE on matters of my employment do not fall within the purview of this agreement. The subject matter of these emails was not of a “secret or confidential nature relating to the business of the Company or its affiliates”, per clause (d) of the Employee Innovation and Proprietary Information Agreement. Neither can these emails be described as belonging to the Company or being “by their nature … for the use of Company employees only” in terms of clause (d). Further, these emails also do not fall with the ambit of clause (e) of this agreement as they are not“secret or confidential information or data of the Company” nor are they “information or data of others which the Company is obligated to maintain in confidence”.
Rather these emails are my communications with GE on matters relating to my employment and therefore were and remain my property. GE’s refusal to provide me copies of these emails amounts to willful and unlawful retention/ deprivation of my property. I therefore repeat my request that GE provide me copies of these emails and documents. I also request that GE provide me copies of the sms text messages saved on the blackberry phone (which I returned) that I was provided for use at GE. These text messages included my personal messages.
Sincerely,
Seema Sapra
From: Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate) [mailto:alexander.dimitrief@ge.com]
Sent: 09 April 2011 18:49
To: seema.sapra@googlemail.com;seemasapra@hotmail.com
Subject: Your Allegations
Confidential
Dear Ms. Sapra:
My February 3rd letter did not misrepresent or caricature your concerns, as you contend in your March 25themail. We conducted a comprehensive investigation of your allegations and determined that they are without merit for the reasons that I detailed in my February 3rd letter. My letter also described the broad scope of the investigation, which was conducted by a team of independent lawyers and auditors and included an exhaustive review of pertinent documents, 20 witness interviews (including five separate interviews with you) and the review of the 21 separate written complaints that you have submitted. The exhaustive scope of our investigation belies your renewed accusation of some sort of a cover-up. Each of your concerns has been carefully evaluated, exhaustively investigated, and ultimately found to be baseless.
With respect to your particular requests, we will comply with applicable legal obligations regarding the preservation of evidence– again, as we have previously advised you. We expect that you will likewise comply with your obligations. In that regard, per your request, we draw your attention to two separate confidentiality agreements that you signed as a consultant to GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. In your Consulting Services & Retainer Agreement, you agreed to "maintain in confidence and safeguard all business and technical information" that became available to you during the course of your consultancy, and not to disseminate such information to outside parties. In your Employee Innovation and Proprietary Information Agreement, you agreed "not to use, publish or otherwise disclose . . . either during or subsequent to [your] employment, any secret or confidential information or data of the Company." To the extent you have any company documents in your possession, you were also obligated under both agreements to return these documents upon your termination. Finally, these contractual confidentiality obligations are supplemented by your ethical duties of confidentiality to a former client under Indian bar regulations. These contractual duties and ethical obligations remain in full force and effect, and we know of no rule of law that permits you unilaterally to declare them null and void.
I am puzzled by your request for the names of the investigators. You already know very well that our investigation was led by Messrs. Eglash and Chesley and was carried out under my direction. Mr. Eglash has previously (and repeatedly) advised you that, for the reasons that we have already explained numerous times, we decline to provide you with the balance of the materials and documents you seek.
With respect, we consider this matter to be concluded. It remains my sincere hope that you will be able to move on to achieve success and more satisfaction in your future endeavors.
Alex Dimitrief
Vice President & Senior Counsel
Litigation & Legal Policy
General Electric
T +1 203 373 2233
F +1 203 373 2523
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
GE imagination at work
———————————————————————————————-
