Author: Staff Reporter

Newly surfaced letters linked to an internal complaint have raised concerns about the leadership and governance practices of TiE New York, alleging intimidation and procedural interference.

Recent developments surrounding TiE New York have drawn attention to the chapter’s leadership and governance practices. Supplemental letters associated with an internal complaint have surfaced, alleging intimidation and procedural interference within the organization.

These new documents have intensified scrutiny of the chapter’s leadership, prompting questions about the effectiveness of its governance norms. The allegations suggest that procedural integrity may have been compromised, raising concerns among members and stakeholders alike.

The internal complaint, which was first reported in October 2025, highlighted issues of misconduct within the leadership ranks of TiE New York. The latest letters appear to corroborate some of the claims made in that initial complaint, further complicating the chapter’s governance landscape.

As the situation unfolds, members of TiE New York are calling for greater transparency and accountability from their leadership. The chapter, which is part of a global network aimed at fostering entrepreneurship, is now facing a critical moment in its governance structure.

In light of these allegations, it remains to be seen how TiE New York will address the concerns raised by its members and what steps will be taken to restore confidence in its leadership. The chapter’s ability to navigate these challenges will be crucial in maintaining its reputation and effectiveness within the entrepreneurial community.

For more information on this developing story, please refer to The American Bazaar.

Newly uncovered documents raise significant concerns about governance and procedural integrity within TiE New York amid escalating disputes and potential litigation involving the organization’s leadership.

Internal correspondence and legal warnings have surfaced, raising serious questions about governance, procedural fairness, and potential conflicts of interest within TiE New York, one of the organization’s most influential chapters. The documents emerge amid an escalating dispute between charter member Kesav Dama and the leadership of TiE New York, which may lead to litigation.

The recently reviewed documents, dated between October 6 and October 31, 2025, indicate that an internal complaint alleging repeated code-of-conduct violations by then-TiE New York President Jignesh Patel has transformed into a broader confrontation over board procedures, evidentiary fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities under New York nonprofit law.

At the heart of these revelations is a “Notice to Provide Evidence and Information” issued by TiE New York Secretary Vaibhav Parikh. Although the notice is dated October 14, 2025, multiple documents and email records suggest it was actually sent on October 16, effectively backdating the request while imposing a two-business-day deadline for compliance.

The notice demanded extensive documentation from Dama, including complete message histories, call logs, financial substantiation related to a 2023 TiE NY gala, and details about discussions he had regarding his complaint. This demand is particularly concerning given that much of the requested information was already available within the board’s own records.

Backdating a formal request during an active dispute, especially when combined with a compressed response window, can severely undermine confidence in procedural neutrality. This is especially critical in a nonprofit context, where fairness and transparency are paramount.

The October 14 notice also raised eyebrows by invoking Federal Rule of Evidence 106, known as the “rule of completeness,” to justify the demand for unredacted communications and full message threads. Attorneys representing Dama responded strongly, arguing that federal evidentiary standards are not applicable in internal nonprofit governance matters, which are instead governed by New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law and TiE NY’s own bylaws. In a detailed response dated October 31, Dama’s counsel characterized the demand as “highly improper,” “harassing,” and beyond the board’s authority, particularly since the board already controlled the relevant financial and governance records.

The documents also highlight a significant conflict: whether Secretary Vaibhav Parikh can serve as a neutral administrator of the process while also being a material witness. Correspondence reveals that Parikh had multiple substantive conversations with Dama over the summer of 2025 regarding the very conduct now under investigation, as suggested by TiE Global Chairman Murali Bukkapatnam. Furthermore, Parikh was copied on a controversial email from Vivek Rathi that accused Dama of impropriety, which was circulated to board members just before Patel’s disciplinary deliberations.

Dama’s counsel argues that if Parikh participated in or transmitted that communication, he would be required to recuse himself under basic conflict-of-interest principles. Conversely, if Patel disseminated the email after being notified of the complaint against him, this conduct could be viewed as further retaliation and manipulation of the disciplinary process.

Documents reviewed indicate that the Rathi email was not treated as an independent complaint but rather as an informal, unsolicited communication that TiE NY leadership nonetheless classified as a “cross-complaint,” despite the absence of a formal filing or notice to Dama. According to the October 6 demand letter, the Rathi email was circulated to board members immediately before Patel’s disciplinary hearing, allegedly damaging Dama’s reputation and diverting attention from the substantive allegations against Patel. Dama’s counsel contends that elevating the email to complaint status without proper procedure constituted “gross negligence” and may have tainted the board’s deliberations.

Further allegations suggest that Rathi, a recently inducted charter member, may have been coached on how and whom to contact, raising additional questions about whether the email was strategically used to “muddy the waters” rather than address legitimate concerns.

The October 6 submission outlines a timeline of alleged threats and coercive communications attributed to Patel, including text messages in which he purportedly claimed he could “shut down” Dama’s professional relationships by invoking influential third parties. Screenshots included in the record show Patel referencing specific individuals as leverage, conduct that Dama’s attorneys argue clearly violates TiE’s code of conduct and warrants immediate suspension without prolonged process.

The documents emphasize that TiE New York, as a private nonprofit, is not bound by constitutional due-process standards applicable to government action. Boards retain the authority to act decisively on prima facie evidence to protect the organization.

By October 31, the dispute had escalated further, with Dama’s counsel issuing a formal litigation hold notice to the TiE NY board. This notice demanded the preservation of all documents related to the complaint, including board minutes, bylaws, and the disputed Rathi email. It explicitly warned board members of potential personal liability under New York law for breaches of fiduciary duty, citing duties of care, loyalty, and obedience. It also referenced potential actions under Sections 623 and 720 of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, which permit derivative and direct claims against directors and officers for misconduct.

Taken together, the documents depict an organization grappling with an internal crisis while striving to maintain procedural credibility. The backdated evidence demand, the invocation of inapplicable federal rules, unresolved recusal questions, and the late-stage litigation hold all suggest that TiE New York’s handling of the dispute may now be as significant as the underlying allegations themselves.

As of now, TiE New York leadership has not publicly addressed the backdating of the October evidence request or clarified whether independent counsel or an external investigator has been engaged. For a global nonprofit founded on principles of entrepreneurship, ethics, and leadership, the unfolding controversy presents a critical test: whether its governance mechanisms can withstand scrutiny or if deeper reforms are necessary to restore trust among its charter members.

According to The American Bazaar, the situation continues to evolve as stakeholders await further developments.

Newly reviewed documents reveal serious allegations against TiE New York’s leadership, raising concerns about governance and accountability within the influential entrepreneurship network.

New filings have surfaced that add detail to allegations involving the leadership of TiE New York (TiE NY), a prominent chapter in the global TiE entrepreneurship network. This follows an initial report in October 2025, which highlighted an internal complaint against the organization’s president, Jignesh Patel, for alleged misconduct. At that time, TiE NY leadership refrained from commenting in detail, citing an ongoing internal process.

Recent documents suggest that the controversy may be more extensive and consequential than previously understood. Two supplemental letters submitted to the TiE New York board in early October outline serious accusations against Patel, including claims of misconduct towards a charter member and attempts to manipulate the disciplinary process. The letters formally demand Patel’s immediate suspension and warn the board of potential legal exposure should they fail to act.

These developments raise critical questions about internal accountability, board independence, and the effectiveness of TiE NY’s disciplinary mechanisms, particularly when allegations involve senior leadership.

In the original complaint, Kesav Dama, a TiE New York Charter Member, accused Patel of threatening and intimidating behavior. Dama alleged that Patel communicated threats via text messages, suggesting he could “shut down” Dama’s professional relationships by leveraging influential figures within the TiE ecosystem.

While Patel has not publicly admitted to any wrongdoing, and TiE NY has not disclosed the findings of its internal review, the newly surfaced documents expand the narrative beyond the alleged threats to include the organization’s response to the complaint.

The first supplemental letter, dated October 2, 2025, was sent to TiE NY Secretary Vaibhav Parikh. It outlined three potential paths for the board: do nothing, request Patel’s resignation without findings, or formally find misconduct that would trigger consequences beyond TiE New York. The letter emphasized that allowing a resignation without findings would enable Patel to avoid accountability and continue participating in other TiE chapters.

Furthermore, the letter warned that failure to act could expose individual board members to personal liability under New York law, especially if the organization lacks directors and officers (D&O) insurance. It also called for procedural safeguards, including a roll-call vote and the mandatory recusal of at least one board member alleged to be both a witness and a participant in the complained-of conduct. The letter stated that failure to recuse would “taint the entire vote” and provide grounds for appeal.

Perhaps most strikingly, the letter demanded transparency if no action were taken, including the publication of the full complaint to all TiE NY charter members via email and WhatsApp.

A second letter, submitted on October 6, 2025, escalated the matter significantly. This letter formally demanded the immediate suspension of Jignesh Patel, alleging that he had manipulated the disciplinary process by encouraging a third-party complaint against Dama. The document referenced an email from Vivek Rathi, which was described as irrelevant to the underlying misconduct allegations and part of a broader effort to intimidate the original complainant.

The authors of the second letter argued that the timing, recipients, and framing of Rathi’s email suggested coaching by senior leadership, although no direct documentary evidence of such coaching has been publicly disclosed. The letter invoked the legal doctrine of “forfeiture by wrongdoing,” asserting that attempts to intimidate or discredit a complainant should result in the loss of procedural protections typically afforded during internal disciplinary proceedings.

Included with the October 6 letter were exhibits featuring screenshots of text messages attributed to Patel. In one message dated April 2, 2025, Patel allegedly wrote: “I can call Ashish and shut down anything you have going on with him. Same goes for Ranu.” In another message, he reportedly invoked the name of a prominent TiE figure to suggest similar leverage. If authenticated, these messages could substantiate claims of intimidation and misuse of positional authority.

As of now, Patel has not publicly confirmed the authenticity of these messages, and TiE NY has not released any independent verification.

A recurring theme in the documents is the tension between “due process” and the need for immediate action. The authors argue that while TiE NY is a private organization not bound by constitutional due process, it still has an obligation to protect its members from retaliation and witness intimidation. They contend that allowing a sitting president to remain in office while under investigation—especially in light of new allegations of interference—undermines the credibility of the process itself.

This argument aligns with governance standards increasingly adopted by nonprofits and professional associations, where temporary suspension during an investigation is viewed as a risk-mitigation measure rather than a presumption of guilt.

As of publication, TiE New York has not publicly disclosed whether it has suspended Patel, made findings of fact, or referred the matter to TiE Global. Multiple requests for comment sent to TiE NY leadership and Patel have not received substantive responses.

The lack of transparency has raised concerns among some charter members, according to individuals familiar with internal discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Several described a fear of retaliation and skepticism regarding the board’s ability to independently adjudicate complaints involving its own officers.

The documents also raise structural questions: If, as alleged, TiE NY lacks D&O insurance, and if board members were warned of potential liability, what legal advice did they receive? Additionally, how does TiE Global oversee governance failures at the chapter level?

This situation is significant beyond TiE New York. With chapters worldwide and deep connections to venture capital, startups, and diaspora business networks, TiE’s leadership culture influences thousands of entrepreneurs. Allegations that a chapter president leveraged influence to threaten a member—and subsequently attempted to discredit that member after a complaint was filed—strike at the core of organizational trust.

Even if some allegations are ultimately disputed or unproven, the documents indicate a breakdown in fundamental governance principles: independence, transparency, and protection against retaliation.

Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether the board acted on the demands outlined in the supplemental letters. What is evident is that a paper trail exists, revealing a more complex story than the initial complaint alone.

For now, TiE New York faces a credibility test. How it addresses allegations against its own leadership may determine whether it is perceived as a values-driven institution or one that closes ranks when power is challenged.

The reporter will continue to seek comments from all parties and update this story as additional facts emerge, according to The American Bazaar.