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.