Internal correspondence and legal warnings raise fresh questions about board independence, procedural fairness, and fiduciary risk inside one of TiE’s most influential chapters.
By Darmin Bachu
Freshly reviewed internal correspondence and legal notices raise new and troubling questions about governance, process integrity, and potential conflicts of interest inside TiE New York, as a widening dispute between charter member Kesav Dama and the organization’s leadership escalates toward possible litigation.
The newly surfaced documents—spanning October 6 through October 31, 2025—suggest that what began as an internal complaint alleging repeated code-of-conduct violations by then-TiE New York President Jignesh Patel has evolved into a broader confrontation over board procedure, evidentiary fairness, and fiduciary responsibility under New York nonprofit law.
At the center of the latest revelations is a “Notice to Provide Evidence and Information” issued by TiE New York Secretary Vaibhav Parikh. While the notice is dated October 14, 2025, multiple documents and email records indicate it was 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 information about who he discussed his complaint with—despite the fact that much of the requested material already resided within the board’s own records.
Backdating a formal request in an active dispute, particularly when paired with a compressed response window, can undermine confidence in procedural neutrality—especially in a nonprofit context where fairness and transparency are paramount.
Invoking federal evidence rules in a nonprofit dispute
The October 14 notice further raised eyebrows by citing Federal Rule of Evidence 106, the “rule of completeness,” to justify demanding unredacted communications and full message threads.
Attorneys representing Dama pushed back sharply, arguing that federal evidentiary standards are inapplicable in an internal nonprofit governance matter governed instead by New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law and TiE NY’s own bylaws. In a detailed response dated October 31, counsel characterized the demand as “highly improper,” “harassing,” and beyond the board’s authority—particularly where the board itself already controlled the relevant financial and governance records.
READ: New documents raise fresh questions about TiE New York leadership and board oversight (December 25, 2025)
The documents also highlight a central tension: whether Secretary Vaibhav Parikh could simultaneously serve as a neutral administrator of the process while also being a material witness.
Correspondence shows that Parikh had multiple substantive conversations with Dama over the summer of 2025 about the very conduct now under investigation, at the suggestion of TiE Global Chairman Murali Bukkapatnam. In addition, Parikh was copied on—and allegedly involved in the dissemination of—a controversial email from Vivek Rathi that accused Dama of impropriety and was circulated to board members on the eve of Patel’s disciplinary deliberations.
Dama’s counsel argues that if Parikh participated in or transmitted that communication, mandatory recusal would be required under basic conflict-of-interest principles. If, alternatively, Patel disseminated the email after being notified of the complaint against him, the documents argue that such conduct would itself constitute further retaliation and manipulation of the disciplinary process.
Email and allegations of process manipulation
Multiple documents reviewed describe the Rathi email not as an independent complaint, but as an informal, unsolicited communication that TiE NY leadership nonetheless treated as a “cross-complaint”—despite no 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 smearing Dama’s reputation and diverting attention from the substantive allegations against Patel. Counsel for Dama contends that elevating the email to complaint status without proper procedure constituted “gross negligence” and may have tainted the board’s deliberations.
The documents further allege that Rathi, a recently inducted charter member, may have been coached in how and whom to contact—raising additional questions about whether the email was used strategically to “muddy the waters” rather than address legitimate concerns.
READ: TiE New York faces internal complaint over leadership misconduct (October 19, 2025)
The October 6 submission lays out 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 named individuals as leverage, conduct that attorneys for Dama argue squarely violates TiE’s code of conduct and supports 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—and that boards retain authority to act decisively on prima facie evidence to protect the organization.
By October 31, the dispute had escalated further. Counsel for Dama issued a formal litigation hold notice to the TiE NY board, demanding preservation of all documents related to the complaint, including board minutes, bylaws, and the disputed Rathi email.
The notice explicitly warns board members of potential personal liability under New York law for breaches of fiduciary duty, citing duties of care, loyalty, and obedience. It also references potential actions under Sections 623 and 720 of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law—statutes that permit derivative and direct claims against directors and officers for misconduct.
Governance reckoning
Taken together, the documents portray an organization struggling to manage an internal crisis while maintaining 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 consequential as the underlying allegations themselves.
As of publication, 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 built on principles of entrepreneurship, ethics, and leadership, the unfolding controversy poses a stark test: whether its governance mechanisms can withstand scrutiny—or whether deeper reforms may be required to restore trust among its charter members.
(Darmin Bachu is a community activist in Queens County who is an expert on nonprofit governance and entrepreneurship.)
1 Comment
I came across this story and began reading it with interest. While organizations such as TiE certainly deserve scrutiny, this article is deeply biased and one-sided. It contains numerous flaws, to the point that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Here is my Journalism 101 take:
1) The piece is almost entirely driven by documents and arguments submitted by Dama’s counsel. It reads as though the legal interpretation offered by one side is treated as authoritative rather than contested.
2) These are allegations and interpretations, not findings. Reporter Bachu notes that TiE NY leadership has not publicly addressed certain issues, but nowhere does it mention that he has sought a comment.
3) The backdating issue is compelling, but it rests on inference from email timestamps rather than a confirmed admission. What if it is an administrative error?
4) Why isn’t there a comment from an independent expert?
5) The headline says “escalating legal stakes,” but the story supports mostly through warnings and positioning, not filed litigation. One gets the impression that a lawsuit is already underway rather than a pre-litigation escalation.
All of the above make me think that this piece is possibly written entirely by Dama’s counsel himself or his PR person. It is a shame that a reputed publication such as The American Bazaar would publish it.