By Darmin Bachu
When The American Bazaar first reported in October 2025 that TiE New York (TiE NY) was facing an internal complaint alleging leadership misconduct, the story raised troubling questions about governance at one of the most influential chapters in the global TiE entrepreneurship network. At the time, TiE NY leadership declined to comment in detail, citing an ongoing internal process.
Now, newly reviewed documents suggest the controversy may be deeper—and more consequential—than previously understood.
Two supplemental letters, submitted to the TiE New York board in early October and reviewed by this reporter, allege that the organization’s president not only engaged in misconduct toward a charter member but also attempted to influence the disciplinary process by encouraging what the complainant characterizes as a smear campaign. The same documents formally demanded the president’s immediate suspension, warning the board of potential legal exposure if it failed to act.
Together, these materials raise serious questions about internal accountability, board independence, and whether TiE NY’s disciplinary mechanisms function as intended when allegations involve senior leadership.
Background: The original complaint
Kesav Dama, a TiE New York Charter Member, filed a formal complaint accusing then-president Jignesh Patel of threatening and intimidating conduct. The alleged threats, communicated via text messages, referenced Patel’s purported ability to “shut down” Dama’s professional relationships by invoking influential figures within the TiE ecosystem.
Patel has not publicly admitted wrongdoing, and TiE NY has not released findings from its internal review. However, the newly surfaced documents expand the scope of the dispute beyond the alleged threats themselves and into how the organization responded once the complaint was filed.
Supplemental letter one: A stark choice for the board
In a letter dated October 2, 2025, sent to TiE NY Secretary Vaibhav Parikh, legal counsel for Dama outlined what it described as three possible paths forward for the board: do nothing, request Patel’s resignation without findings, or make a formal finding of misconduct that would trigger consequences beyond TiE New York.
The letter is notable not only for its substance but for its tone. It asserts that allowing a resignation without findings would enable Patel to continue participating in other TiE chapters, effectively avoiding accountability. It also argues that failure to act could expose individual board members to personal liability under New York law, particularly in the absence of directors and officers (D&O) insurance.
The letter further calls 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. According to the document, failure to recuse would “taint the entire vote” and create grounds for appeal.
Perhaps most striking is the demand for transparency if no action were taken: publication of the full complaint to all TiE NY charter members via email and WhatsApp.
READ: TiE New York faces internal complaint over leadership misconduct (October 19, 2025)
A second letter raises new allegations
Four days later, on October 6, 2025, a second, more urgent letter was submitted, escalating the matter significantly
This letter formally demanded the immediate suspension of Jignesh Patel, alleging that he had manipulated the disciplinary process by encouraging or orchestrating a third-party complaint against Dama. The document refers to an email from Vivek Rathi—described as irrelevant to the underlying misconduct allegations—that was circulated to board members.
According to the letter, Rathi’s email was not an independent grievance but part of a broader effort to “muddy the waters” and intimidate the original complainant. The authors argue that the timing, recipients, and framing of the email suggest coaching by senior leadership, although no direct documentary proof of such coaching is publicly disclosed.
The letter invokes the legal doctrine of “forfeiture by wrongdoing,” arguing that attempts to intimidate or discredit a complainant should result in the loss of procedural protections normally afforded during internal disciplinary proceedings.
Text messages and exhibits
Attached exhibits to the October 6 letter include 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, he allegedly invoked the name of a prominent TiE figure to suggest similar leverage.
The letter states that at least one of the named individuals later denied authorizing Patel to invoke her name in this manner. If authenticated, these messages could support claims of intimidation and misuse of positional authority.
Patel has not publicly confirmed the authenticity of these messages, and TiE NY has not released any independent verification.
Due process vs. organizational integrity
A recurring theme across the documents is tension between “due process” and immediate action. The authors argue that while TiE NY is a private organization not bound by constitutional due process, it nonetheless has an obligation to protect members from retaliation and witness intimidation.
They further contend that allowing a sitting president to remain in office while under investigation—particularly when new allegations of interference arise—undermines the credibility of the process itself.
This argument mirrors governance standards increasingly adopted by nonprofits and professional associations, where temporary suspension during investigation is considered a risk-mitigation measure rather than a presumption of guilt.
Board silence and governance questions
As of publication, TiE New York has not publicly disclosed whether it suspended Patel, made findings of fact, or referred the matter to TiE Global. Multiple requests for comment sent to TiE NY leadership and Patel did not receive substantive responses.
The lack of transparency has fueled concern among some charter members, according to individuals familiar with internal discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Several described fear of retaliation and skepticism about whether the board can 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 explicitly warned of potential liability, what advice did they receive from counsel? And how does TiE Global oversee governance failures at the chapter level?
Why this matters beyond TiE New York
TiE is not a small social club. With chapters worldwide and deep ties to venture capital, startups, and diaspora business networks, its leadership culture sets norms for thousands of entrepreneurs.
Allegations that a chapter president leveraged influence to threaten a member—and then allegedly attempted to discredit that member after a complaint was filed—strike at the heart of organizational trust.
Even if some allegations are ultimately disputed or unproven, the documents suggest a breakdown in basic governance principles: independence, transparency, and protection against retaliation.
What comes next
Absent public disclosure from TiE NY or TiE Global, it remains unclear whether the board acted on the demands outlined in the supplemental letters. What is clear is that the paper trail exists—and that it tells a more complex story than the initial complaint alone.
For now, TiE New York faces a credibility test. How it handles allegations against its own leadership may determine whether it is seen as a values-driven institution—or one that closes ranks when power is challenged.
The reporter will continue to seek comment from all parties and update this story as additional facts emerge.
(Darmin Bachu is a community activist in Queens County who is an expert on nonprofit governance and entrepreneurship.)