GE whistle-blower’s lungs being poisoned

Update – January 28, 2012 at 8.30 pm:

Some chemical fumes or gas are again being introduced into my house since the last one hour.
Earlier today, I smelt chemicals in my car again.
These chemicals are making me sick.

——————————————————————————————————-

——— Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Subject: My life is in danger because of the compliance violation and corruption complaints I made about General Electric
To: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Cc: Directors@corporate.ge.com, rjs22@cornell.edu, john.krenicki@ge.com, brian.worrell@ge.com, mark.vachon@ge.com, keith.sherin@ge.com, john.samuels@ge.com, michael.neal@ge.com, susan.peters@ge.com, puneet.mahajan@ge.com, shane.fitzsimons@ge.com, pamela.daley@ge.com, beth.comstock@ge.com, charlene.begley@ge.com, mark.begor@ge.com, steve.bolze@ge.com, Jeffrey.Bornstein@ge.com, john.dineen@ge.com, tom.gentile@ge.com, dan.henson@ge.com, jay.ireland@ge.com, daniel.janki@ge.com, david.joyce@ge.com, jamie.miller@ge.com, lorenzo.simonelli@ge.com, dmitri.stockton@ge.com, terri.bresenham@ge.com, john.flannery@ge.com, anish.shah@ge.com, kishore.jayaraman@ge.com, vishal.wanchoo@ge.com, john.rice@ge.com, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, rita.purohit@ge.com, nancy.anderson@ge.com, rob.mckeel@ge.com, joel.berdine@ge.com, tina.donikowski@ge.com, eric.ducharme@ge.com, marcia.fish@ge.com, tammy.gromacki@ge.com, rich.herold@ge.com, don.itzkoff@ge.com, stephan.koller@ge.com, guilherme.mello@ge.com, monish.patolawala@ge.com, tim.schweikert@ge.com, russell.stokes@ge.com, peter.thomas@ge.com, david.tucker@ge.com, tim.waldee@ge.com, cyrille.petit@ge.com

Mr. Brackett Denniston,

I have requested more than once to speak to you. My life is in danger because of the compliance violation and corruption complaints I made about General Electric. I have been drugged over the last year and a half. My food and water has been poisoned. Toxic chemicals have been introduced into my car and my home. My clothes and belongings have been sprayed with pesticides. Toxic gases Including nitrous oxide and chemical fumes have been and continue to be introduced in my house. My lungs are being poisoned.

General Electric needs to remove me from my house and relocate me to a safe location. In August 2011, I asked the Police to give me protection and a safe home. Instead of being protected, I was assaulted and physically removed from the Police headquarters. The police them attempted to drug me.

General Electric needs to provide medical treatment for biological/ organ damage caused to me because of this poisoning. In August 2011, doctors at two hospitals in Delhi threatened me, covered up my medical symptoms and denied me treatment.

Seema Sapra

Former General Electric attorney turned whistle-blower being gassed to death in India

Update at January 27, 2012 at 7.10 pm:
Some irritating gas/ fumes are again being released into my home since the last half hour.

———————————————————————————————————-

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Complaint of threat to life from General Electric Officers and lawyers and from Montek Singh Ahluwalia- immediate help requested
To: john.flannery@ge.com
Cc: Directors@corporate.ge.com, rjs22@cornell.edu, john.krenicki@ge.com, mark.little@ge.com, brian.worrell@ge.com, mark.vachon@ge.com, trevor.shauenberg@ge.com, keith.sherin@ge.com, john.samuels@ge.com, michael.neal@ge.com, susan.peters@ge.com, puneet.mahajan@ge.com, yoshiaki.fujimori@ge.com, shane.fitzsimons@ge.com, pamela.daley@ge.com, kathryn.cassidy@ge.com, beth.comstock@ge.com, charlene.begley@ge.com, mark.begor@ge.com, steve.bolze@ge.com, Jeffrey.Bornstein@ge.com, james.campbell@ge.com, william.cary@ge.com, john.dineen@ge.com, jeff.gaspin@ge.com, tom.gentile@ge.com, daniel.heintzelman@ge.com, dan.henson@ge.com, jay.ireland@ge.com, daniel.janki@ge.com, david.joyce@ge.com, richard.laxer@ge.com, jamie.miller@ge.com, lorenzo.simonelli@ge.com, dmitri.stockton@ge.com, terri.bresenham@ge.com, anish.shah@ge.com, kishore.jayaraman@ge.com, vishal.wanchoo@ge.com, john.rice@ge.com, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, rita.purohit@ge.com, greg.danilow@weil.com, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, jjoseph@gibsondunn.com

Mr. John Flannery,

I am again asking that you contact me. I need to be immediately moved by General Electric to a safe location. I also need medical treatment. Please call me – my number is 99588 69955.

Seema Sapra

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com> wrote:

Mr. John Flannery,

I am poisoned and gassed in my house. I need to leave my home immediately. No one including my friends or family is willing to offer me a place to stay.

There is no public facility in Delhi that I can move to. In August 2011 when I abandoned my home and asked the Police to house me somewhere safe, I was illegally assaulted, and forcibly dragged and removed from Police headquarters. The Police then attempted to drug me and then tricked me into going back to the house.

I ask that you and General Electric immediately provide me with a safe place to stay.

Seema Sapra

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Subject: Complaint of threat to life from General Electric Officers and lawyers and from Montek Singh Ahluwalia- immediate help requested
To: bk gupta <bk.gupta@nic.in>, pmosb@pmo.nic.in, tka.nair@pmo.nic.in, cvc@nic.in, jmg.vc@nic.in, r.sri_kumar@nic.in, dcp-caw-dl@nic.in, dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in, dcp-south-dl@nic.in, dcp-central-dl@nic.in, dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in, dcp-crime-dl@nic.in, hm@nic.in, hshso@nic.in, ncw@nic.in, complaintcell-ncw@nic.in, sgnhrc@nic.in, dg-nhrc@nic.in, ffetf@usdoj.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, help@sec.gov, fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov, jtcpsr@gmail.com, dch@nic.in, g.haldea@nic.in, mr@rb.railnet.gov.in, crb@rb.railnet.gov.in, splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, splcp-admin-dl@nic.in, splcp-security-dl@nic.in, KolkataPAS@state.gov, chennaic@state.gov, webmastermumbai@state.gov, HyderabadPA@state.gov, HydACS@state.gov, HydFPU@state.gov, MumbaiACS@state.gov, mumbai_visa_fraud@state.gov, ConsularNewdel@state.gov, chennaiaf@state.gov, chennaiatt@state.gov, NDwebmail@state.gov, acsnd@state.gov, oighotline@state.gov, humanrights@americanbar.org, cpr@americanbar.org, ethicsearch@americanbar.org, Peter.Koelling@americanbar.org, hrwpress@hrw.org, blatche@hrw.org, berlin@hrw.org, paris@hrw.org, brussels@transparency.org, ti@transparency.org, cswardt@transparency.org, mmarschall@transparency.org, czellmann@transparency.org, contact@whistleblowers.org, contact@hrln.org, jtcp-phq1-dl@nic.in, dcpsed@gmail.com, cleggd1@state.gov, newhaven@ic.fbi.gov, ny1@ic.fbi.gov, usanys.crcomp@usdoj.gov, usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov, dcp-east-dl@nic.in, dcp-eow-dl@nic.in, dcp-north-dl@nic.in, dcp-northeast-dl@nic.in, dcp-northwest-dl@nic.in, dcp-outer-dl@nic.in, dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in, dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in, dcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, dcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, dcp-west-dl@nic.in, addlcp-security-dl@nic.in, jtcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sr-dl@nic.in, splcp-armed-dl@nic.in, splcp-crime-dl@nic.in, splcp-intandops-dl@nic.in, splcp-operation-dl@nic.in, splcp-pandi-dl@nic.in, splcp-pl-dl@nic.in, addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in, addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in, addlcpt-dtp@nic.in
Cc: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, john.flannery@ge.com, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, greg.danilow@weil.com, lorenzo.simonelli@ge.com, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, james.winget@ge.com, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, jjoseph@gibsondunn.com

All,

I have complained that I face a threat to my life on account of compliance violation complaints that I have made about General Electric. These implicate GE officers, executives and attorneys including Jeffrey Immelt, John Rice, Lorenzo Simonelli, Brackett Denniston, Alex Dimitrief, Jeffrey Eglash, Tara Plimpton, James Winget, Karan Bhatia, Pratyush Kumar, John Flannery, Ashfaq Nainar, and Deepak Adlakha. My complaints also implicate Gibson Dunn lawyers – F Joseph Warin and John Chesley who helped cover up the illegalities I reported. I have complained that these GE Officers and lawyers based in the United States acting in conspiracy with Montek Singh Ahluwalia have ordered my murder. The Indian Police and Indian State intelligence agencies are involved in this conspiracy and I am being drugged, poisoned and gassed in my own home. I am also being threatened and intimidated by the Police.

I have complained that my house has been rigged to allow the introduction of toxic gases, chemicals and fumes into my home. I have smelt nitrous oxide, pesticides and other chemicals in my house. I am attaching some pictures that show how the house has been rigged. All the electric fittings have been loosened to create gaps through which these toxic substances are being introduced. There is a hole in the ceiling of one room. I have attached pictures of this hole.

The round caps usually used to seal electric wiring/ plumbing openings inside homes in India have been loosened and holes have been punctured into at least three of these. The house was painted when I moved in and all these round caps were whole and were covered with paint. I attach photos of one of these round caps that has not been tampered with. I also attach photos of two caps that have had holes punched into them.

My electricity plumbing is being accessed from outside my house (it appears from the floor above my house) and toxic substances are being pumped in.

I have complained that this riggging has been carried out in connivance with the lady staying on the ground floor (Rita Mohan) who also owns the second floor and has at present let out the second floor to a Norwegian woman called Kari. I have been up to the second floor recently and noticed that many changes have been carried out. Rita Mohan has consistently lied to me over the past year and half about what has been going on on the second floor.

I had no history of any kind of respiratory problem including asthma before last year. I first complained of being unable to breathe in January 2011 while General Electric’s internal investigation was going on. At that time, I was in a daze of some kind for a few days before the day I had difficulty breathing. My lung X-rays in January 2011 were completely clear. My lungs were completely healthy in January 2011.

I smelt a gas in my home in August 2011 when I brought the GE complaints and threat to life to the attention of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. I smelt other chemicals in my house and car as well.

I have again smelt gas/ chemicals in my house and car since January 13, 2012 which is the day after I contacted Judge Richard J. Holwell, the United States District Judge hearing the GE investor law-suits.

Toxic substances are being introduced into my home and car. I am developing respiratory symptoms. My tonsils appear swoolen and sore since last night.

Last night I suddenly woke up feeling breathless. I was sleeping flat on a matress on the floor. This waking up at night breathless has happened earlier on 7-8 occasions in December 2011 and January 2012. I have noticed that on 4-5 occasions in early/ mid December I woke up with my eyelids all swollen as if I was waking up from a drugged sleep.

Seema Sapra

Toxic gas/ fumes being introduced into home of General Electric whistle-blower to cause harm

January 25, 2012 at 10 pm:

My car appears to have been tampered with again today. I could smell chemicals in the car and these irritated the throat and caused nausea. My car was also followed today. I had parked the car and am certain that I switched off the head- lights. Yet when I returned to the car the lights were on. This has happened on another occasion in December 2011.

January 25, 2012:

Yesterday, I found this bag full of sharp Glass pieces on the ledge overlooking the front balcony in my house. This was placed precariously such that it could easily fall down on someone below.

January 24, 2012 at 23.53 Hrs:

It is almost midnight. Some gas has again been released into my home. I could smell it. I can feel a squeezing sensation in my heart.

 

January 23, 2012 at 9 pm

I can smell some chemical fumes/ gas in my house right now. I have complained of a threat to life from General Electric.

I have complained that toxic substances have been introduced into my house over the last year and a half. I have also complained that this has been going on since the night of January 13, 2012.

The police has taken no action.
I have today put up my complaints to the Police naming Kari, the Norwegian woman living on the floor above mine, and her associates Rajdeep Singh and Mrs. Rita Mohan (the owner of the house who lives on the ground floor) as being involved in this introduction of toxic substances into my house on my blogs on the internet and it appears that the ongoing attempt to harm me and intimidate me is in response to this.

This substance is causing throat irritation and giving me a warm red rash on my ears and face. Further, I can feel a swollen lymph-node in my arm-pit.

This smells like a pesticide.

January 23, 2012 at 6 pm

In an earlier complaint to the Police, I mentioned the air-conditioner in one of the rooms in my house. I attached pictures showing that it was tampered with.

Since yesterday, I noticed some chemical smells while sitting out on my balcony. I thought that some chemical might have been added to either this AC which is easily accessible from the balcony or to the split AC outdoor unit which is still installed on the balcony.

This morning while sitting outside I felt dizzy and lightheaded. I also noticed that clothes which I put out to dry were drying very fast for the winter weather. I could also feel hot air in the area where this AC juts out on the balcony.

I then noticed that cow-webs near the AC were swaying. I have sent a video to the Police.  The AC was not on. But it was emitting some hot air which was making the cow-webs sway and which I could also feel. The cow-webs look un-natural and have been added to give an impression that the AC has not been tampered with.

Also, I wish to point out that some suspicious people have moved into the top floor of G 45 just opposite my house. This is occupied by someone called Shiv Khanna who told me he lives there with his mother. However, for the last week or so there are some other people in the house as well including a young foreign (white) woman. I noticed some suspicious activity earlier outside the house as well.

January 22, 2012

I have complained to the Police that since January 13, 2012, some toxic gas/ fumes are being introduced into my house. This has happened earlier as well. I have smelt nitrous oxide in my house. I have complained that my house has been rigged so as to introduce these toxic substances at will. The Police has taken no action.

Some gas/ chemical fumes are still being introduced into my house. I have smelt them today and I also smelt them yesterday.

Even though during the day no one is supposed to be present on the second floor of the house I live in, I have heard movement and sounds from the top floor yesterday as well as today.

Yesterday, my car was followed.

I am an attorney who worked with General Electric and made whistle-blower complaints. Please read the posts on this blog for details about these complaints.

Update 22 January 2012

Last night I called Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Addnl Commissioner, SE Delhi. I told him the harm to me had not stopped. I asked him when would the Police do something. I told him the Police had done nothing since August 2011.

Mr. Ajay Chaudhary’s reply was "we’ll get something done".

Since this morning. it appears every lout, thug and loony in Jangpura and Bhogal is being made to parade outside my house, stand outside, and have loud arguments.

Policemen on motorcylces are driving past my house and switching on their siren when they drive past my house. 

When will this Police sponsored intimidation stop?

Update January 22, 2012 at 6.30 pm

My car has been tampered with again. I could smell chemicals in my car and these gave me nausea. This has happened since yesterday.
The front staircase to my flat has been deliberately broken in some places.

 

Letters to Judge Richard J. Holwell on complaint of evidence tampering and obstruction of justice by GE in investor law-suits filed in his Court

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM
Subject: Please pass on this message to the Hon’ble Richard J. Holwell, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York
To: william_donald@nysd.uscourts.gov, brett_kaufman@nysd.uscourts.gov, usanys.crcomp@usdoj.gov, NDwebmail@state.gov, askdoj@usdoj.gov
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, kdonovan-maher@bermandevalerio.com, greg.danilow@weil.com, rcohen@lowey.com, fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov, ffetf@usdoj.gov, newhaven@ic.fbi.gov, ny1@ic.fbi.gov, usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov, CleggD1@state.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, help@sec.gov

Dear Judge Richard J. Holwell,

I am an attorney in India and had worked as Legal Counsel for GE Transportation’s business activities in India in 2010. I have brought to your attention that I made a compliance complaint to General Electric that is relevant to lawsuits which were filed by General Electric investors before your Court.

I complained that GE employees engaged in criminal conduct amounting to obstruction of justice under US federal statute and tampered with evidence about events that occurred in February 2009. These facts and this evidence are relevant to the cases filed by GE investors before you in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

I complained that material information regarding GE’s failed bid for a multi-billion dollar tender for an Indian Railways project for manufacture and sale of diesel locomotives was not disclosed to GE investors in February 2009. This information was capable of influencing share-prices and thus relevant to the shareholder lawsuits filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. I further complained that once these lawsuits were filed in 2009, GE employees tampered with the evidence establishing knowledge of this failed bid by GE officers including Mr.Jeffrey Immelt, Mr. John Rice and Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli. I accidently found out information about events of February 2009 even though I joined GE in April 2010. I mentioned the information I thus acquired to a colleague without realising its significance. This started a process of harassment and retaliation against me by the employees in the New Delhi office who were involved in concealing evidence and creating a misleading record. I ended up raising a compliance concern to the GE General Counsel and Ombudsman in September 2010 that this might involve a securities fraud. (At that time I had no knowledge about the cases filed against GE in 2009. I found out about these cases only in April 2011.) GE retaliated against me and terminated my services. It then carried out a compliance investigation in which Gibson Dunn was involved. However, my complaint was not investigated by GE and Gibson Dunn and the matter was covered up. GE declared its investigation over at the beginning of February 2011. I subsequently responded to GE in writing in April 2011 pointing out that the matter was being covered up and there was sufficient basis for my complaint. It was at this time that I found out about the lawsuits filed by GE investors after February 2009 and I only then understood the full significance of my complaint. I pointed out to GE that evidence showed that offences amounting to obstruction of justice might have been committed. Tampering of evidence, asking employees to lie,suppression/ destruction of evidence and creation of a misleading record to influence a United States Federal Court proceeding would amount to US federal offences and obstruction of justice under US federal statutes.

Among other evidence of what happened around GE’s failed bid in February 2009, I have seen an email sent by GE Transportation employee Mr. Brett Begole to Mr. John Rice and Mr. Karan Bhatia (another GE lawyer) in February 2009 suggesting that a news report from February 2009 that had hinted at GE’s difficulties with the bid be either allowed to die a natural death or that senior Government of India officials (Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Mr. Ronen Sen, the then Indian Ambassador in Washington) be spoken to. This email was shown to me by Mr. Jeffrey Eglash in New Delhi in late 2010 when he met me during a compliance investigation. This email is suggestive of corruption and demonstrates why GE officers, attorneys and employees might have wanted to prevent their documentary record pertaining to the failed February 2009 bid from being scrutinized by a United States Federal Court. I would like to submit documentary and other evidence on this issue to the Court.

I had informed GE lawyers and ombudsman about my complaint in 2010. The matter was covered up. I thereafter brought the complaint to the attention of the United States SEC and the United States Department of Justice. In 2011, I also brought my complaint to the attention of the Plaintiffs attorneys in several of the law-suits including the partners at Berman DeValerio representing “State Universities Retirement System of Illinois”. I was then contacted by Mr. Ronald J. Keating, the Director of Investigations at Berman DeValerio and I shared detailed facts and documents (substantiating my complaint) on email with Mr. Ronald J. Keating. Ms. Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, an attorney and a partner at Berman DeValerio was copied on all my correspondence with Mr. Ronald J. Keating. I subsequently made General Electric including Mr. Brackett Denniston, the SEC and the United States Department of Justice aware of my entire communications with Berman DeValerio. I have also recently brought my complaint to the attention of the attorneys representing General Electric before your Court including Mr. Greg Danilow. Further I have contacted various authorities including the United States Ambassador in New Delhi, the United States Attorney General and also the US Legal Attaché (from the FBI) in New Delhi.

I face a grave, immediate and on-going threat to life on account of this complaint as it adversely affects General Electric Executives including Mr. Jeffrey Immelt, Mr. John Rice, Mr. Brackett Denniston, Mr. Alex Dimitrief and Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli.

On the night of 12 January 2012 (Indian time) which would be the forenoon of 12 January 2012 (EST), I called and spoke with the Deputy to your Court (Mr. Bill Donald) and informed him in brief about the nature of my complaint. I told him I was an attorney who had complained about obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence by General Electric concerning facts which were relevant to the General Electric investor law-suits filed in your Court. I informed him that I faced a threat to my life on account of this. He transferred my call to Mr. Brett Kaufman who I was told was the assigned clerk for the case. I briefly explained to Mr. Kaufman why I was calling and informed him about my complaint of obstruction of justice and evidence tampering in connection with the General Electric investor law-suits. I told Mr. Brett Kaufman that I wanted to bring the facts about my complaints to the notice of the Judge. I was advised to send an ex-parte letter to you and I sent a letter addressed to you on the email addresses of Mr. Bill Donald and Mr. Brett Kaufman. I am now providing further detail regarding my complaint.

In 2010, I worked for GE as Legal Counsel for GE Transportation’s business activities in India. I directly reported to Ms. Tara Plimpton, General Counsel for GE Transportation. My boss in India was Mr. Prat (Pratyush) Kumar who is a US citizen and was at that time employed by a US based General Electric entity. He was heading GE Transportation’s business activities and efforts in India and he reported directly to Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli.

I was hired towards the end of April 2010 to provide legal support for General Electric’s bid to win a multi-billion US dollar tender from a Government of India entity, the Indian Railways. This tender provide the opportunity to win a contract from the Indian Railways to set up a plant(factory) in India for the manufacture of diesel locomotives. The tender also included a confirmed purchase order of a 1000 locomotives to be manufactured and supplied over a period of ten years. The purchase order would also include a maintenance contract for the supplied locomotives for a period of 15 years. I refer to this business opportunity hereafter as the “Tender”.

General Electric had participated in this Tender along with another US company, EMD in 2008-2009. The process for winning the tender has two parts. The first step is a pre-qualification process where bids are invited, evaluated and accepted based upon meeting prescribed technical and financial criteria. The second step is the financial bid where the short-listed bidders are invited to submit a price-bid and in the normal course the bidder offering a more competitive price is awarded the contract.

GE failed to win this Tender in February 2009. A fresh Tender for the same project was opened again by Indian Railways in 2010.

When I joined GE in April 2010, I was told that GE and EMD had both prequalified in the earlier round of the Tender (in 2008-2009). I was told that during the price-bid, GE was the sole bidder and EMD did not submit a bid. I was told that the Indian Railways cancelled the Tender in 2009 because there was a single price bid. I was also told that another factor that cost GE the bid in 2009 was the 2009 General Elections in India. This information was provided to me by Mr. Prat Kumar when I interviewed with him for the job.

I joined GE on 23 April 2010. Sometime during the week of 26 April 2010, I was sitting with Prat Kumar and Ramesh Mathur. We were discussing the language for certain certifications that GE would make in the Request for Prequalification for another Indian Railways tender – this one was for electric locomotives. During this conversation Prat Kumar expressed his view that all this legal precision and back and forth was unnecessary because ultimately in his view the Indian Railways had full authority to do whatever it wanted under the RFQ. He then said that in 2009, GE’s bid “was perfect” yet GE did not get the tender.

On 1 May 2010, I attended a meeting with an Indian Railways official along with Mr. Prat Kumar, Mr. Ash (Ashfaq) Nainar and Ms. Alpna Khera from GE. During this meeting I heard the Railways official tell Mr. Prat Kumar that GE would have won the tender in 2009 if they had not made a mistake in their financial bid. He stated that he hoped GE would not make a mistake in its bidding documents in the 2010 round. I was surprised to learn about this mistake. However after the meeting, Mr. Prat Kumar was aggressive and I did not ask about this.

I had no intention of probing the matter of this mistake even though this information contradicted what I had been told earlier by Mr. Prat Kumar and others at GE. I was preoccupied with the fresh tender in 2010. However, I accidently mentioned that GE had made a mistake in 2009 to a colleague Mr. Gaurav Negi on 12 May 2010. The very next day, I first received what sounded like a warning call from HR. Mr. Arvind Subramanian, the HR Manager asked me if I was feeling disgruntled. Prat Kumar came into the office looking worked up. I was summoned to his room and without preamble he started to target me by picking at my work and raising his voice in the presence of Gaurav Negi and other colleagues. Prat Kumar insisted that the only mistake with GE’s bid in in 2009 was in the Power of Attorney. He humiliated me publicly. Thereafter for the next two months I was at the receiving end of sustained retaliation, targeting and harassment at the hands of Mr. Prat Kumar and the GE employees who worked under him at the local office in New Delhi. I was unable to understand the cause of this targeting which seemed to be intended to make me quit. I discussed this harassment with Ms. Tara Plimpton, General Counsel of GE Transportation and with another GE attorney there, Mr. James Winget. I also discussed this harassment with the GE India General Counsel, Mr. Deepak Adlakha. I was told that Mr. Prat Kumar was difficult to work with, crossed compliance lines and that the team under him was not very competent and that the hostilities were a result of this. I was assured that I had the full support of the legal team. During that period I got the impression that I had committed an error in mentioning the mistake in 2009 and that the hostility towards me was on account of that incident. However I kept quiet about the matter and continued to do my job under difficult conditions.

In July 2010, GE employees I was working with including Mr. Prat Kumar altered a document (a customer certificate received from Kazakhstan Railways) and submitted it to the Indian Railways on July 12, 2010 as part of GE’s Request for Prequalification for the tender. I was not a participant to this alteration which amounts to a forgery under Indian law and as I understand under US federal law as well.

After this incident the targeting escalated. I have complained that I was being drugged during this time. I resigned and then withdrew my resignation and told GE that I wanted to raise compliance concerns. I was discouraged but I persisted. I then filed a complaint that I had been targeted because of my having learnt about the mistake in GE’s price bid in 2009 and because I had mentioned it to a colleague. At that time, I had limited information and I complained that Mr. Prat Kumar and other employees at the local Delhi office had lied to their bosses about why GE did not win the bid in 2009. An internal investigation was launched by Ms. Tara Plimpton. However I realised that this was a cover-up. I therefore escalated my complaint and sent it to to Mr. Jeffrey Immelt, Mr. Brackett Denniston and the GE Ombudsperson as well. In my note to them I stated that my complaint about the bid-mistake from 2009 being covered up might amount to a securities fraud. I was immediately fired after this. I left GE but emailed Mr. Denniston that I would pursue my complaint. In that email, I used the words “securities fraud” in connection with my complaint about the February 2009 cover-up. Mr. Denniston asked Mr. Alex Dimitrief and Mr. Jeffrey Eglash to investigate my complaint.

After this, I found out additional information from the internet and news reports about what had happened in February 2009 in so far as GE’s failed bid was concerned. At that time, I was not aware of the investor law-suits filed against GE that covered the period February 2009. I met Mr. Jeffrey Eglash and Mr. John Chesley (from Gibson Dunn) in New Delhi in November 2010. During this meeting I told Mr. Jeffrey Eglash that GE had failed to disclose to investors in February 2009 that it had lost the bid. That this information was capable of influencing share prices and that failure to disclose material information to investors could amount to a securities fraud. I recall telling Mr. Eglash that what I was saying was at least as significant as the comments made by Henry Paulson. Mr. Eglash did not tell me about the pending investor law-suits. Instead he attempted to persuade me that GE had indeed disclosed the information that it had lost the bid to the Indian press. To support his point, Mr. Eglash showed me a press clipping of an Indian news report dated February 23 2009 that mentioned a mistake in GE’s bid. He told me that this clipping showed that GE was not hiding information. I read the extract Mr. Eglash handed over to me and told him that on the contrary it showed that GE was still claiming it would win the tender and that any difficulties with a “mathematical error” with its price bid had been resolved. I asked Mr. Eglash for the first half of the news report he had handed me. He gave me two additional pages. That is when I read the email from Mr. Brett BeGole from GE Transportation addressed to Mr. John Rice and to Mr. Karan Bhatia, an attorney at GE. This email suggested that the news report dated February 23, 2009 that had hinted at GE’s difficulties with the bid be either allowed to die a natural death or that senior Government of India officials (Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Mr. Ronen Sen, the then Indian Ambassador in Washington) be spoken to. I informed Mr. Eglash of the significance of this email.

When Mr. Jeffrey Eglash showed me the email from Mr. Brett Begole, Mr. John Chesley from Gibson Dunn was not in the room. However, the email and news report was retrieved by Mr. Eglash from a binder/ folder containing documents. This Binder had as I understand been put together by Gibson Dunn after reviewing documents at GE. Therefore, Mr. F. Joseph Warin and Mr. John Chesley from Gibson Dunn have personal knowledge of this email which they must have reviewed.

After this meeting, I sent Mr. Eglash, Mr. Dimitrief and Mr. Denniston a compilation of news reports that I had found on the internet. These reports show that GE submitted a price bid for the Tender on 16 February 2009. By February 23, 2009, the Government of India had already taken a firm decision to scrap the tender. The Government of India held a Cabinet meeting on February 23, 2009 where it took the decision to adopt a different policy route for these projects. The decision to scrap the tender by Indian Railways was communicated to the Cabinet in this meeting on February 23, 2009. Therefore it would appear that this decision to reject GE’s bid was taken by the Indian Railways after February 16 and before February 23, 2009. GE must have been informed of this decision both verbally and in writing. GE did not disclose to GE investors that its bid had failed. Instead the news report from February 23, 2009 and subsequent news reports that year show that GE was misleading news reporters as well as investors on whether or not it would win this contract.

I also found news reports after March 2009 where Mr. Prat Kumar gave interviews to the Indian press stating that the Government of India had rejected GE’s price-bid without any communication to GE. He made no mention of the mistake GE made in the calculations for its price-bid. I sent these to GE as well.

Mr. Eglash refused to discuss my complaints with me after our meeting. I had to send detailed notes. I have complained that during this period after my meeting with Mr. Jeffrey Eglash, I was drugged by GE and an attempt was made to murder me by introducing toxic gas into my home. I fell ill.

I spoke with Mr. Eglash in January 2011. He threatened me by saying that “we do not want you as our enemy forever”.

A few days later, I received a letter from Mr. Alexander Dimitrief on February 3, 2011 stating that GE had investigated my complaints and they were unfounded. I was unwell for a few weeks.

I started to respond to Mr. Alex Dimitrief’s letter in April 2011. At that time I found out about the investor lawsuits in your Court and I was able to connect all the dots. I sent Mr. Dimitrief a detailed note in response to his letter on my complaint that GE failed to disclose to investors in February 2009 that it had lost the locomotives bid. It was only after finding about the GE investor law-suits that I realised why I had been lied to in GE. And why I had been targeted after I found out about the mistake and mentioned it to a colleague. I sent an email to Mr. Joseph Warin pointing out that my complaint had been misrepresented in Mr. Alex Dimitrief’s letter and that it appeared that GE had tampered with evidence about events related to the Locomotives bid in February 2009.

Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli was personally present in New Delhi in February 2009 just for this Locomotives bid. There is email correspondence from February 2009 between Mr. Simonelli and Mr. Immelt on what was going on in Delhi with the price-bid. They all knew about the mistake.

Yet in 2010, I was told by everyone I spoke to in the Delhi office and at GE Transportation in Erie that GE did not get the bid because it was the sole-bidder. No one mentioned the mistake. I found out about it from an external source, mentioned it to someone at GE and was targeted as a result. In August 2011, I asked Ms. Tara Plimpton if she knew about this mistake. She replied – not that I can remember. I was told by a GE Transportation attorney, Mr. James Winget in August 2010 when discussing my complaint of harassment that this should not happen in GE. He told me that a communication from the Indian Railways in February 2009 had been suppressed.

I was told in August 2010 (when I was still at GE) by Mr. Amit Kumar, an attorney from the Indian law-firm Amarchand Mangaldas, that he had provided his services to GE and helped GE get back its security deposit when GE’s bid in 2009 got derailed because of the mistake. He told me he had still not billed GE for these legal services he provided.

I face a grave threat to my life on account of my accidentally finding out about this tampering with evidence by GE. I have been drugged over the course of a year and a half. Attempts have been made and are still being made to poison me.

I request for your help in this matter. I will send to you the news reports and correspondence between me and GE on this issue.

With Regards,

Seema Sapra

——————————————————————————————————————-

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Subject: Message for Judge Richard J. Holwell
To: william_donald@nysd.uscourts.gov, brett_kaufman@nysd.uscourts.gov, usanys.crcomp@usdoj.gov, NDwebmail@state.gov, askdoj@usdoj.gov
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, kdonovan-maher@bermandevalerio.com, greg.danilow@weil.com, rcohen@lowey.com, fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov, ffetf@usdoj.gov, newhaven@ic.fbi.gov, ny1@ic.fbi.gov, usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov, CleggD1@state.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, help@sec.gov

Please bring the following information to the attention of Judge Richard J. Holwell. This is further clarification on my complaint regarding obstruction of justice and evidence tampering in connection with the GE investor law-suits.

Thank You,

Seema Sapra

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:10 PM
Subject: Further response to Mr. Alex Dimitrief’s letter dated February 3, 2011
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Cc: jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, john.rice@ge.com, john.flannery@ge.com, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, james.winget@ge.com, greg.danilow@weil.com

Mr. Alex Dimitrief,

I write in connection with your letter dated February 3, 2011. I have already sent several responses, however because I was being drugged and poisoned since July 2010 and all of last year as well, I was not able to point out some readily apparent falsehoods in your communication.

You state that I was engaged as Consultant. This is false. My contract stated otherwise and the work profile I filled was that of Legal Counsel. I was hired as Legal Counsel but on a contract for eleven months. The internal website of the GE Transportation legal team had a pdf organizational chart with pictures and names of the attorneys in Ms. Tara Plimpton’s team. (Ms. Tara Plimpton was the General Counsel for GE Transportation from 2008 till January 2012). When I joined GE in April 2010 there was a place on that chart for the India Legal Counsel. In August 2010, I downloaded that chart and my name was printed on that chart as the Legal Counsel for India for GE Transportation.

I limit this communication mostly to the issue surrounding my complaint of me being misled by GE executives about the reason why GE did not win the Locomotives tender in February 2009. I later understood that GE executives were actually covering up facts and tampering with evidence about these events of February 2009 to avoid these facts from emerging in connection with the GE investor lawsuits filed after February 2009. Please read my comments below in the light of my previous communication on this matter with you and other GE attorneys, external counsel and GE executives.

As already stated before in other communications, my initial complaint made to Ms. Tara Plimpton in August 2010 when I was still at GE, was that Pratyush Kumar and Ashfaq Nainar might have misled GE Officers by concealing the mistake that GE made in its price-bid on February 16, 2009. You go on to state in your letter essentially that GE Officers including Mr. Immelt, Mr. John Rice and Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli all knew about this mistake and that there was a thorough post-mortem review undertaken by GE and therefore the fact of the mistake could not have been concealed.

I have stated that I was told by Pratyush Kumar and others in the Delhi office of GE Transportation and by GE executives from GE Transportation’s Erie office, who I spoke with and exchanged emails with, that GE did not get the bid only because it was a single bidder. I was told by Pratyush Kumar on one occasion in the presence of other GE staff that GE’s bid in 2009 was perfect and on another occasion that the only problem with GE’s bid in 2009 was a printing error in the Power of Attorney. It is clear that Pratyush Kumar was concealing the fact of the mistake in the price-bid from me.

I found out about this mistake accidentally from an Indian Railways official. This led to repercussions. Ten days later, I mentioned the fact of this mistake to another colleague. This started a three-month long process of harassment and targeting directed at me by the GE Transportation India staff which seemed aimed at making me leave my job.

When I first stated in August 2010 that I was being targeted because of my having found out about this mistake, I asked Ms. Tara Plimpton if she knew about this mistake and her reply was “Not that I can remember”.

I spoke with Mr. James Winger, Senior Counsel at GE Transportation in Erie who was working on this deal about this mistake. He admitted knowledge about the mistake and told me the information had filtered down. He also stated that a communication from the Indian Railways had been suppressed.

Ms. Tara Plimpton then started a compliance investigation/ inquiry by nominating Mr. Anil Chaddha, an attorney at GE Transportation based in Erie to gather information from me. This inquiry commenced before I contacted Mr. Brackett Denniston or the GE Corporate ombudsperson.

If the fact of the mistake was common knowledge and was the subject of a post-mortem as you claim and was not being suppressed, then why would Ms. Tara Plimpton tell me that she could not remember if there had been a mistake. Further and more importantly why would Ms. Plimpton appoint a GE attorney to investigate my complaint. All Ms. Plimpton had to do was to tell me that she and other GE executives in Erie and Fairfield were aware of the fact of this mistake and that I could not have been harassed for finding out about it. I add that if this was the mere substance of my complaint on this issue, why would Mr. Brackett Denniston ask you and Mr. Eglash to investigate this complaint, why would GE engage the services of Gibson Dunn to investigate a complaint that had no initial substance in the first place. All Mr. Denniston had to tell me was that he and others were already aware of the fact of this mistake.

After Ms, Plimpton nominated Mr. Anil Chaddha to hear me on my complaint, I spoke to Ms. Himali Arora, the then CFO for GE Transportation in India and she told me everyone knew about the mistake including Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli who was present in New Delhi at the relevant time in February 2009.

Therefore by the time I realised that Mr. Anil Chaddha and Ms. Tara Plimpton were trying to cover up my complaint, I already knew that everybody knew about the mistake.

I thereafter emailed Mr. Brackett Denniston and the GE Corporate Ombudsperson and I asked them to intervene. I sent these emails while I was still at GE and therefore used my GE email account and GE laptop. I do not have a copy of this email but I recall writing that there appeared to be a possible securities fraud here. I received replies from Mr. Brackett Denniston, Mr. Alex Dimitrief and from Mr. Mark Nordstorm that my complaint would be investigated. Instead I was immediately summarily fired on September 20, 2010. I then contacted Mr. Denniston on email the same day on bringing to his notice that I had been fired and that whistle-blower laws had been violated. I quote from this email sent by me to Mr. Denniston on September 20, 2012:

“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.”

This email that I sent on September 20, 2010 was also sent to Ms. Tara Plimpton and Mr. Deepak Adlakha with a copy marked to Mr. David Lobo.

Your letter dated February 3, 2011 therefore misrepresents my complaint on this matter. I have already described in earlier communications the interactions that I had later on with Mr. Jeffrey Eglash and Mr. John Chesley during their alleged investigation.

I have also pointed out that GE’s bid had already been finally rejected by the Indian Railways before February 24, 2009. GE would ordinarily have received a written communication from the Indian Railways rejecting GE’s bid and providing reasons there-for. Was this the letter Mr. James Winget told me was suppressed?

The email that Mr. Jeffrey Eglash showed me (sent from Mr. Brett BeGole to Mr. John Rice and Mr. Karan Bhatia) was dated February 24, 2009.

Mr. Amit Kumar, an attorney from the Indian law-firm Amarchand Mangaldas was brought in to provide legal advice on this matter in 2009.

I have provided news reports from 2009 (dating March 2009 and thereafter) where Mr. Pratyush Kumar gave press interviews stating that the Indian Railways cancelled the tender without sending any communication to GE and suggesting that GE was left guessing at the reasons for this action. Why was Mr. Pratyush Kumar making these false statements? Since it is clear that he was not trying to mislead GE executives and Officers, who was Mr. Pratyush Kumar trying to mislead? What was the purpose of these false statements to the Press?

The only inference that can be drawn is that these Press interviews by Mr. Pratyush Kumar were a response to the investor law-suits that were filed against GE after March 2009. All these facts and evidence tie in with my complaint (which I made for the first time in an email sent to Mr. F. Joseph Warin from Gibson Dunn in April 2011, more than two months after your letter dated February 3, 2011) that GE Executives and Officers were tampering with evidence about the events surrounding this tender from February 2009 and the only reason to do so would be the GE investor law-suits that included February 2009 in their class-period.

I have emailed you that I am being drugged, poisoned and gassed because of the above and other compliance violation complaints that I made about General Electric.

Seema Sapra

—————————————————————————

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:47 PM
Subject: Please pass on this message to the Hon’ble Richard J. Holwell, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York
To: william_donald@nysd.uscourts.gov, brett_kaufman@nysd.uscourts.gov

Please pass on this message to the Hon’ble Richard J. Holwell, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York.

Dear Judge Richard J. Holwell,

I am an attorney from India and worked with General Electric in New Delhi in 2010. I wish to bring to your notice that I have made a complaint that GE employees engaged in criminal conduct amounting to obstruction of justice under US federal statute and tampered with evidence about events that occurred in February 2009. These facts and this evidence are relevant to the cases filed by GE investors before you in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

I had informed GE lawyers and ombudsman about my complaint in 2010. The matter was covered up. I thereafter brought the complaint to the attention of the United States SEC and the United States Department of Justice. In 2011, I also brought my complaint to the attention of the Plaintiffs attorneys. I was contacted by Berman DeValerio and I shared detailed facts and documents with them that substantiated my complaint. I made GE, the SEC and the DOJ aware of my communications with Berman DeValerio. I have also recently brought my complaint to the attention of the attorneys representing GE before your Court. Further I have contacted the United States Embassy in New Delhi, the US Attorney General and also the US Legal Attache (from the FBI) in New Delhi.

I face a threat to life on account of this complaint and other complaints that are mentioned below.

Last night (India time) which would be the forenoon of 12 January 2012, I called the Deputy to your Court and informed him in brief about the nature of my complaint and the threat I was facing. He put my call through to Mr. Brett Kaufman who I was told was the assigned clerk for the case. I briefly explained to Mr. Kaufman why I was calling and informed him that I wanted to bring the facts about my complaint regarding possible obstruction of justice and the resultant threat to life to the notice of the Judge. I was advised to send an ex-parte letter to you and I am therefore writing to you.

In 2010, I worked for GE as Legal Counsel for GE Transportation’s business activities in India. I was directly reporting to Ms. Tara Plimpton, General Counsel for GE Transportation.

I complained that material information regarding GE’s failed bid for a multi-billion dollar tender for an Indian Railways project for manufacture and sale of diesel locomotives was not disclosed to GE investors in February 2009. This information was capable of influencing share-prices and thus relevant to the shareholder lawsuits filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. I further complained that once these lawsuits were filed in 2009, GE employees tampered with the evidence establishing knowledge of this failed bid by top GE officers including Mr. Jeffrey Immelt, Mr. John Rice and Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli. I accidently found out information about events of February 2009 even though I joined GE in April 2010. I mentioned the information I thus acquired to a colleague without realising its significance. This started a process of harassment and retaliation against me by the employees in the New Delhi office who were involved in concealing evidence and creating a misleading record. I ended up raising a compliance concern to the GE General Counsel and Ombudsman in September 2010 that this might involve a securities fraud. (At that time I had no knowledge about the cases filed against GE in 2009. I found out about these cases only in April 2011.) GE retaliated against me and terminated my services. It then carried out a compliance investigation in which Gibson Dunn was involved. However, my complaint was not investigated by GE and Gibson Dunn and the matter was covered up. GE declared its investigation over at the beginning of February 2011. I subsequently responded to GE in writing in April 2011 pointing out that the matter was being covered up and there was sufficient basis for my complaint. It was at this time that I found out about the lawsuits filed by GE investors after February 2009 and I only then understood the full significance of my complaint. I pointed out to GE that evidence showed that offences amounting to obstruction of justice might have been committed. Tampering of evidence, asking employees to lie, suppression/ destruction of evidence and creation of a misleading record to influence a United States Federal Court proceeding would amount to US federal offences and obstruction of justice under US federal statutes.

Among other evidence of what happened around GE’s failed bid in February 2009, I have seen an email sent by GE Transportation employee Mr. Brett Begole to Mr. John Rice and Mr. Karan Bhatia (another GE lawyer) in February 2009 suggesting that a news report from February 2009 that had hinted at GE’s difficulties with the bid be either allowed to die a natural death or that senior Government of India officials (Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Mr. Ronen Sen, the then Indian Ambassador in Washington) be spoken to. This email was shown to me by Mr. Jeffrey Eglash in New Delhi in late 2010 when he met me during a compliance investigation. This email is suggestive of corruption and demonstrates why GE officers, attorneys and employees might have wanted to prevent their documentary record pertaining to the failed February 2009 bid from being scrutinized by a United States Federal Court. I would like to submit documentary and other evidence on this issue to the Court.

I made complaints about other compliance violations as well, but none of these was properly investigated and matters were covered up. I believe that the principal reason for not investigating these other complaints was to avoid the truth about the evidence from February 2009 coming to light as at that time GE was arguing its Motion to Dismiss filed in the cases before your Court.

My other complaints are not relevant to the proceedings before your Court but I mention them here to indicate the gravity of what I complained about.

I complained that a customer certificate from Kazakhstan Railways was altered by GE employees and then submitted by GE to the Government of India as part of its request for qualification for an Indian Railways locomotive tender in July 2010. Such alteration would constitute forgery rendering the guilty GE employees liable to criminal prosecution and GE liable to disqualification and blacklisting. This would amount to government procurement fraud as well as a federal offence of forging a government document.

I complained that GE was paying bribes to Indian government officials through a third party contractor called Aartech Consultants. This would amount to US federal offences under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

I complained that GE had hired as consultant, a former Government official and advisor, Vinod Sharma and this constituted a violation of the tender documents and amounted to a corrupt practice as defined in the tender documents.

I complained of other corrupt contact between GE employees and Indian officials for the purposes of these tender bids. GE employees and attorneys based in the US were aware of and were party to such corrupt contact.

I complained of harassment, retaliation, and intimidation at GE and that I was drugged while I was still at GE. I complained of violation of whistleblower laws.

GE’s US attorneys and Gibson Dunn attorneys used the pretence of an internal GE investigation to corruptly cover up the various illegalities listed before. Such cover-up in itself amounts to independent and separate offences under US federal law and Indian municipal law.

I was threatened by Mr. Jeffrey Eglash during a phone conversation in January 2011. Mr. Eglash attempted to pressurize me into giving up my complaints.

I have complained that I was being drugged and attempts were made to poison me even between September 2010 and February 2011 while GE’s internal investigation was on.

I have complained that since February 2011 until the present, I have been drugged on numerous occasions and attempts have been made to poison me. I have been hounded and terrorized. I have received various threats from other Indian lawyers and from doctors whom I consulted when I suspected that I was being drugged/ poisoned. I have been gang-stalked. My house has been damaged and rigged to facilitate introduction of poisonous gases, toxins and chemicals. The power supply to my house was tampered with in order to damage appliances. My car brakes and AC were tampered with and car exhaust and chemicals were introduced into my car. My house has been entered into. My belongings, clothes and bedding were sprayed with chemicals/ pesticides. I have smelt nitrous oxide in my house. My phones are being hacked. My laptops were destroyed. Bugs were planted in my home. The air-conditioner in my house was tampered with. I was subjected nightly to dogs barking and howling outside my house for hours at a stretch. My car has been followed by thugs. I have been followed by thugs to the gym. Thugs have been sent to my house to intimidate me. Gangs on motorcycles have been made to circle my house to intimidate me. The local police has been corrupted and pressurized to prevent them from coming to my assistance. The police was used to illegally assault me while I was at the police headquarters asking for protection and then later drug me. I have been completely isolated as “friends”, family and neighbours have been recruited to harm me. My family has been blackmailed into denying me support and into participating in intimidation and harm using a domestic violence criminal complaint filed against them and a child custody dispute. I have been smeared as part of the campaign against me.

I tried to protect myself by withdrawing all my complaints hoping that I would be left alone. But that was not the case. Attempts were made to drug me, intimidate me and harm me even thereafter. I got the impression then that I was in even greater danger.

It is quite evident from the scale and nature of the operation against me that there is a grave threat to my life and that powerful persons at GE, including GE Officers and GE lawyers and Gibson lawyers have ordered that I be murdered/ eliminated. The powerful persons who are caught up in my complaints and who stand to lose from the truth being established include the following:

Mr. Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman -General Electric

Mr. John Rice, Vice Chairman -General Electric

Mr. John Flannery, General Electric

Mr. Brackett Denniston, General Counsel – General Electric

Mr. Alex Dimitrief , Vice President, General Electric

Mr. Jeffrey Eglash, Senior Counsel, General Electric

Mr. Karan Bhatia, Senior Counsel – General Electric

Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli, GE Transportation

Ms. Tara Plimpton, GE Transportation

Ms. James Winget, GE Transportation

Mr. Pratyush (Prat) Kumar, General Electric

Mr. Ashfaq (Ash) Nainar – General Electric

Mr. F Joseph Warin, Gibson Dunn

Mr. John Chesley, Gibson Dunn

I have appealed to the United States Government, the FBI and other US law enforcement agencies to protect me as a whistleblower and a witness to and victim of crime sponsored and ordered by US Citizens living in the United States. I believe the threat to my life originates from the persons I have named above and that they have ordered my murder/ elimination. I have made several complaints against these persons accusing them of United States federal criminal offences (and in some cases offences under Indian municipal law) which if investigated and prosecuted would not only cost these persons their jobs, their reputations and careers but would also result in criminal convictions and prison sentences. The attorneys on this list would be disbarred.

Regards,

Seema Sapra

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Subject: Please pass on this message to the Hon’ble Richard J. Holwell, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York
To: william_donald@nysd.uscourts.gov, brett_kaufman@nysd.uscourts.gov, usanys.crcomp@usdoj.gov, NDwebmail@state.gov, askdoj@usdoj.gov
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, kdonovan-maher@bermandevalerio.com, greg.danilow@weil.com, rcohen@lowey.com, fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov, ffetf@usdoj.gov, newhaven@ic.fbi.gov, ny1@ic.fbi.gov, usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov, CleggD1@state.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, help@sec.gov

Please pass on this message to the Hon’ble Richard J. Holwell, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York.

Dear Judge Richard J. Holwell,

This is in connection with my earlier communication regarding my complaint of a threat to my life on account of whistle-blower complaints that I have made against General Electric, one of which has a bearing on investor lawsuits against General Electric that were filed in your Court.

I have described in great detail the attacks against me that have taken place over the last year and a half. I have provided this information to law enforcement authorities both in India and in the United States. I would like to bring this information to your knowledge as well. Please see my letter addressed to the Legal Attache in the United States Embassy here in New Delhi which is attached herewith.

I also fear that contacting your office last week has resulted in retaliatory intimidation and harm to me. Since the night of January 13, 2012 some kind of toxic substances have been introduced into my house. I have smelt an unpleasant chemical and it has caused symtoms like stinging in the eyes, head-aches and respiratory symptoms. I have also intermittently smelt some other gas which could be nitrous oxide or something else. I have repeatedly complained about this to the local Police here and they have taken no action.

I fear for my life. I request that you intervene in this matter as the threat arises on account of my complaint about obstruction of justice and evidence tampering by General Electric in connection with lawsuits filed in your Court.

With Regards,

Seema Sapra

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Please pass on this message to the Hon’ble Richard J. Holwell, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York
To: william_donald@nysd.uscourts.gov, brett_kaufman@nysd.uscourts.gov, usanys.crcomp@usdoj.gov, NDwebmail@state.gov, askdoj@usdoj.gov
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, kdonovan-maher@bermandevalerio.com, greg.danilow@weil.com, rcohen@lowey.com, fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov, ffetf@usdoj.gov, newhaven@ic.fbi.gov, ny1@ic.fbi.gov, usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov, CleggD1@state.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, help@sec.gov

Please pass on this message to the Hon’ble Richard J. Holwell, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York.

Dear Judge Richard J. Holwell,

I am sending some correspondence that took place between me and General Electric and others on the subject of my complaint that GE was hiding evidence that established that GE Officers knew but did not publicly disclose that a mullti-billion dollar tender bid (that they had told investors about in a public forum) failed sometime between February 16, 2009 and February 23, 2009.

Thank you.

With Regards,

Seema Sapra

 

Correspondence with the Legal Attaché, US Embassy in New Delhi regarding my complaint of threat to life from General Electric

I am an attorney in India who has made whistle-blower complaints against GE, see this post. There is a threat to my life from GE Officers and GE lawyers and from senior Indian government officials like Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia on account of these complaints. I have appealed to the United States government for help.

I am completely healthy at present and have recovered from any damage caused to me last year. I am in good health right now. However for the last three days, I am again being exposed to toxic substances/gas/ fumes that are being introduced into my house. I have repeatedly complained to the Police and no action has been taken.

I am a witness to and victim of crimes committed in the United States that are punishable under US federal law. I am entitled to protection from the US government. There is a threat to my life and it originates from powerful persons (GE officers and lawyers) in the United States whom I have made made complaints against.

I request that the United States government and law enforcement agencies including the FBI provide me with protection against further threats and harm.

Please read below for my appeal to the Legal Attache in the United States Embassy in New Delhi:

16 January 2012

Dear Mr. Daniel Clegg,

Here is a rough note with some more detail regarding my complaints about threat to life from GE and the assaults committed against me over the last year and a half. I am sending you an incomplete note as I am still adding to it.

I was drugged while at GE after the forged document was submitted on 12 July 2010 and until the first week of September 2010. I consumed cut fresh fruit and coffee served at GE during this time. At that time, I also had two women working for me at home. One of them was cooking my meals. It would appear that whatever I was being given to disorient/ drug/ poison me during this period was either being added to what I consumed in the GE office or at home. I fired both the women working in my house sometime in August 2010.

September to December 2010:

I was repeatedly drugged thereafter. It could have been through food that I was ordering on the phone from local restaurants. I had no one working for me at home at this time. It could have been through food I ate at restaurants.

Last week of December 2010 till third week of January 2011:

I was in an enclosed space at home with all doors and windows shut. During this time, I remember being in a daze. One day in January I had difficulty breathing. I then started coughing and the coughing lasted for about 6 weeks. I coughed up a lot of mucus/ phlegm. It appears at this time some gas/ fumes were being introduced into my house. Also, I was not cooking at home but ordering in food daily so that could be another source of poisoning. A third possibility would be the water. For about 10 days over the holidays I was alone in the building and the other residents were away. The downstairs gardener and driver had access to the house and the water supply tanks on the terrace while the owner was away.

From February to June 2011, I was being drugged by a Nepali maid working for me called Maya. She was helping out in the kitchen by cutting fruit and vegetables, seasoning vegetables, making chappatis, serving me meals etc. I fired her in July 2011.

In April 2011, I was informed by the lady living downstairs that my water supply would now be separate from hers. She confirmed to me in August 2011 that changes to this effect had been made in April 2011. Since I was regularly drinking this water until August 2011, this could be another source of poisoning/ drugging.

My split air-conditioner was tampered with in May 2011. I complained to the Police about a suspicious response to an AC servicing request.

In May 2001, I ordered medicine on the phone. After it was delivered I noticed the seal look tampered with so I did not consume that. I complained to the Police about this as well.

In May 2011, the hard-drive of my laptop was intentionally destroyed by the service centre. I made a complaint.

Throughout May and June 2011, I was harassed by dogs being made to bark outside my house at night for hours. I recorded and published these disturbances on facebook and youtube.

All this time that I was being drugged I was driving and was living alone. On at least two occasions, I bumped my car. Once was on reversing and I damaged the bumper which had to be replaced. On at least 5-6 occasions, I left something on the gas-stove to cook and forgot about it with the pan getting badly burnt.

I became suspicious of the AC because of unusual smells and stopped using it in July 2011.

I am certain my house has been bugged with spying devices.

In July upon returning home I found that my front door was unlocked on 2-3 occasions even though I was sure I had locked it. I returned home once and noticed that a screw was loose in the front door lock and the only way for this to happen would be if someone tampered with it. I complained to the Police.

Soon thereafter in late July 2011, I returned home one night at around 10.30 pm and smelt a sweet smelling gas throughout my house even though the glass windows were open. I felt my eyes sting and I felt sleepy. I switched on the fans and went to sleep. I noticed the same smell the next night as well.

I noticed a lump in my throat, a metallic taste and nausea. I complained to the Police that I had smelt a gas and left the house. A medical examination and X-ray after I complained and left the house confirmed exposure to some gaseous irritant.

I moved out to a friend’s house. I was drugged by her maid (called Susheri) while I was there. (Susheri was called home by her uncle to visit without prior notice the second night I was at my friend’s house. She returned the next day.) She made breakfast for me on a day I was scheduled to drive to Noida from Gurgaon for a meeting with Prashant Bhushan. I felt sleepy (despite sleeping well the night before) and kept wanting to close my eyes on the drive to Noida. After that I was careful. I threw away a packed lunch she made for me. Susheri was made to call me on my birthday about 10 days later. Where did she get my phone-number from?

I returned home after 6 days and continued to smell the sweet smelling gas again on numerous occasions. Usually it was noticeable in the evenings. I had my AC indoor unit removed but the gas smell continued.

From late July to August 2011, various other toxic chemicals/ gases were introduced into my house. I could smell chemicals in my house, on my clothes, on my duvets, on my bed-linen and in my car. I found chemical stains and chemical damage on the inside of a rolled up exercise mat kept in its box. I developed other symptoms of poisoning. This is when I noticed weakness in my legs, tingling and numbness in my hands and feet. I became weak. There were other symptoms as well,

It is clear that my house at Jangpura has been rigged to facilitate the introduction of toxic substances.

In August 2011, another laptop was damaged by tampering with the power supply.

At this time I also discovered that because of tampering with the power supply to my house, all ceiling fans were damaged. All the fans were heating up. I tried to replace the fans but the new fans immediately developed the same heating complaint. This led me to abandon the house in September 2011. I believe that I might also have been exposed to carbon-monoxide during this time by its being introduced into my house or because of the appliances being damaged by intentional tampering with the power supply.

In August 2011, my car was tampered with. The brakes became loose. The bonnet was becoming very hot. I suspected that the car might have been tampered with to allow the exhaust to enter the cabin. I took it to a workshop but they would not fix my car. I complained to the Police.

I moved into Habitat Centre in September and was there for about 8 days. I was drugged even while I was there. I ordered room service on the first night. But the interaction with staff made me suspicious and I stopped eating there. However I still had coffee everyday and I am certain that I was being drugged. I can identify the employees who were involved.

I then moved to a rented place in Defence Colony where I originally planned to stay for 6 months or less as a temporary arrangement. However I was intentionally terrorized there as well. Plus I was again drugged. The food in my kitchen and fridge there was accessible to the maid and guard. The locks were very insecure and keys were available to the staff. I can provide more details.

I moved in with my family in Gurgaon. However, I noticed that they were trying to add something to my food, tea etc. I accused them of trying to drug/ poison me. I asked if they even knew what they were adding to my food. I then heard my sister accuse my mother in an argument over me that “you are the one who went and met Ajay Singh”. I confronted them about who this man was and how they were involved. I believe that this man was blackmailing them over a domestic violence complaint and a child custody dispute and my family was “persuaded” to cooperate in some manner in the operation against me possibly without being fully aware of the threat to my life. It appears my mother was asked to suggest to me in January 2011 that I re-hire a particular maid. My mother also had a spare set of keys to my house which might have been copied. I became very cautious of what I consumed even while staying with my family. I suspect that my family attempted to add corticosteroids to my food. My family members also threatened me.

I returned to my rented home in Jangpura in November 2011. For about 6 weeks I did not notice any unusual smells or chemicals. I restarted going to the gym. But I was being followed and gang-stalked. My downstairs neighbour attempted to intimidate me and threatened me. A “supposed” friend was used to intimidate me. A security guard was used to threaten me. Motorcycle gangs were used to intimidate me.

Since around 20 December 2011, the intimidation has increased. I have been stalked and followed. Thugs have been used to intimidate me. Now once again toxic substances and gases/ fumes are being introduced into my house and car. My neighbours have been used to intimidate me. Threatening emails have been sent. Threatening phone-calls have been made.

I am under surveillance.

This is not complete but just a broad description of how I have been targeted.

Coming to the Doctors:

Experience at Apollo

On two occasions, I was directed towards doctors (Dr Alok Aggarwal and Dr. Hariharan) who were not on duty at that time. It appears there was some noting in their booking system against my name.

Dr, Alok Aggarwal – I consulted him because of a visibly swollen lymph-node in June 2011. He was very aggressive. He prescribed double the normal dosage for a sedating anti-histamine. I was alerted to the over-dosage by the Apollo pharmacist. I went back to Dr. Alok Aggarwal to check. He insisted this was the dosage he usually prescribed. I never followed that prescription. Instead I took Allegra and the swelling subsided.

Dr. Hariharan – I consulted him because of a squeezing sensation in my heart. This was after I had smelt the nitrous oxide and other chemicals in my house. I gave him the full background of the threat to life and poisoning complaints. He saw all my reports including all Xrays, all ECGs (including those from the preventative check up I had got done at Max) and blood reports. He asked me to undergo some diagnostic procedures. He saw these new reports as well. My pulse was over 90 at that time but he did not point out that this was higher than normal. He sent me to Dr. Nalin Nag.

Dr. Nalin Nag – I met him twice. The first time was right after I met Dr. Hariharan. He was very polite on that occasion. He asked me to bring all my reports the next day. The next day he was very obnoxious and aggressive. He lied to me and said my pulse rate (which was over 90 at that time) was lower than what is considered normal. I confronted him with misleading me in a phone call later in the week.

I met Dr. Hariharan again without an appointment as a follow-up after seeing Nalin Nag. I complained about Dr. Nag to Dr. Hariharan. I told Dr. Hariharan that I had noted down my symptoms which note I had shown Dr. Nag. Dr. Hariharan read that note. He then told me that if I wanted to write down my symptoms then I would keep on writing. This was a clear threat. He told me there was nothing wrong with me and I should see him after a week. He kept asking me if I was an idealist.

Two days after meeting Hariharan and Nag, I again felt a squeezing in my heart. I went to Max Emergency and was admitted there. My pulse was as high as 110. I was being treated by one doctor but after I gave my details for admission paperwork, another doctor took over. He wanted to discharge me as soon as possible. I was discharged even though my pulse was 110 and higher. I was prescribed no medicines.

Experience at Max:

I first went to Max in the week that I smelt the sweet smelling gas and moved out to a friend’s house. I had a sore throat, lump in my throat, nausea, weakness, cough and mucus.

I asked to see any doctor in the OPD for internal medicine. I was given an appointment with Dr, Shushum Sharma. Someone had already spoken to him about me. He had been told to expect that I would be alone but he was surprised that I was accompanied by a friend. I told him the GE background and that I was sure my maid was poisoning/ drugging me. I told him I had made a complaint to the police. I told him that I had smelt a gas, and it had stung my eyes and made me sleepy. In the normal course Dr. Sharma should have treated me in the manner a patient who reports poisoning should be treated. However he had a long general conversation with me and spent only about 5% of the meeting on examining me and my symptoms.

He said he used to work in the Railways and that if the matter involved the Railways and GE then there was sure to be corruption. He said exploitation by the powerful was natural and to be expected. He gave some example of his old mother being exploited by a rickshaw puller at the Lucknow or Allahabad railway station. He told me that GE could never do this, i.e., poison someone. He said I was young and I should enjoy life. He said he could talk to GE for me. He said he knew John Flannery, Wanchoo and Anish Shah who were all his patients. He told me about the time John Flannery had come to see him with his wife on account of mosquito bites.

He told me about chronic poisoning by arsenic in the case of Arafat. He talked about poisoning by gas. He said that usually did not happen in India.

He examined me and did not tell me my tonsils were swollen which a doctor I consulted later confirmed. He said nothing was wrong with me but that I should go for a preventative health check up at Max, he recommended Max Panchsheel. He prescribed no tests. Under the circumstances, his professional interaction with me was unethical.

I went for a preventative health check up at Max shortly thereafter. However instead of going to Max Panchsheel, I went to Max, Gurgaon. After I had registered I saw Dr, Shushum Sharma in the corridor. We looked at each other, he recognized me but did not say anything. It appears that he spoke to people regarding my tests that day. The doctor performing the abdominal ultra-sound received a call right before she examined me. Before the procedure she asked if I had had an abdominal ultra-sound before. She made an unusual statement after the procedure. She remarked on her own that there was no fluid in the abdomen. My heart and ECG and lung tests were not performed by a doctor as for everyone else but by a technician. I was being prevented from seeing an ENT doctor even though that consultation was included in the health check-up. I had to insist upon seeing an ENT doctor. I was not made to see the physician on duty like everyone else who had their check-up that day. This would have been their physician for follow-up. Instead I was told that since I had already seen Dr, Shushum Sharma, I did not need a physician consultation that day and that my follow-up would be with Dr. Shushum Sharma. I completed my health check-up and left.

However since I was concerned about Dr. Shushum Sharma’s strange behaviour and the obvious interference in my check-up, I went back to Max and told them I wanted my test reports and I did not want a follow-up with Dr, Shushum Sharma but with another doctor. I was first told that my reports could not be given to me unless they were first reviewed by Dr. Shushum Sharma. I insisted on getting my reports and told the staff that I had made a threat to life complaint. They agreed to show me the reports. I was handed over the reports and the chest x-ray. I took the chest x-ray to the physician on duty – Dr. Anuradha. She told me it showed congestion. (This is the July X-ray. A January 2011 chest X-ray from Apollo was totally clear with no congestion).

I then became concerned and insisted on getting the records so that I could consult a doctor ASAP. I was finally given my reports. The report of the lung x-ray recorded no congestion and this was contrary to what Dr. Anuradha told me.

I then went to Artemis Hospital the same day and saw a pulmonologist. I gave him the full background of the threat, the history with the maid and the gas I had inhaled. He examined me and noted tonsil hypertrophy. He also prescribed me anti-histamines for the lung irritation.

I did not return to Max because of Dr. Shushum Sharma.

However I did go back to Max Saket Emergency around 11 August 2011 (about 2 weeks later) when I felt squeezing in my heart two days after my meeting with Dr. Hariharan in Apollo.

After that I decided to get another chest x-ray and ECG in Max Saket on my own without a doctor referral. The chest X-ray technician received a call before my x-ray. The Xray was not taken correctly. I believe the technician was instructed to do so during the phone-call he received. This is the August X-ray. This was done on 15 August. Since it was a holiday I was given the film but the report was provided 2-3 days later.

I showed the new x-ray to doctors in the Max emergency on 15 August because I had not received a radiologist report. They told me the July and August x-rays showed congestion.

Later and still before a report was given to me on the August Xray, I showed the July and August Xrays to another radiologist (Dr. Manoj Sharma) at Max. He confirmed congestion.

I spoke to the Head of Radiology (Dr. Debjyoti Chaudhari) and told him that I had spoken with this other Radiologist (Dr. Manoj Sharma) who had indicated congestion. The next day I got a report that said there was no congestion in the August Xray. It was supposedly issued by this other radiologist (Dr. Manoj Sharma) but was signed by someone else on his behalf. I protested and was then given a report with Dr. Manoj Sharma’s signature.

I smelt a gas in the corridor outside the ultrasound room at Max. It reminded me of the sweet smelling gas I had smelt in my house which made me sleepy. When I was in the ultrasound room a day or two later I saw that there was a pipe for nitrous oxide. This is how I identified the gas. I then googled this and found that my symptoms matched.

I consulted a doctor elsewhere under an assumed name. She saw the swollen lymph-node and prescribed antibiotics. I did not tell her the full background about the threat and the gas. She also noted congestion.

I then consulted another cardiologist at Max. She was quite alarmed by my treadmill ECG during the preventative health check up. This ECG was done right after my complaint of smelling gas which I believe was nitrous oxide. She said my pulse was high and told me that if I felt squeezing in my heart again I should take two disprins and go to a hospital emergency room. And I saw another internal medicine doctor who prescribed antibiotics (and multi-vitamins) because I had a swollen lymph-node.

I then asked to see a lung doctor in OPD. The roster said the Head of Deapartment was on duty. I was told he was not available. I was then told a doctor would see me. I asked to pay first as per hospital practice but I was told I could pay later.[1] I went to the room and a doctor was present. This was a junior doctor (Dr. Tarun) who I believe does not have OPD duties. I did not know that then. I showed this doctor all the x-rays and other reports. He spent almost 45-60 minutes with me. He then told me to wait outside. I then saw another doctor rush into the room. I went in and saw both Dr. Tarun and Dr. Ashish Jain going over my reports which Dr. Tarun had asked me to leave behind when he sent me out of the room earlier. I was told both doctors would see me and the earlier doctor had been filling in for the other doctor who arrived later. After five minutes the Doctor who came in later (Dr. Ashish Jain) asked the junior doctor to leave (Dr. Tarun) and he left despite my objection that I had spent so much time with him and he had expressed no opinion. Dr. Ashish Jain was not on OPD duty when I asked for an appointment. It seemed as if he was not even present in the hospital. He was especially summoned just to see me. The almost one hour spent with the other junior doctor was just a ploy to engage me until Dr. Ashish Jain could reach the hospital or get free from wherever he was. He had been spoken to about me before the consultation. This was a planned conspiracy to cover up my symptoms. He spent a further 45 minutes or more with me. He then covered up my symptoms and said the July and August X-rays showed no congestion whereas they did. He attempted to create a false medical record and attempted to discredit me. I filed a formal complaint against him the same day with the Max hospital Superintendent. A copy of this complaint has been supplied by me to you.

I met the Head of Radiology (Dr. Debjyoti Chaudhari) who also lied and said the Xrays showed no congestion. Another pulmonologist Nevin Kishore whom I consulted for a second opinion kept telling me I could not prove any thing and that this would not hold as evidence. I told him I was not looking for evidence but I wanted to be treated if there was some congestion. He also covered up the congestion. While he verbally told me there was no congestion at all, in writing he used the ambiguous words X-rays normal. I told him I was drinking tulsi tea. He verbally recommended that I try steam inhalation as well. He told me that I could get a CT scan. I declined as I realised this was unnecessary and part of a cover-up. Plus my experience with Dr, Debjyoti and the technician on the Chest Xray (when they insisted on incorrect positioning) alarmed me.

I also saw the head of internal medicine at Max, Dr. Sandeep Budhiraja. He too covered up my symptoms. I gave him the full background about the police complaint of threat to life and that I suspected poisoning. Again he did not handle me as a patient complaining of poisoning is required to be handled. (Both Dr. Hariharan and Dr. Nalin Nag at Apollo as well as every doctor I saw at Max including during the Emergency visit was informed by me that my complaint was of poisoning by inhalation and through oral consumption. None of them handled me as a patient ordinarily complaining of poisoning would be handled in a hospital).

Once again at Max like at Apollo it appeared that there was some note against my name in the patient ID system. This was evident when I went to the Max emergency and the doctor attending to me was changed after I gave my details. The doctor (Dr, Sunil Chaudhary) who was sent to replace the other doctor (Dr. Ashish James) was not on duty in emergency that time. All papers recording symptoms and examination were signed by a junior lady doctor and not by the doctor who was especially summoned to attend to me (Dr. Sunil Chaudhary). The discharge was by yet another doctor who came on morning duty.

When I first asked for an appointment with Dr. Sandeep Budhiraja, the receptionist told me that there were no free appointments with him. She gave me an appointment with some other doctor. When I went in for the appointment and asked to pay for it, I was told by the receptionist at the payment counter that my appointment was now with Dr. Sandeep Budhjiraja. This was done without my having requested a change.[2]

After I made a formal complaint against Dr. Ashish Jain to Max, I found out from Dr. Varun Katyal that GE was a corporate client of Max Hospitals. I told Dr Katyal that it appeared that there was some noting in the hospital system against my name. This was based upon how my interactions with hospital staff changed after I gave my patient id. After this an unusual thing happened. On my next visit the receptionist could not find my patient record using my phone number. When she located me by name, all details (like phone number and address were missing from my listing). This was inexplicable because I was receiving text messages on my phone for all my appointments. It appears this was an attempt to cover-up my complaint that there was a noting against my listing in Max’s patient database.

I asked for another chest Xray because I was told by Dr. Nevin Kishore and Dr. Debjyoti Chaudhari that the August X ray did not show the full lung fields. I believe the technician intentionally took a wrong Xray after he received a phone-call.

The Head of Radiology (Dr. Debjyoti Chaudhari) assured me the new Xray would be taken correctly. He called in a technician to take a new Xray. This technician received a call while we were in the billing line. He asked me to stand in position for the Xray. He then suddenly moved the film tray higher so that my chin was no longer on the place where it should rest and my neck and part of my face was also getting included. I objected that this was an incorrect position.. He insisted that we do it his way. He then called the Head of Radiology, Dr. Debjyoti Chaudhari who came to the Xray room and insisted that I go along with the position the technician wanted because he was the expert. I refused the Xray.

Later when I complained, a lady in the radiology dept. offered to do my X-ray herself. She placed me in the correct position but also did not take the X ray correctly and the full lung was still not visible. The Head of Radiology lied to me that the full lung was visible. He told me he could count all the ribs.

The head of internal medicine, Dr. Sandeep Budhiraja, kept denying I had swollen lymph nodes even though they were visibly swollen. He told me it was a swollen muscle. (And two doctors had already prescribed antibiotics after seeing them.) He recommended an ultra-sound of the neck for these. He refused to diagnose anemia even though the blood reports indicated that.

I went for this ultrasound. Before the procedure I told the doctor that the lymph nodes were swollen visibly. The ultrasound report tried to cover up the swollen lymph nodes by claiming that they were not serious. An ultrasound is incapable of such a determination. Instead the report overplayed a nodule apparently found in the thyroid. The report described this as serious. An ultrasound cannot reach this conclusion. I asked the Head of Radiology about the report on the supposed nodule. He tried to alarm me. I then asked to speak to the doctor who signed the report. The Head of Radiology was very agitated about my asking to speak to her alone. I asked her if an ultrasound could tell what had been noted on the report and she said no.

I protested that the thyroid ultrasound had been done without authorisation. I have confirmed through a subsequent ultrasound elsewhere that there is no such nodule. This report was made up to divert me from the real symptoms I developed in August and September 2011 from the exposure to nitrous oxide and other toxic substances at GE’s behest. And such nodules are very common and are no cause for alarm. The doctors were trying to cover up my real symptoms and divert me onto a different track.

I resolved not to return to Max after that.

I did go back to Max in mid-September 2011 and saw the Head of Internal Medicine Dr. Sandeep Budhiraja again. At this time I was again being drugged. I had tried to withdraw my complaints hoping that GE would not harm me anymore. I went back to Max just to see what this doctor would say. I had had a number of blood tests he had ordered which I had not followed-up on. He prescribed vitamin D and Calcium. I still had swollen lymph-nodes which he ignored. He told me they would go when I lost all the fat on my neck. I did not have fat on my neck. The lymph nodes were visibly swollen. I still had anaemia which he refused to diagnose.

During my interactions with doctors at Apollo and Max described above, I minutely described detailed symptoms to them. However they consistently did not record these symptoms in their hand written prescriptions. I have contemporaneous reports lodged with the Police with official receipt stamps that describe my symptoms in August and September in detail.

In July and August 2011, I made numerous complaints to the Police in writing. I first made complaints with the in-charge of the local police post, Ashish Dalal. I later wrote to the Commissioner Police. I was asked to meet Mr. Amulya Patnaik, Joint Commissioner. I met him. I was sent to meet Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Additional Commissioner, SE Delhi. I also met the Assistant Commisioner, Datta Ram and the SHO, Ram Kumar. They did not do anything on my complaints. Instead I was insulted, refused permission to meet them, and intimidated and terrorized with their assistance. In August 2011, I went to ITO police headquarters and after getting no help from Amulya Patnaik’s office, I tried to meet the Commissioner and then went to the Police Control Room there. I was told to go up to the Police Command Room. I was asked to wait. After about 2 hours, someone in plain clothes was sent to remove me from the premises. He insisted that I accompany him to the IP Extension Police Station where he told me my complaints would be looked into. I refused and stated that I was there asking for police help. I said my home was unsafe, there was a threat to my life and I was seeking police protection. I made the senior police officers present read the complaints I had made in writing to Amulya Patnaik and Ajay Chaudhary. With the entire team present in the Police Command Room watching, I was physically dragged by women constables to remove me from the premises. I was then taken to IP extension Police station where an attempt was made to drug me. I was then led to believe that a woman constable would stay with me in my house if I went home. I agreed to go back home on this condition. When we reached my house, the woman constable told me she had received orders from the SHO that she could not stay with me. I then went to the local Nizamuddin Police Station after midnight. I waited there for 1 hour but no one helped me or did anything. The constables accompanying me fell asleep. Thugs were brought into the police station in order to intimidate me. I then had no alternative but to return to my house even though I was being harmed there by the introduction of toxic gases and chemicals.

I was terrorized on account of my experiences with the Police and doctors at Apollo and Max in July and August 2011. I thought that withdrawing my complaints against GE might help save me from harm. I attempted to withdraw my complaints at the end of August 2011. However, as described above, the attempts on my life and attempts to harm, intimidate and terrorize me did not cease. I realised that I was in even greater danger.

Seema Sapra

---

[1] This must be because Dr, Ashish Jain was not supposed to be on OPD duty at that time. In fact, I made no payment for the two hour consultation with Dr. Tarun, the junior doctor and Dr, Ashish Jain combined. Usually consultations are for 10 minutes or so.

[2] It looks as if Dr Sandeep Budhiraja and Dr. Shushum Sharma have both been promoted at Max since my interactions with them.

——————————————————————————————————————–

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com> wrote:

Mr. Daniel Clegg,

As I have pointed out below, It appears that I have received two emails from the email account sharmam1@state.gov which appear to have been faked.

Who is Mr. Manu Sharma?

I have tried contacting you at the US Embassy again in the afternoon of 19 January and today morning (January 20, 2012). My calls are being transferred to someone who claims to be an operator who is not identifying themselves and is telling me not to call.

Please contact me at 99588 69955.

Thank you,

Seema Sapra

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com> wrote:

Please pass on this message to Mr. Daniel Clegg, Legal Attache, United States Embassy, New Delhi.

Mr. Daniel Clegg,

It appears as if both emails that I have received from the email account sharmam1@state.gov on January 3 and January 14, 2012 are faked emails.

When someone sends an email from their Blackberry in India using Airtel services, the message that appears at the bottom is "Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel".

I have extracted both emails received by me from Mr. Manu Sharma’s email account below, and the message reads:
"Sent on my BlackBerry® from Airtel"

It appears that these emails have been faked to appear as if they were sent using a Blackberry. It appears that the attempt here has been to send me an email without retaining an official record of such email either on the email servers of @state.gov or the servers of the US Embassy or in the sent messages of the account of Mr. Manu Sharma.

Regards,

Seema Sapra

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Daniel Clegg,

I wish to protest and complain about our interaction in response to my contacting you and bringing to your attention my complaints against General Electric about compliance violations amounting to United States federal offences. I have also brought to your attention my complaint that I face a threat to my life from those General Electric Officers and Attorneys who have either committed the offences I have complained about or have engaged in criminal activity by covering up those offences.

I have made out a case based upon documentary evidence that I am a witness to and victim of United States federal offences committed by American citizens on US soil. I thus fall within the legal definition of a US federal crime victim under US federal law.

I first called the phone number for the US embassy here in New Delhi on 30 December 2011. I asked to be connected to the local office of the FBI. I was told there was no such office. I insisted that I was sure there was local FBI representation at the US embassy in New Delhi. Upon my insistence and after repeated requests the operators put me through to someone who first refused to identify himself. I later learnt his name was Manu Sharma from one of the operators. Mr. Manu Sharma tried his level best to dissuade me from contacting the FBI office in New Delhi. He tried to talk me out of approaching the FBI for a good 15 minutes. He also mis-directed me to an online internet crime reporting service. I told him my complaints were about corruption and not internet crime. He refused to tell me his name or his designation or the name of the head of the local FBI office. He told me that he could do for me whatever the head of the FBI office here could do for me. I called back and again was told there was no local FBI office. When I told the reporter that I had just spoken to someone called Manu Sharma who claimed to work for the FBI, I was then connected to Mr. Manu Sharma (I believe on his mobile) with the explanation that the operator had not previously understood my request. Mr. Manu Sharma asked for my mobile number which I provided. He then gave me what he said was a direct fax number for the Delhi FBI office and told me to fax my complaint. He said I might not receive a reply. He did not identify himself or tell me what his job was.

Instead of following Mr. Manu Sharma’s advice who I got the impression was trying to mislead me, I emailed the Embassy with a request that my message be forwarded to you. I managed to discover your name and job here in Delhi from the internet.

Please correct if I have the date wrong but I recollect and my phone records confirm that I called and spoke with you on January 3, 2012. On that occasion, you asked me a few questions about the compliance complaints and I answered those. I told you that I wanted to forward to you documentary evidence and correspondence with GE on these complaints. You told me that these were two separate issues – the compliance complaints and the complaint of threat to life. You did say that while you (i.e., the FBI) could look into the compliance complaints, I should approach the local police on the threat to life complaint. I replied that I had and the Police had been corrupted and had refused to come to my help. I also pointed out that in my opinion I was entitled in my case to protection and support from US law enforcement agencies since I qualified as a US federal crime victim. (I remember you had earlier on in the conversation mentioned that GE India was an Indian entity and that therefore there might be jurisdictional hurdles for the US authorities to intervene.) I informed you that I wanted to send you documents and asked for your email. You declined to provide me with your email and gave me Mr. Manu Sharma’s email and suggested that I forward the documents to that email. I did object and tell you that on my earlier interaction with him, Mr. Manu Sharma had attempted to dissuade me from contacting you and had misdirected me to the online internet crime reporting service. However, you replied that I should use Mr. Manu Sharma’s email which you said you practically used as your inbox. You stated that you received hundreds of emails and that you preferred that I use Mr. Manu Sharma’s email to forward you my documents. Not wishing to argue with you on this point, I agreed.

I then forwarded several documents and emails to you using the general embassy email (NDwebmail@state.gov) and Mr. Manu Sharma’s email (sharmam1@state.gov). These documents establish that my complaints about compliance violations by GE are supported by evidence. I even received an acknowledgement from Mr. Manu Sharma that I have extracted below:

“On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Sharma, Manu<SharmaM1@state.gov> wrote:

Got it. Thanks
Manu Sharma
Office of the Legal Attaché
United States Embassy
New Delhi
India
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Airtel”

I did not reply to Mr. Manu Sharma. Instead I continued to send you my documents.

I called your office on January 6, 2012 and was put through to your office manager. She told me that you had received my emails but that you were travelling and would be back the following week.

I called your office on January 12, 2012 and spoke with you. You asked me several questions about my complaint of forgery and my complaint about Aartech Consultants and FCPA violations. It did not appear that you had read what documents I had forwarded to you. You were not inclined to discuss my complaint about obstruction of justice and evidence tampering by GE officers and attorneys in connection with the GE investor lawsuits filed before the Court of the Hon’ble Judge Richard J. Holwell. I tried to discuss this complaint with you and all you answered was that “everyone makes mistakes”. You then said you had to go and our call ended.

On this call, you asked me some questions about my complaint about threat to life. I answered those. This part of the conversation was perfunctory and brief. I told you that doctors at Max Hospital had covered up my complaints. I very perfunctorily mentioned my first interaction with Dr. Shushum Sharma. I also told you of my formal complaint to Max Hospital against a pulmonologist who covered up lung congestion visible on two X-rays and attempted to create a false record. I told you he had attempted to mis-describe me as an “Occ. Alcoholic” in his prescription when I told him in reply to his question if I drank alcohol that I did occasionally in social settings. I also told you that as part of his attempt to cover-up the physical symptoms and to discredit me and my complaint he wrote in his prescription that I consider seeing a psychiatrist. Right before that he also recommended (in the same prescription) in writing that I go to the Toxicology department at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) because as he told me verbally more than once Max was not equipped to deal with a case of poisoning like mine.

(I have in my detailed note sent to you on January 16, 2012 and in my emails to you sent on Jan 13, 2012 at 3:10 PM and on Jan 17, 2012 at 3:03 PM described to you in detail what my experience was like with the doctors at both Apollo Hospital and at Max Hospital. All the facts stated therein are supported by evidence.)

After our phone conversation on January 12, 2012, I sent you the following email:

“From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Subject: For Legal Attache, Mr. Daniel Clegg, US Embassy, New Delhi – Complaints about US federal law violations by GE and the resultant threat to my life
To: NDwebmail@state.gov, sharmam1@state.gov

Please forward this email to Legal Attache, Mr. Daniel Clegg, US Embassy, New Delhi.

Dear Mr. Clegg,

Thank you for taking time out today to discuss the matter of my compliance complaints against General Electric and my complaint of a threat to life from GE Officers and lawyers who live and work in the United States. I maintain that my complaints and evidence prima facie establish the commission of crimes under US federal laws, both in respect of compliance violations and the illegal assaults and attempts on my life and person over the last year and a half (including drugging and exposure to toxic materials/ chemicals [including toxic gases] with the intent to cause physical and biological damage).

I will provide you with a further detailed account in writing on the US federal law violations and the evidence that calls for an investigation and prosecution by US federal agencies. Further, as I fall within the definition of a complainant/ witness to and victim of US federal crimes (despite my Indian citizenship and residence in India), I am entitled to protection from the United States government and US law enforcement agencies against a threat to life and harm that is a direct result of these crimes. Under US law, the term ‘crime victim’ means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a federal offense and I fall within this definition.

It was useful to be able to discuss some of my concerns and the reasons therefor over the phone, but in the interest of assisting you in appreciating my complaints and their basis, I will set down details in writing and send them to you.

I request that the United States government and the FBI provide me protection from any further physical or other harm and threats.

With Regards,

Seema Sapra

–
Seema Sapra “

I followed that up with another email sent to you the same day that I have extracted below:

“From: Seema Sapra<seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Subject: Message for Mr. Daniel Clegg, Legal Attache, US Embassy, New Delhi -threat to life from General Electric
To: NDwebmail@state.gov, sharmam1@state.gov

Please forward this message to Mr. Daniel Clegg, Legal Attache, New Delhi.

Dear Mr. Clegg,

I am forwarding below my communications with Mr. Brackett Denniston dated January 2010 on the subject of risks to my safety on account of the compliance complaints I had made. I also draw your attention to my statement below to Mr. Denniston that I was relying upon GE being an American company and upon my interacting with US attorneys.

Little did I realize at the time, that I was already being harmed.

Regards,

Seema Sapra”

I once again emailed you on the morning of January 13, 2012 requesting an in-person meeting with you. This email is set out below:

“From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Subject: Message for Mr. Daniel Clegg, Legal Attache, US Embassy, New Delhi -threat to life from General Electric
To: NDwebmail@state.gov, sharmam1@state.gov

Please forward this message to Mr. Daniel Clegg, Legal Attache, New Delhi.

Dear Mr. Clegg,

I would like to meet you in person and therefore would like an appointment. Thanks.

Regards,
Seema Sapra

–
Seema Sapra“

Thereafter, I received an email from Mr. Manu Sharma’s email account and sent from his blackberry and purporting to be from you and with content that surprised me. I have set it out below:

"From: Sharma, Manu <SharmaM1@state.gov>

Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Subject: GE

To: seema.sapra@googlemail.com

Ms. Sapra :

Thank you for calling me with your concerns. I have thoroughly reviewed you complaint, written and oral, in which you allege that General Electric (GE) is threatening your life. Unfortunately, the information you have provided in insufficient to predicate a U.S. criminal investigation. I’ve included notes from our telephone conversation on January 12, 2012:

· You are a lawyer by trade and were previously employed by GE in India.

· You possess insider information regarding GE’s lack of compliance regarding documentation related to a government tender and believe this is why GE is threatening your life.

· Since leaving GE you have felt physically ill and believe GE’s top managers are “drugging” you because of your efforts to expose the company.

· You recently noticed a sweet odor in your house that you believe is nitrous oxide. Your symptoms appear to be similar to those of nitrous oxide poisoning per your research on the internet.

· The landlord is making suspicious repairs on the roof of your flat and may be complicit in poisoning you because the nitrous oxide could be introduced through the air conditioning system.

· You believe your maid is poisoning your food. The maid was referred to you by your immediate family through a suspicious individual named Ajay Singh who you don’t know. Your family distanced themselves from you shortly after you hired the maid.

· The landlord is making suspicious repairs on the roof of your flat and may be complicit in poisoning you because the nitrous oxide could be introduced through the air conditioning system.

· The doctors that treated you at MAX hospital know your prior GE managers and may also be complicit with GE. They listed you as an “alcoholic” in their medical reports and referred you to a psychiatrist.

The FBI does not have law enforcement authority outside the U.S. so I recommend you refer your safety concerns to the appropriate government of India authorities for action.

Thanks,

Dan

Manu Sharma

Office of the Legal Attaché

United States Embassy

New Delhi

India

Sent on my BlackBerry® from Airtel"

I immediately sent the following email to you in reply:

“From: Seema Sapra<seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: GE
To: "Sharma, Manu" <SharmaM1@state.gov>

Dear Mr. Clegg,

I am afraid your notes are a misrepresentation and parody of our conversation. I will prepare a detailed reply.

In the meantime I am forwarding to you the complaint that I made to Max.

Regards,

Seema Sapra”

I followed that with yet another email to you that I have copied below:

“From: Seema Sapra<seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:10 PM
Subject: For Mr. Daniel Clegg, Legal Attache, New Delhi
To: "Sharma, Manu" <sharmam1@state.gov>

Dear Mr. Clegg,

Here is one of my complaints against Max. I am preparing a detailed note on the attempts to harm me over the past year. Your note to me earlier today sent from this email is premature. I have not communicated the detailed facts to you. Therefore, your earlier email does not reflect the basis of my complaints.

I am putting detailed facts together and will forward them to you.

I request that you keep this forwarded communication confidential (to the extent possible) in so far as it concerns my medical history.

Regards,

Seema Sapra”

I then called you on the phone immediately and we spoke in the afternoon of January 13, 2012 at 3.11 pm. In this conversation I told you that your email to me sent from Mr. Manu Sharma’s blackberry (and from his email account) at Jan 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM did not reflect my complaint and that I needed time to describe in detail the basis of my complaint regarding threat to life from GE. I said I would send it to you in writing and point out the errors in your email to me (which I sketchily also pointed out during this conversation). I again pointed out that I would send a detailed written note describing in detail the facts and evidence on which basis I feared for my life and had made my complaint. You asked me during this conversation how and when I thought GE had tried to kill me. I gave instances of this. You asked me if I did not think that GE would have succeeded in killing me if they wanted that. I replied that the operation against me was obviously covert and it was clear that I was being harmed deliberately and the attempt was to make it appear otherwise. You asked me if I thought trained professionals had been hired to harm me and I agreed. You told me that if someone wanted me dead, I could be shot dead over the duration of the phone-call. I replied that since GE had already had my house rigged and had managed to introduce nitrous oxide they could very well gas me to death in a matter of seconds and pass it off as heart-failure. Towards the end of our conversation, I mentioned that I had contacted Judge Richard J. Holwell’s Court the previous night (Indian time which was the forenoon of January 12, 2012 EST) and spoken with his Deputy and the Court Clerk assigned to the General Electric case. I also mentioned that I had just then (on January 13) found out on the internet that Judge Richard J. Holwell had pronounced his decision on GE’s motion to defend on Thursday itself and that GE had lost that motion and the lawsuit would now proceed. I mentioned that my complaint still remained relevant and that I planned on contacting the Judge. You then ended the conversation because you needed to go.

I recorded the gist of our conversation in the following email that I sent to you:

“From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: GE
To: "Sharma, Manu" <SharmaM1@state.gov>

Dear Mr. Clegg,

I would like to confirm that as I indicated when we spoke a little while ago, I will prepare a detailed note on my threat to life complaint and send it to you. I would like to describe in detail the events that have occurred over the last year and a half. I will describe in detail the multiple occasions on which I have been drugged, and the attempts on my life and other relevant information.

I will need some time to put this note together as there is a lot of information to share.

Regards,

Seema Sapra”

Later that evening on January 13, 2012, I contacted Judge Richard J. Holwell’s Court on phone and then sent emails to his staff bringing to the attention of the Judge my complaints against GE including that of obstruction of justice and the complaint of threat to life. After I made these calls and sent these emails, I noticed a strong and unpleasant chemical smell in my home. My eyes began to sting and my head started to ache. I realised that some toxic substance was again being introduced into my house. I emailed you and Mr. Manu Sharma about it.

The next morning I complained to the Police. I also tried contacting the US embassy and requesting if I could get contact details for either you or Mr. Manu Sharma. The staff who took my calls did say that it was a holiday. Upon my insistent requests to speak with someone on emergency duty I was informed that since I was not a US citizen I could not be given access to staff on emergency duty. I must admit I insisted that I be allowed to speak with someone. However, after the first 3-4 calls I made, the staff who answered the phone started to act strange. First someone told me that he would complain to the Police. Another man who spoke in Hindi and was trying to intimidate me told me (when I asked him to give me Mr. Manu Sharma’s phone number) that I could have his number instead. Another attempt to speak with someone in charge was met by a response from a man who kept drawling “hello” repeatedly in an obnoxious manner so as to suggest he was drunk or dangerous. I recorded this last phone-call and I sent an email to Mr. Manu Sharma about these threatening responses. I also forwarded the call recording to him. I asked Mr. Manu Sharma to contact me because of the on-going introduction of toxic substances into my house. I received no response from Mr. Manu Sharma. I later emailed Mr. Manu Sharma asking him to let me know his official designation. He has not replied.

As I had said I would, I have sent you two emails on January 16, 2012 with a detailed (but still incomplete and not exhaustive note) setting out the facts and basis for my complaint that there is a threat to my life because of my whistle-blower complaints against General Electric.

I repeatedly complained to the Police with copies marked to you throughout the weekend and on January 16 and 17, 2012 as well that toxic substances were being introduced into my home since the night of January 13, 2011. There has been no response from the Police. This introduction of toxic substances into my house is on-going at present and I have again intermittently smelt some gas or chemical in my house today.

I attempted to contact you on January 17, 2012 and spoke with your office manager but she refused to put my call through to you. I thereafter sent another request on email to meet you in person.

I emailed you yet again on 17 January 2012 and sent you the following note:

“From: Seema Sapra<seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:03 PM
Subject: Message for Mr. Daniel Clegg, Legal Attache, US Embassy, New Delhi
To: NDwebmail@state.gov, cleggd1@state.gov

Dear Mr. Daniel Clegg,

Here is one of my complaints against Max Hospital. This one was against Dr. Ashish Jain a pulmonologist at Max Saket who covered up the lung congestion that my chest X-rays from July and August 2011 showed. I have sent you a detailed note on the attempts to harm me over the past year. Your note to me on 13 January 2012 sent from this email (sharmam1@state.gov) was as I stated below premature. I had not communicated the detailed facts to you. Therefore, your earlier email does not reflect the basis of my complaints. There is more detail on additional attempts to drug me as well as additional evidence which I am able to provide beyond what I have put down in my note.

I request that you keep this forwarded communication confidential (to the extent possible) in so far as it concerns my medical history. Also, as I informed you when we spoke, Dr. Ashish Jain from Max in this very prescription that I complained about below recommended in writing that I go to the toxicology department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). He repeatedly told me during my consultation with him that Max Hospital was not able to handle cases of poisoning like in my case.

In my detailed note sent to you on January 16, 2011, I have provided further detail about my interaction with Dr. Ashish Jain and other doctors at Max.

I had also told you when we spoke on January 13, 2012 that your email to me dated 13 January 2012 sent from Mr. Manu Sharma’s email account did not accurately reflect what I was complaining about and that I needed an opportunity to provide details to you about attempts and attacks on my life and person. I have already sent you a detailed note. I will also take the opportunity to point out corrections to your preliminary notes that you sent to me from Mr. Manu Sharma’s email account on 13 January 2012.

Best Regards,

Seema Sapra”

I followed this up with this email to you also sent on January 17, 2012:

“From: Seema Sapra<seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM
Subject: Please forward this message to Mr. Daniel Clegg, Legal Attache, United States Embassy, New Delhi
To: NDwebmail@state.gov, cleggd1@state.gov

Dear Mr. Daniel Clegg,

I was just going to send an email with detailed point by point notes from my end on this email below. But I just realised that perhaps you might not even have sent this email.

This is from Mr. Manu Sharma’s email account and sent from his blackberry. I do not know what he does at the Embassy. I have asked him for his designation on email but he has not replied. A few days ago when I first tried to speak with your office, the call was sent to him and he attempted to discourage me from contacting your office. He told me he could do for me whatever the Legal Attache could do.

I have sent a number of emails forwarding my correspondence with GE on the compliance violation issues for you and have copied Mr. Manu Sharma. However I am not sure if you have received those emails.

Could you please confirm that this email below was actually sent by you.

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Seema Sapra”

I have not received a response from you.

I called the US embassy again on January 17, 2012 and today (January 18, 2012) and asked to speak to the staff of the US Ambassador whom I have also appealed to for help and also asked to speak with you. My calls were not put through by the operators who answered the phone. I was told not to call again. It appears that my calls are being answered by someone other than the regular operators who respond to calls.

Since our conversation on January 13, 2012, I have also sent other emails to you including emails that I sent to Judge Richard J. Holwell and which I have copied you on.

I have also sent you emails on this address – Cleggd1@state.gov, hoping that they might reach you. Yet another strange occurrence has been that while some of my emails have been delivered to you at your email (Cleggd1@state.gov), I have on other occasions received a notification from postmaster@state.govthat my email was not delivered.

I am not sure if emails that I sent for you on Mr. Manu Sharma’s email account have been forwarded to you or not. My limited interaction with Mr. Manu Sharma over my complaints has been very unsatisfactory and suspicious.

I once again request a personal meeting with you. I am sending this request to all these emails in the hope that it will reach you.

With Regards,

Seema Sapra

On-going “gassing” and poisoning by General Electric of Indian whistle-blower who is an attorney and worked as in-house counsel with General Electric

I am an attorney in India who worked with General Electric in 2010 and made several whistle-blower complaints. I have been repeatedly drugged over the last year and a half and attempts have been made and are still being made to poison me.  Please read my posts here and at http://seemasapra.wordpress.com/

Since January 13, 2012, toxic gases including nitrous oxide and other chemicals (fumes) are being introduced into my house where I live alone.  This has happened earlier in the past year as well and had then made me ill. However I had fully recovered. The present attempt on my life is a response to my contacting Judge Richard J. Howell of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York  last week about one of my complaints.

My repeated complaints to the Police in India have met with no response. I have asked the United States government for help and protection but so far have had no response. The compliance complaints I made against General Electric can be established by documentary evidence. These establish the commission of United States federal offences by executive level GE employees, by GE Officers and by GE attorneys. My complaints about these offences are the reason  for the threat to my life and the harm being caused to me is a direct result of these US federal offences. 

The threat to my life emanates from US citizens who work for GE and live in the US. The nature of the threat that I face suggests the use of trained professionals/ assassins for hire. One or more of the following individuals has ordered my murder. These powerful persons who are caught up in my complaints and who stand to lose from the truth being established include the following:

Mr. Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman -General Electric

Mr. John Rice, Vice Chairman -General Electric

Mr. John Flannery, General Electric

Mr. Brackett Denniston, General Counsel – General Electric

Mr. Alex Dimitrief , Vice President, General Electric

Mr. Jeffrey Eglash, Senior Counsel, General Electric

Mr. Karan Bhatia, Senior Counsel- General Electric

Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli, GE Transportation

Ms. Tara Plimpton, GE Transportation

Ms. James Winget, GE Transportation

Mr. Pratyush (Prat) Kumar, General Electric

Mr. Ashfaq (Ash) Nainar – General Electric

Mr. F Joseph Warin, Gibson Dunn

Mr. John Chesley, Gibson Dunn

I have appealed to the United States Government, the FBI and other US law enforcement agencies to protect me as a whistle-blower and a witness to and victim of crime sponsored and ordered by US Citizens living in the United States. The threat to my life emanates from the persons I have named above. I have made several complaints against these persons accusing them of United States federal criminal offences (and of offences under Indian municipal law) which if investigated and prosecuted would not only cost these persons their jobs, their reputations and careers but would also result in criminal convictions and criminal penalties including prison sentences. The attorneys on this list would be disbarred

 

GE Docs–sham internal investigation by GE

My response dated 27 April 2011 on the issue of GE’s alleged investigation into my complaints

I sent the following reply to Mr. Alexander Dimitrief on April 27, 2011. (For Mr. Alex Dimitrief’s letter click here.

Dear Mr. Dimitrief,

Subject: response to your letter dated February 3, 2011 on the issue of your purported investigation

Your letter under reply presents a misleading and deceptive narrative about GE’s alleged investigation.

1. As already pointed out, your letter misrepresents and caricatures my complaints. Your letter misrepresents facts. Your alleged investigation covers-up fraudulent and criminal activity. You caricature my complaint about harassment, retaliation and bullying.

1. Your false and dishonest ‘narrative’ purports to depict what you describe as a comprehensive, thorough, impartial and extensive investigation by a team of investigators including outside counsel from the United States that apparently extensively interviewed me over the course of 5 interviews collectively lasting 10 hours. You painstakingly count and mention 45 emails, 20,000 documents, 20 interviews, 21 separate written complaints, 60-plus pages, etc., etc. .

1. However your entire ‘narrative’ is so full of holes that it is easily exposed as a mala fide misrepresentation. Your investigation was tainted, dishonest, incomplete, biased, and unfair. I had rejected your investigation when it was proposed and continued to reject it thereafter. I find no value or substance in your purported findings which misrepresent my complaints; are based upon complete disregard for facts and evidence; and, which you have arrived at without me being heard.

1. Let me describe Mr. Eglash’s investigative strategy and point out your misrepresentations:

1. Mr. Eglash did not ‘interview’ me over the course of 5 interviews collectively lasting 10 hours. Your assertion to this effect is verifiably and maliciously false. On the contrary, Mr. Eglash went to great lengths and expended considerable effort to ensure that I did not elaborate on my complaints and present my evidence. To a large extent, I was myself not interested in sharing all my information and evidence because I had rejected GE’s internal investigation. Yet, even to the extent I was willing and eager, Mr. Eglash was not interested in hearing me. At the same time, Mr. Eglash attempted to create a deceptive record of me having fully participated in his investigation and of his having fully heard me. Unfortunately, Mr. Eglash was thwarted in this attempt by me.
2. In addition, Mr Eglash’s investigative strategy included subtle attempts to intimidate me, along with attempts to get me to incriminate myself in wrongdoing, He failed on both counts.
3. You suggest that after I accused Mr. Anil Chaddha, the GE Transportation attorney of leaking information to the persons I was complaining about, you immediately and in an accommodation of my wishes assigned Jeff Eglash to take over the investigation. This suggestion is false.
4. Among other things, you omit to mention that Ms. Tara Plimpton suggested (to my amazement) that my concerns be investigated by Ms. Mona Dange, who was the attorney personally involved in the issue I had raised about information discrepancies involving GE’s failed 2009 bid for diesel locomotives.
5. You also omit to mention that after I accused Anil Chaddha of collusion and a cover-up, and after I emailed Mr. Brackett Denniston and the GE Corporate ombudsperson asking for their help and intervention, you terminated my contract, without notice and without assigning any reason, and had security escort me off the premises.
6. Having terminated my contract, and having got rid of me,[1] and having retaliated against me in violation of law and GE policy for raising concerns, you then asked me to participate in an investigation by Jeff Eglash. I expressly refused the offer of such an investigation and made clear that an internal GE investigation at this stage was unacceptable to me and that I would seek my own remedies.[2]
7. You state that Mr. Eglash and Gibson Dunn “continued their investigation” of my concerns “by scheduling telephonic interviews and collecting and reviewing relevant documents”. I note that during this entire period, Mr. Eglash and Gibson Dunn did not actually conduct any interviews.
8. You state that: “In reviewing these documents, GE/ Gibson Dunn found no support for your claims of “cover-ups”, “forgeries”, or “bullying”. With respect, I find this an astonishing statement.
9. In your investigative teams’ no-doubt considerable collective experience of white collar crime and work-place harassment, how often have you found that someone would leave behind documentary evidence of forgery, fraud or harassment? I am surprised that it did not appear to you to be necessary that you conduct interviews and obtain oral evidence. You were surprisingly too willing to be satisfied that no fraud or criminal activity occurred (even in the face of serious charges like forgery and securities fraud) merely because (you claim) you did not find documentary proof.[3] And I must point out that even your claim that you found no documentary proof is in itself false.[4]
10. It is at this point of the story that I once again intervened in the matter by sending an email to Mr. Jeff Immelt on 10 November 2010 objecting to his lobbying for the diesel locomotive tender when I had pointed out that I believed that GE’s tender application contained a forged customer certificate. I asked if GE could confirm to me that the certificate was not forged.
11. GE was unable to confirm in November 2010 that the customer certificate was not forged.
12. I would describe GE’s conduct in pursuing the tender in November 2010 as actionable ‘wilful ignorance’ of a possible forgery. Having satisfied yourself that there was no documentary proof (as you claim), GE decided to ignore the forgery and proceeded to lobby for the tender convinced that I would not dare re-appear. A prudent response to such serious accusation by the Legal Counsel involved in the tender preparation would surely have required more than just a review of documentation. It would surely have required interviewing key witnesses and reviewing the evidence lying with the Government.
13. In your February 3, 2011 letter, you state: “Despite being unable to corroborate your claims, Mr. Eglash organized a team of several GE lawyers and auditors and an attorney from Gibson Dunn to converge in Delhi” to conduct interviews. This statement is also false. It suggests voluntary action by GE, yet as I have described you were compelled to reopen your investigation because of my intervention in November 2010 when I questioned how GE could ignore the forgery issue.
14. After my email to Mr. Immelt on November 10, 2010, you emailed me with the request that I change my mind and meet with Mr. Eglash.
15. I reconsidered the matter and agreed to meet with Jeff Eglash to share what I knew about the customer certificate issue.
16. It turned out that instead of a one-on-one meeting with me, Mr. Eglash intended to interrogate me along with an associate from a law-firm. Not surprisingly I objected to such interrogation and opted out.
17. Nevertheless when Mr. Eglash contacted me on 29 November 2010, I spoke with him on the phone with a GE auditor listening in.[5] I also met Mr. Eglash on 30 November 2010 in the presence of two GE auditors, one being Ms. Shruti Narang.[6]
18. You narrate that: “…over the course of two days, Mr. Eglash, an Indian attorney for GE, and two different GE auditors spent more than seven hours with you going over your concerns.”[7]
19. You give a false impression as if Mr. Eglash went over my concerns with me. You incorrectly state we spoke for seven hours. Mr. Eglash in his email dated 2 December 2010 claimed to have spoken with me for five hours. I disputed his account at that time and clarified for the record that he had not heard me fully and we had not gone over all my concerns or evidence. The total time between the phone conversation on 29 November and the in-person meeting on 30 November was not more than four hours at best. I believe it was less. Phone records can confirm that the conversation on 29 November lasted about one hour. The meeting on 30 November 2010 lasted around 2 and half-hours, certainly not more than three hours in any event. This is based on the total amount of time I was at the venue, as I arrived at 1.30 pm and left the premises around 4.30 pm. On 29 November, I had requested that Mr. Eglash give me 6 hours of his time on 30 November as after speaking with him on the phone, I wanted to go over other issues besides the forged certificate. On 30 November, Mr. Eglash told me he could not spare more than three hours as he had other appointments. I was ready to meet again after his other appointments, but he refused. Out of the three hours that I spent in the business centre of the hotel venue, a substantial amount of time was spent in discussing things apart from the information I wanted to share. By way of example, the first half hour was spent in negotiating whether Mr. Chesley would remain present and the amount of time that Mr. Eglash could spare. I was also asked to leave the room three times for around 10-15 minutes each so that Mr. Eglash could confer with the auditors. I was given no opportunity to relate my experience at GE. Mr. Eglash kept interrupting me, and outright refused to listen to me more than once. Once Mr. Vinod Sharma, a witness arrived, Mr. Eglash abruptly terminated the meeting. During this meeting I made it very clear to Mr. Eglash that he could not in fairness “investigate” this matter without giving me a full hearing and that I would object to any such purported “investigation”. I also informed Mr. Eglash that I intended to initiate legal proceedings to resolve my complaints.
20. It is clear from your letter of February 3, 2011 that you have not heard me or examined my evidence at all. First because Mr. Eglash was not interested in hearing me. And second, you have chosen to ignore even that evidence which I did share with Mr. Eglash, including the evidence that I communicated in writing.
21. Yet your false narrative contains an account of five interviews totalling ten hours. You include in this total a phone conversation with Mr. Eglash on 13 December 2010 that I had requested but which Mr. Eglash restricted to half an hour as he claimed he was busy. [8] Mr. Chesley was on this call as well. Again this was not an interview where I was able to discuss my concerns.[9] I requested that Mr. Eglash travel to India and hear me for as long as it took. He refused. I requested that Mr. Eglash allow me to show him emails and documents from the laptop I had been using at GE. He refused.
22. I sent some further emails to GE in January 2010. On 11 January, 2010, I called Mr. Eglash’s office to speak with him. He was not available. Mr. Eglash replied on email that he would not be available to speak with me throughout the weeks of 11 and 18 January. He asked me to send him a note. On 12 January 2010, Mr. Eglash indicated that he would complete his enquiry by the following week.
23. On 20 January 2011, I made an unscheduled call to Mr. Eglash. Mr. Eglash answered the phone himself and therefore I was able to speak with him. On this call, Mr. Eglash basically informed me that he had finished his enquiry. (This call lasted forty minutes.) I pointed out that Mr. Eglash had not heard me. I repeatedly requested that Mr. Eglash sit with me and listen to me. He refused.

1. As I have already pointed out, your alleged investigation fails to address my complaints and claims against GE and some GE employees, including my concerns about the forged customer certificate, the securities fraud of 2009, and the subsequent conspiracy and conduct that would amount to obstruction of justice. Your letter also caricatures and misrepresents my claims and evidence on harassment, bullying and retaliation.

Sincerely,

Seema Sapra

---

[1] No doubt to ensure that I did not gather more evidence or information by still remaining at GE.

[2] At around this time, I was on a call with Mr. Eglash and Mr. Chesley. This was a preliminary introductory call and we did not discuss any of my concerns. I asked that GE tell me why my contract was terminated. I also asked that GE preserve records and hand over copies of my complaints to me. Yet, you refer to this as an interview in your letter when you falsely assert that your investigating team conducted five separate interviews with me totalling ten hours.

[3] Your willingness must have been helped along by your impression that I had disappeared and was not coming back. You probably believed that I would be hesitant to follow-through on the forgery issue out of fear of being incriminated in the matter myself. This seems to have been the larger criminal strategy at work here. I believe the termination of my contract without indicating a reason and having security escort me off the premises was also a strategy to make me hesitant and fearful of raising the forgery issue. The manner in which you terminated my contract is also one reason why I am unable to let this matter rest until the truth is established and exposed.

[4] I have already alluded to the documentary proof that establishes the securities fraud and the subsequent conduct amounting to obstruction of justice. There is to my knowledge documentary evidence that establishes and supports my harassment, bullying and retaliation claims. And the documentary evidence on the forgery matter is in the custody of the Government of India.

[5] On this call, I briefly and hurriedly narrated the events of the weekend of 10 and 11 July 2010. Mr. Eglash was not interested in hearing me and kept interrupting me. At one point he asked me why I was telling him all this. I insisted on giving him a bare outline of the events of this weekend. Mr. Eglash asked me a few other questions. I believe we did not speak for much more than an hour, but call records should easily confirm this. Mr. Eglash requested that I meet him the next day to look at some documents. I agreed. I asked him to bring with him the laptop I was assigned at GE. Mr. Eglash did not bring this laptop to my meeting with him on 30 November. Instead he first claimed that he did not know where my laptop was. He later admitted that it was lying in the custody of Mr. Mrigank Sharma in Gurgaon.

[6] You mention that an Indian attorney for GE was present during this meeting. This is incorrect. The only persons present in the room besides me were Mr. Eglash, Ms. Narang and another GE auditor.

[7] You add: “(Mr. Chesley was present for the in-person interview but, at your insistence, left the room and did not participate.).” On 29 November Mr. Eglash and I had expressly agreed that only a GE auditor would be present along with him for our meeting the next day. Despite this agreement, when I arrived for the meeting on 30 November, Mr. Eglash once again insisted on the presence of Mr. John Chesley. Naturally I insisted that Mr. Eglash stick to what we had agreed.

[8] Mr. Eglash also stated that he was busy for the rest of the week.

[9] My request for further conversation with Mr. Eglash in December 2010 was turned down by him. He indicated he was travelling the week of 13 December 2010 and thereafter he would be on his Christmas break. It was evident that Mr. Eglash was avoiding further conversation with me. Nevertheless, I put down some additional information in writing. I fell ill in the last week of December 2010.

GE Docs–GE tampered with Kazakhstan Railways customer certificate filed in Indian Loco tender

Response on Forgery dated 11 April 2011. For Mr. Alex Dimitrief’s letter click here.

The letter below was sent by me to Mr. Alexander Dimitrief on April 11. 2011

Dear Mr. Dimitrief,

In response to your letter dated 3 February 2011 and your email dated 9 April 2011, I regret that I am unable to consider this matter closed. My response on your alleged investigation and purported findings on the forgery issue is as follows:

Forgery

GE employees committed a forgery of the Kazakhstan certificate and submitted it to the Government of India as part of GE’s Request for Qualification for the Diesel Locomotive tender at Marhowra. These employees including Deepak Adlakha, GE India’s General Counsel, attempted to implicate me in this offence, and to scapegoat and victimise me. I was bullied, lied to, and tricked. There was an attempt to blackmail me. Deepak Adlakha conspired to ensure that I did not leave GE immediately after 11 July 2010. He conspired to prevent me from quitting while he set the stage for a termination of my contract and created conditions that compelled me to resign. Mr. Adlakha threatened me. He bullied me when I withdrew my resignation in order to raise concerns. He tried to dissuade me from raising my concerns. At a later date, he suggested that he could find me an alternate position if I was ready to wait for a couple of months before raising my concerns. I refused. Once I started to raise my concerns, Mr. Adlakha avoided me. I was asked to move to the Gurgaon office in an attempt to isolate me. Finally when I started to relate Mr. Adlakha’s role, I was fired without being given a reason. He then got another GE lawyer to try and influence me into not raising further concerns.

In your letter, you claim that documentary evidence disproves my complaint about the forgery. This is incorrect. The documentary evidence you discuss is irrelevant.[1] The evidence that I have shared in writing clearly shows the following:

1. The document I saw in the compilation on the evening of 9 July 2010 contained a black and white copy of the Kazakhstan certificate. This was the final set that was supposed to have been sent for binding.

2. The bound set that I saw on 10 July 2010 contained an entirely different document (Kazakhstan certificate) that was in colour and looked like an original leading me to ask: are you guys playing games with me?

3. Ashish Malhotra lied to me and said that the coloured document was there in the set I looked at on 9 July 2010. This is incorrect. The document I saw on 9 July 2010 was a black and white document that on the face of it looked like a copy. The document I saw on 10 July was a colour document that looked like an original.

4. The document I was shown by Mr. Eglash on 1 December 2010[2] (I call it Document X) was most certainly not the document I saw on 10 July. I made this very clear. Mr. Eglash asked me if I was sure. I answered: would I lie about something like this. Further, Document X did not in any way resemble an original. Let me also state that I was not shown an electronic record of Document X despite my request.

5. I asked Mr. Eglash during the same meeting right after being shown Document X that he needed to look at what the Government had on its file. He smiled at me and said “why should I?”

6. In your letter you misquote me to suggest that I was unable to definitely state whether or not I saw Document X in the bound set on 10 July. Subsequent to my meeting with Mr. Eglash I stated in writing as follows:

When I met Jeff Eglash on 1 December, I was shown a printout of an email trail and an attached document that looked like the Kazakhstan certificate. I was told this was a color printout. The document had black lettering and a blue signature. I do not remember having earlier seen the printout I was shown. I informed Jeff that this was not what was filed with the RFQ. The document that was filed was a more colorful document with a red signature. The signature was in bold similar to the result of a sketch pen having been used. This is what I seem to remember, i.e., the signature was in red. But given the time lapse and other circumstances, I would rather not state this today with 100% certainty. Maybe some other writing on the certificate was in red. What I do remember is my reaction to what I saw on 10 July 2010. That looked like an original. The document Jeff showed me did not look like an original. What was submitted is available with the Railways. The persons who claimed and told me that was a color printout need to show a scanned copy received by email on or before 9 July that is identical to what was submitted and is on the record with the Government. None of these documents or emails is in my possession. So GE should not be relying upon me to establish the facts here. GE should be able to verify this independently.

7. Your letter misquotes this and claims that I stated:

“given the time lapse and other circumstances, [you] would rather not state [the certificate shown to you during the interview was not the certificate you saw previously] with 100% certainty”.

The words in square brackets are GE’s.

8. As is clear from the full quote of my written communication (at point 6 above) I stated “… what I seem to remember, i.e., the signature was in red. But given the time lapse and other circumstances, I would rather not state this today with 100% certainty. Maybe some other writing on the certificate was in red.” I go on to say that “What I do remember is my reaction to what I saw on 10 July 2010. That looked like an original. The document Jeff showed me did not look like an original.”

9. My statement that I could not remember with 100% certainty if the signature was in red, has been distorted in your letter to mean something entirely different. As is clear from the full quotation extracted above at point 6, I clearly and unambiguously stated that Document X was not the document I saw in the bound compilation on 10 July 2010. I maintain this even today.

10. In my communication, I also pointed GE towards the documentary evidence that it needed to examine by repeating what I had verbally told Mr. Eglash on 1 December. I stated “What was submitted is available with the Railways. The persons who claimed and told me that was a color printout need to show a scanned copy received by email on or before 9 July that is identical to what was submitted and is on the record with the Government. None of these documents or emails is in my possession. So GE should not be relying upon me to establish the facts here. GE should be able to verify this independently.

11. Any reasonable person wanting to investigate this forgery thoroughly would look to the relevant documentary evidence available with the Government. I wonder why GE does not want that evidence examined?

12. I have described the events of 10 and 11 July 2010 in great detail in writing. Further, I have also detailed the conspiracy to cover up this forgery that was put into effect afterwards.

13. Your statement that I have candidly retreated from my stance is incorrect and false. You intentionally misquote me to distort what I stated during the meeting on 1 December 2010 and in my subsequent communication.

14. Given the above, I continue to believe that the Kazakhstan certificate was forged. I base my claim on the evidence of what I saw with my own eyes. Further, the additional material I have shared describing the conspiracy supports my claim on the forgery.

15. You have offered no convincing argument/ evidence for your statement that “GETI submitted the scanned copy of the Kazakh certificate received on July 7 to Indian Railways without alteration”. Instead you have attempted to misquote me and distort my evidence. Further GE has declined to examine the documentary evidence available with the Government.

16. You also state in your letter that you are “troubled by the misleading tone of my communications with Indian Railways.” You add:

“When GETI submitted its RFQ, GETI explicitly stated to Indian Railways that “all documents accompanying (our) Application are true copies of their respective originals”. We have reviewed numerous e-mails between you and the GETI business team that plainly demonstrate that you were aware at the time that GETI was submitting a scanned copy of the certificate in question and made no claim then of “forgery”. …”

With respect, these statements appear to me to be totally irrelevant and an attempt to obfuscate the issue as part of a cover-up.

I hope this response sheds a clearer and more authentic light on the forgery issue.

Thank you,

Seema Sapra

---

[1] 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”. With respect, this does not establish that the certificate was not forged. This is not contrary to what I have stated: the document I saw on 9 July was different from what I saw on 10 July. It would therefore appear that the document was substituted sometime after I saw it on 9 July and before it was sent for binding. I presume that the copy of the RFQ that you refer to was made before 9 July and was of the set that I saw on 9 July and not of the set that I saw on 10 July.

[2] You state that I requested Mr. Eglash during the meeting to show me the email from which the customer certificate was printed. This is incorrect. Mr. Eglash showed me Document X on his own accord. I understand he set up the meeting for this purpose.

—————————————————————————————

I sent these three notes to Mr. Jeffrey Eglash, Mr. Brackett Denniston and Mr. Alexander Dimitrief (all General Electric attorneys) on January 16 and 18, 2011. These were sent during GE’s internal investigation.

Note 1

Customer certificates for D Loco RFQ including the Kazakhstan customer certificate

I have added some further information and clarifications to this document on 12 December 2010 and this is shown in red font.

I have added some additional information and clarifications to this document on 7 December 2010 and this is shown in blue font.

When I met Jeff Eglash on 1 December, I was shown a printout of an email trail and an attached document that looked like the Kazakhstan certificate. I was told this was a color printout. The document had black lettering and a blue signature. I do not remember having earlier seen the printout I was shown. I informed Jeff that this was not what was filed with the RFQ. The document that was filed was a more colorful document with a red signature. The signature was in bold similar to the result of a sketch pen having been used. This is what I seem to remember, i.e., the signature was in red. But given the time lapse and other circumstances, I would rather not state this today with 100% certainty. Maybe some other writing on the certificate was in red. What I do remember is my reaction to what I saw on 10 July 2010. That looked like an original. The document Jeff showed me did not look like an original. What was submitted is available with the Railways. The persons who claimed and told me that was a color printout need to show a scanned copy received by email on or before 9 July that is identical to what was submitted and is on the record with the Government. None of these documents or emails is in my possession. So GE should not be relying upon me to establish the facts here. GE should be able to verify this independently.

Ramesh made certain work schedules in end of May/ beginning of June that showed him as responsible for technical capacity documents including customer certificates. Praveena was listed as responsible for handling and storage of documentation.

As I later discovered these certificates were obtained around December 2009 and January 2010.

Ashish joined as ITO leader for India in end of May and also became jointly responsible with Ramesh for the D Loco RFQ prep.

Work on the RFQ prep started after 15 June and was being coordinated from India by Ramesh and Ashish.[1] I started to answer queries and offer support whenever and wherever requested.

Sometime after 15 June, Gaurav Negi sent Ramesh and me an email asking us to make sure that the customer certificates were OK and did not have the issues which apparently they had in E Loco (where consequently an auditors’ certificate based upon the customer certificates was used).

I forwarded Gaurav’s email to Ashish and asked him to look into this and reply to Gaurav. Ashish came and told me he had spoken to Ramesh and there was no problem with the customer certificates that Ramesh had. He told me he had informed Gaurav about this.

I had told Ashish that he should scan and send on email all RFQ documents for review and I would provide my comments on email so that there was a full record. I had specifically told Ashish in the beginning of June that he should check everything himself and have everything reviewed and not to rely upon Ramesh who had made many mistakes during the E Loco RFQ. I told Ashish I found Ramesh very incompetent.

Ashish/ Steve started to send me selective documents/ queries for advice from the third week of June onwards. I ensured that I obtained Jamie Winget’s views on everything as well. All queries were answered on email.

The Railways issued the revised RFQ on 24 June. Work began to speed up after that. Ashish started to compile the application and sent me a first set of documents to review in this week.[2]

The remaining documents including the scanned customer certificates along with the technical capacity Annexures (II and IV) were sent to me on email I believe on or after 29 June. This was the first time I was sent the customer certificates and these two annexures. He also prepared a spiral bound copy of the complete set and gave me one set in the week beginning 28 June.[3]

After receiving Annexures II and IV, I went to Ashish’s office to discuss these, I asked him to explain to me the basis on which these had been prepared. Specifically I showed him Clause 3.2.1 of the RFQ and wanted him to explain how these eligibility conditions were being met. Ashish did not seem to be very well-informed about this. For instance on the variants he informed me that the variants were the different models mentioned in the customer certificates.

I started to review Annexures II and IV. I found out what Ashish told me on the variants was incorrect. Also the documents as prepared did not specify which Locomotives were AC-AC 3 Phase and IGBT technology. I asked Ashish how are we showing 200 locos of this type and where are we showing it. He said Ramesh had told him that all of GE’s locos were AC-AC 3 Phase and IGBT. I found certain references to AC-DC in the Annexures and told Ashish that this looked different from AC-AC. He said no they are all the same. Some of this conversation took place on emails.[4]

Not convinced by Ashish’s explanation I went to Yashdeep Sule with my questions. He explained that AC-AC was the newest technology whereas GTO and AC-DC were old technologies. He also explained to me what the gauge variations and service application variations meant.

I then made a number of suggestions and corrections in Annexures II and IV.[5] These included:

• Advised that Project code referred to an individual identifying code for each certificate and was not meant to categorize models as had been done.
• Reviewed the certificates, corroborated and corrected the details that had been wrongly entered in the tables in Annexure IV.
• Reviewed the certificates to see whether they conformed to the RFQ requirements. I identified a number of certificates as deficient. Some had no dates, some had blanks, one did not include the name/ designation of the authorized signatory etc.
• I also advised that Annexure II be filled out correctly to show the details of technology and variant specifications for each project. Also that more details on variant and technology be included in the Annexure IV tables.
• Specifically I wanted us to spell out the technology for each project so that there was no misrepresentation as to whether something was AC-AC or AC-DC. This was also required by the RFQ but had not been done.[6]

Steve told Ashish to check whether we would meet the RFQ requirements if we left out the deficient certificates. Ashish first sent an evasive email on this asking me to take the call. I tried to pin him down and eventually he said we would meet the RFQ requirement on everything except variants. And for variants according to Ashish we needed the Kazakhstan certificate. This was on the basis that we needed 2 different gauges. The third gauge variation was the Vale certificate but GE only had a copy for this and there was some problem in getting the original from Vale. [7]

As Ramesh had earlier advised Ashish not to make any changes on my advice alone but to do so only if Steve Seip agreed, I discussed all my suggestions/ comments with Steve and Jamie Winget. Steve wanted to retain the defective certificates as he felt that we had sufficient certificates even without the defective ones and the Railways could ignore the defective ones. I disagreed saying that the govt could not choose for GE which certificates GE was relying upon. Jamie agreed with me and we decided to leave out the deficient certificates, except those required for prequalification. Jamie agreed with me on my other suggestions as well. Steve made a comment to Jamie on this call about the “garbage” that the sales team had collected. Jamie asked Steve why we were not including passenger locos as a variant. I did not hear Steve’s reply.

At this point I looked at the variant clause in the RFQ again. I started to think that the correct interpretation of 3.2.1 (a) (i) would require at least three different gauges in the absence of a service application variant. The clause says “at least” two variants. If this meant 2 different gauges then the words “at least” would be redundant as this was in any case the minimum. Also I read this clause thus: if all gauges were the same = 0 variant; two different gauges = 1 variant’; and three different gauges = 2 variants.

Ash and Prat were on vacation.[8] But I was continually emailing Ash on the customer certificate issues all through so that he knew what we were dealing with. He did not reply to any email I sent on this or provide any advice or help in any way.

On or around 1 July, I was discussing this with Ashish. I was thinking aloud trying to find a solution. I mentioned that we should discuss whether we could use a statutory auditor certificate for the ones we were missing. I explained that technically the RFQ allowed this. Ashish was quite worked up on the issue. He made a very strange comment that I thought was unfair to my role. He said this was the “only constructive suggestion” I had made so far. I said I would send out an email on this option to the whole group to discuss. And I sent out this email.

There was a RFQ prep review call on the evening of 1 July. Steve was on this call. Jamie was not. Jim Gerson also was not (if I remember correctly).[9]

No one replied to my email of 1 July on the option I wanted us to discuss and consider. On or around 2 July, Ashish told me that Steve had told him that the India team should handle this matter locally. And that there would be no RFQ prep review calls next week. These had been scheduled biweekly on Tuesdays and Thursdays. He told me that we were going to use the statutory auditor option as I had suggested. I told him that I first wanted us all to discuss the pros and cons of this option. I got the impression that no one wanted to touch the “hot potato” that the certificate issue had become nor take responsibility for a decision.

Because no one else had commented on my proposed option which I had raised for discussion and because I thought it strange that Ashish declared we were going to go ahead with that option without any discussion, I sent out an email on 5 July to the whole group saying that I had brought up this option for discussion and we needed to discuss it. I also asked if GE had sold any passenger locos.[10]

Ash returned to work/ India on 1 July. On or around 1 July, 2 July, and 5 July I tried to discuss this issue with Ash on multiple occasions. But he was evasive. I was also asking Yashdeep if GE had sold passenger locos. Ash said yes. Yash said no. Ash said he would try and find out. I asked Ash if we could still get some certificates. Ash made some noise but basically did nothing. From 1 July until 6 July, Ash and Prat (who had returned to work on 2 July) did nothing on this issue. I believe Yashdeep commented upon Ash’s incompetence and unprofessionalism during this period to Himali. Himali told me this later.

I got in touch with Jamie and Steve to discuss my view on needing three different gauges. Meanwhile no one else was discussing the issue or doing anything about it.

On 6 July, I tried to force a discussion and a decision on the issue. I went to Ash and told him we needed his help on this. I explained how I thought we needed three different gauges. Ash got hassled and said lets talk to Ashish. Both of us went to the conference room where Ashish and Ramesh were working. We all discussed two issues: (i) whether we needed three different gauges; and (ii) whether we should use a new statutory auditor certificate for Kazakhstan (the customer certificate obtained in December 2009 was undated). I asked for Ash’s views on this specifically.

Ash said he did not like the idea of using the statutory auditor certificate because we would be using the statutory auditor of GE Global Sourcing India to certify loco supplies by GE Corporation. He was not convinced on my view about three different gauges being needed. He said Vinod Sharma is sitting with Prat, let me ask him.

A few minutes later Ash returned wth Prat and Vinod Sharma. Prat was all aggressive. He first asked whether Kazakhstan would be the only cert from the stat auditor. When he was informed that was the case, he said that this would stand out like a red flag and therefore we would not do that. He said we would use the Kazakhstan cert we had.

I then tried to speak up about needing three gauges and Prat shut me up with a rude “time-out”.[11] He basically ignored me and was talking to everyone else in the room except me. Someone then said that they were planning to contact Kazakhstan Railways to try and get a new certificate issued. Someone showed a draft that was going to be emailed to Kazakhstan Railways.

The conversation then turned to whether the undated certificate would work in case a new dated certificate could not be obtained in time. Vinod was asked for his views. He said that it might work but he could not be sure. In any case, our only option was to use it unless we got a fresh certificate. He suggested that we try and get a fresh certificate and that if we did get it we should use that. I brought up the issue that we needed to also be aware about how this would play out in a possible Court challenge later by EMD. I told them that if GE got the tender then EMD would very likely challenge it and in such a challenge EMD would raise any and every minor and major defect it found in our documentation. So even if the railways accepted the deficient documentation, we might still face a problem later.[12] At this point, Ramesh interrupted me to say I was wrong because the RFQ said that all bidders undertook not to challenge the Authority’s decision. I then tried to inform them that such language in the RFQ was not a bar to a Court challenge based upon the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right that the Government act reasonably and fairly. And that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging award of tenders were filed on a daily basis in the courts. At this point Ash interrupted me very aggressively and rudely and said that I should stop talking about things which were not relevant. I was made to shut up.[13] All through this conversation, Prat, Ash and Ramesh were very aggressive towards me. In any case, the meeting ended with the decision that an attempt would be made to get a fresh certificate from Kazakhstan railways and if that did not come through, then the certificate we had (undated) would be filed.

During the discussion with Vinod Sharma on or around 6 July, Prat and Ash were first adamant that the undated certificate would work and they were insistent there was no need to even try and get a compliant one. Initially even Vinod suggested there was no need to try and get a dated certificate. It was only after I spoke up about how the Railways might not accept a deficient certificate or that EMD might raise the issue in a legal challenge (and how easy it was to get a preliminary injunction in Indian Courts even if the matter had no merit and then cases got held up on account of time delays) that Vinod agreed with me that we should at least try and get a new certificate. The whole discussion then was only about whether we should at least try and get a compliant certificate.[14]

After this meeting, Prat came up to me and asked me to draft a letter that we could attach with the undated certificate that explained when this was obtained. I asked Ramesh to give me the information about when we obtained the certificate. I also recorded this on email. Ramesh sent me this information and supporting emails. The certificate had been requested and obtained in December 2009. I sent another email to the group explaining my point about the constitutionally protected right to challenge “unreasonable and arbitrary” government decision-making and how this right could not be waived by RFQ language. I sent this email because I had been rudely interrupted by Ash when I was making this point.

After lunch I went to Ash and complained about how he had rudely interrupted me when I was trying to make a relevant point. He was angry about both my emails. He said are you trying to leave an email trail? He asked why had I asked Ramesh for details about when the certificate was obtained. I told him Prat asked me to draft that cover-letter and I needed the supporting documentation to record when GE sent out a request for the certificate and when it was received.

Ramesh and Ashish spent the afternoon with Vinod going over the RFQ application. I had earlier requested them to call me when they started this. But they did not. I found them later reviewing the docs and I sat in for the remainder of the review.

That same evening (6 July) a meeting took place in the conference room. I was not told about it nor asked to join. I believe it was attended by Prat, Ash, Ashish, Ramesh and Gaurav Negi. I was speaking with Alpna in her office when all these people came out of the conference room. Prat smiled at me and said now everything has been sorted out. I went into the room where Ash was still there. He told me that they were going to get a new certificate for a new project from Indonesian railways. Plus they had asked Kazakhstan for a fresh certificate and that this was going to be signed the next day hopefully and sent by email and courier. I told Ash that our earlier discussion about using the undated Kazakhstan certificate should be recorded on email as a business decision taken by Prat and Ash. He agreed to do that.

Either the same evening or the next I was speaking with Ash and standing at the door of his office when Prat stopped by. I again brought up the need to record their decision as a business decision. Prat gave me a strange look and walked off.

On or around 7 July, I was told by Ashish that a fresh Kazakhstan certificate had been issued and scanned and sent on email. Plus the original was being couriered. I think Ashish forwarded me this email and I forwarded it to Jamie and Steve.[15] I was told this scanned copy would be included in the RFQ instead of the undated certificate we had. I told Ashish that we need to delay binding as much as possible (maybe even till Sunday) in order to wait for the Kazakhstan original in case we could get it.

Ashish said something around this time but a little later which sounded strange. At one point he insisted that he was going to give the set for binding on Wednesday itself.

A certificate from Indonesian Railways reached in original sometime on 8/9 July.

On or around 7/8 July, I was told that Prat and Ash had met the Railways along with Vinod Sharma and they had been verbally assured that the scanned copy would be accepted.

On trying to discuss this with Ashish I was told that there was no way the Railways would disqualify GE as they needed GE and I was unnecessarily concerned.

On or around 8 July, I walked past Prat’s office and I saw Ramesh, Ashish and Praveena in there along with Prat. Prat had the complied RFQ application before him. I went in and asked if Prat was reviewing the RFQ. I was told yes. I asked why was I not included in this meeting. Everyone looked sheepish. I said we had discussed the need to be inclusive. I was then told that Prat had made some minor changes which I would be briefed on if I was interested. I said that I had wanted to discuss certain issues with Prat on the customer certificates. I made the point that if we were filing and relying upon scanned copies (as we were doing for Kazakhstan and Vale), we needed to be sure that we would eventually obtain the originals as the government might ask for them later. Strangely (in retrospect) there was disagreement from Prat on this point then. I was saying this because I had been told that we would not get a Vale original and I wanted us to be sure we would get the Kazakhstan original. I remember Prat saying something to the effect that it did not matter if the original obtained later looked different from the copy filed. As long as the original was an original. I thought he was saying this in the context of the difficulty in getting a Vale original for the scanned copy that we were filing. He said that if the Railways asked for the Vale original we would get one from Vale even if it was issued later. I also tried to discuss my interpretation that three different gauges were needed.[16] Prat was rude and told me that this was just my opinion which he need not listen to.

Clause 2.9.3 of the RFQ reads: “Verbal clarification and information given by Authority and its employees or representatives shall not in any way or manner be binding on the Authority.” The fact that verbal clarifications had no binding effect and could not be relied upon had been discussed with the team on numerous occasions including when the issue of financial net-worth certificate was being discussed. I only heard from Ashish that Prat, Ash and Vinod Sharma has been verbally assured by someone in the Authority that the scanned copy would be accepted. As a lawyer, I could not give legal advice that there was now no risk of disqualification on account of failure to meet the RFQ requirement to file original customer certificates.[17] I informed Ashish that such verbal assurance did not necessarily protect us. I tried to discuss this with Prat when I walked in upon him reviewing the RFQ. But he was not interested in listening to anything I had to say. Till Friday evening, I assumed we were waiting for the Kazakhstan original. I did not take the decision to give the set for binding on Friday. I was only told that it was being sent. At that point there should have been a discussion or reasoned/ considered decision on what course to adopt as the courier had not arrived. There were three options as I pointed out in my email. This never happened (or I was not consulted) and this was another reason for my Saturday morning email.

I decided to call up Tara and brief her on this. I called her up and told her where we stood; my concern with the copy being filed; that the “assurance” from the Railways was verbal and meant nothing in legal terms; and the concern that even if the Railways accepted the copy, EMD could always raise the issue later. The point of telling Tara was not to find new options but to ensure that she knew where we stood. Tara asked me has Prat warned Lorenzo about this. I said I don’t think so. She asked me to send her a full set of the RFQ application by email.

I asked Ashish to email me a full set for Tara. Again strangely he first refused to do that and said he was not going to compile any new set now. The reason I wanted a new set is because the earlier set with me was not updated to include recent changes. It did not include the new Indonesia certificate and the new dated Kazakhstan certificate copy. I insisted that he give me a new set as it was for Tara and she had asked me for it after I had briefed her. Finally he sent me a fresh compilation that I forwarded to Tara and most likely to Jamie as well.

I think I also called and spoke with Jamie about this.

I also sent an email to Deepak.

On Friday evening (9 July), Ashish gave me the original RFQ application to review. This is the first time I was looking at the original documents. I went through it.[18] All customer certificates were in original except Vale and Kazakhstan. Both of these were black and white copies similar to what I had seen earlier in the scanned compilations sent by Ashish for review on email.

The RFQ was sent for binding on Friday evening. Praveena was apparently handling the binding and she was also obtaining signatures from Savita Sethi (the authorized signatory), getting the document paginated, and photo-copied etc.

I had been trying to contact Deepak Adlakha for the last couple of days as I wanted to brief him also on where we stood and get his views.[19] I finally managed to contact him with great difficulty on Friday evening around 8 pm. He was on holiday in Southeast Asia. I told him about the situation with the certificates. I mentioned the “verbal assurance”, I mentioned the risk of disqualification. He suggested that we consider the possibility of filing both the undated Kazakhstan original and the new scanned dated certificate. I mentioned that these certificates were obtained six months earlier but no one had checked to see if they were compliant. He said that ideally we should have requested for certificates after the date of issue of the RFQ in March of 2010.

The next morning, (Saturday 10 July) I was feeling uneasy about the fact that I had not told Prat directly on email (or maybe even otherwise) that there was a risk of disqualification with a scanned copy. Plus I wanted to convey Deepak’s idea about filing both the undated original and the dated copy.[20] I also wanted to record the fact that the certificates were obtained about six months ago. I therefore sent out an email to Prat on this with copies to all other relevant persons including Tara, Deepak, Jamie, Steve, Jim Gerson, Ramesh, and Ashish.

I got a reply from Ramesh saying it was too late to make changes as the RFQ was already bound.[21] (For the record the RFQ was unbound and rebound twice over this weekend for other reasons. The E loco RFQ had been unbound and rebound on the morning of the submission date itself.) I replied saying that binding would not be a problem.

I then got a call from Deepak. He told me that I should now leave the customer certificate issue to Prat and Ash. He said they had spoken to the Customer and that they had been verbally assured the copy would work. He said I did not need to put everything down on email.[22] He said Prat was not going to reply to my email. I tried to explain that I sent my email because I did not want anyone to say that I had not warned Prat about the risk. Deepak said that if GE did not prequalify, Prat and Ash would lose their jobs so I should leave it to them. He said in such an eventuality, no one would ask what the lawyer said. He said, the fact that the originals are needed is there in the RFQ for everyone to read and that no one will ask whether the lawyer interpreted this for the team.[23]

I had had some lower back trouble coming on for a few days on account of my office chair. This worsened a lot on Saturday morning after I made an abrupt movement. I was in deep pain and unable to straighten my back. However since I had said I would go in to the office in my morning email, I took a lot of painkillers (ibuprofen) and went in. The pain was so severe that I had to take much higher dosage than I usually do and despite that I could still not straighten my back and the pain persisted. I think I had already taken about four pills before I even reached the office. Plus throughout the weekend I was taking double my usual dose every 3-4 hours. My mind was dull, I was in pain, and I was in no position to argue with or challenge anyone. I was not alert mentally and not my usual self. I could not climb the stairs. I could not lift my bag without pain. I could not drive without pain. I was walking the entire weekend with a bent back. Walking around was painful, so was sitting down and getting up. I emphasize this because this was not a mild back pain. I was actually walking with a bent back the whole time. Everyone saw this and the pain I was in despite using painkillers. My coming to the office in this condition was quite extraordinary.

I went into the office around lunch time. Only Ramesh was there.[24] The RFQ had not come in from the binders. I tried to get online but my laptop wouldn’t connect to the GE network. I asked someone to help me. Maybe it was the electrician. We tried different cables, different points but I could not connect. I could not bend or even carry my laptop in my hand from one place to another. I had to request this person to help me.[25] I called Varun and tried to get help on the network issue. Nothing he suggested worked. Apparently, the IP address was not being recognized.[26]

My blackberry was receiving email. On Saturday, I got an email from Brett Begole telling me he had been told I was working on the BHEL back-to-back terms and when would these be ready by. For the record, I had not been told to work on these and these were not something I could prepare on my own. A lot of prior work and inputs were required from other people. This issue relates to the incidents that took place around the attempted Joint GE-BHEL RFQ submission towards the end of June. Prat had tried to use this to blame me and pressurize me over the joint submission issue. Kevin and Jamie helped me out then.[27] I believe Prat told Brett to ask me about this.[28]

Sometime after lunch the RFQ arrived.[29] Also, Ashish and Praveena came in. I was sitting with Ramesh when he received a call from Ash. I could tell they were talking about my email and Ash seemed to be reassuring Ramesh.

We started to go through the bound version. I then saw the Kazakhstan certificate that looked like an original and nothing like what I had seen before. I asked Ashish are you guys playing games with me? Did you get the original? I was upset and irritated that no one had bothered to tell me. Ashish said this is a copy. I said it looks just like an original. Where did you get this? He said we had a color scan and we took a color printout. Ashish said we had a color scan.[30] He also said that it was there in the set I saw on Friday evening. This confused me. I really could not remember at that time if it was there on Friday or not. However I am very sure today that it was not in the set I saw on Friday. Further, my reaction on seeing it on Saturday would also not have been what it was. To clarify, what confused me was Ashish saying it was in the set I saw on Friday when it was not. I was not confused as to whether I had seen it before or not. I had definitely not seen it before and my reaction showed that. But I was confused about and by what Ashish said about it having been in the set on Friday. I remember questioning myself about whether I could have missed seeing this. This is what I meant by “I really could not remember at that time if it was there on Friday or not.” And I did not question Ashish on this point.

I left it at that. Though I think I had a fleeting thought about discussing this further later with Ashish separately. But I never did. I have in retrospect thought about why I left it there and did not see a red flag or do anything more. I think it was because I was not well, heavily medicated, unfocused mentally and not capable of questioning what Ashish was saying. I accepted what Ashish told me in the presence of others i.e., Ramesh and Prat. Plus I think I felt a bit absolved of responsibility after Deepak’s call. I had come in to office with the intention of not saying anything on the certificate issue. I was feeling awkward about my morning email. And what I saw was so totally unexpected that I did not process it fully.[31] I did not expect that someone might fake or tamper with the certificate.[32]

A short while later, Prat came in. He sat down next to me facing Ramesh. He mentioned the morning emails to Ramesh and said something negative about them. I did not say anything. After a while, he was standing by the door and Ashish told him Seema got confused about the Kazakhstan certificate. He looked at me and said we will wait for the original and if it arrives in time we will include it. Prat stayed for a while with Prat and Praveena talking about how Prat was the person who sorted out GE’s turbine issue with Dabhol among other achievements. Prat then left.

When Prat came to the office after lunch on 10 July, there was also some talk about the fact that the Railways would preserve the RFQ documents for many years. I think this started out of discussing the quality of the binding. Prat then said during this conversation that the Railway officials scrutinizing the application would most likely look at the original set only once and then lock it up, and they would mostly use the 2 copies being filed. He seemed to be addressing Ashish/ Ramesh at this time.

I looked through the rest of the original compilation. Ashish, Ramesh and I compared pages in all three sets to see there was no discrepancy between the sets as this was a mistake that had happened in E Loco.

Praveena’s daughters came in (they were waiting in the car downstairs). Praveena and her daughters cross-checked the three copies of Volume 2.

The binding was very badly done, a page was loose. So the binder was called and he was asked to rebind. Plus some pages were incorrectly placed in Volume 2 and these had to be correctly placed.

We were finished with the work. Praveena wanted to order Pizza. Then she suggested we go and eat it somewhere. Ashish said he was going home. I had been feeling a bit awkward about my email so I decided to go with them for the meal. Praveena then drove all of us to this restaurant. Ash joined us there. We had dinner then Praveena dropped me back to the office where my car was. She and I checked to see that the binder had delivered the RFQ and we left. I think I dropped Ramesh to his hotel.

The next morning I came in later than we had arranged because of my back. I was on medication still and my back was still in the same condition. I walked into Prat’s room and interrupted Praveena, Ashish and Ramesh in the middle of a conversation. I said you were discussing my email. They did not deny it. Ramesh said that my email was not required because a decision had already been made on filing the copy. I said, no – we were waiting to see if we would get the original. I think this is when Ashish said I should have just sent my email to Prat, why did I send it to everyone. I said that I did what I thought was required and in the best interest of the company. That stopped the conversation.

The next hour was spent by me looking through volume 2 and rechecking volume 1 after the rebinding. I remember having to request Ashish to bring me volume 2 as I could not carry it. The set was to be sent to Savita Sethi’s home for signatures.

Praveena was preparing the boxes and envelopes with Dhirender. She was rude when I tried to offer some advice.

During this time I asked Ramesh and Ashish if they were tracking the courier to see where it was. I asked has it reached India. Both said they did not know and had not checked. I asked them to check. They were evasive. I think I asked about 3 times but they had still not checked. Finally I said give me the DHL number I’ll check on someone’s computer. Ashish then got up and printed me the Courier tracking sheet which showed that the courier had not reached India. Looking back, I find this reluctance to check and their being evasive on this issue strange.[33]

Then Praveena, Ashish and Ramesh were discussing that Prat wanted Ash to take a look at the RFQ. But Ash was saying he couldn’t come in.[34] So they discussed sending the set to Ash’s home. Finally Ash came in around 1 pm. He started to look through the set. I was sitting with him in Prat’s room.

Ash found a mistake. The technology for the two projects from the year 2000 was wrongly mentioned as IGBT. He discussed this with Ramesh and Ashish who said their information had come from Steve Seip.

Next Ash found what actually was a very minor mistake in the Power of Attorney (POA). Instead of being titled “Power of Attorney”, it was titled “Appendix II Format for Power of Attorney for Signing of Application”. I do not remember if it also said “Power of Attorney” under that.

Ash got very worked up about this. Called up Prat. Called up Vinod Sharma and made a big fuss about this being a big issue.[35] I had told Ash that this was very minor and I did not think it mattered. I think Ash asked Ashish how could such a mistake happen. Ashish went to his computer to check.

I was told that Prat and Vinod agreed with Ash that we needed to get a new POA. I asked Praveena to help us get stamp paper. She did nothing for an hour. I asked Ashish to request Praveena. I asked Ashish to call Roopak Saha who would have to execute the new POA. He was hesitant. Apparently then Ash called Roopak. Roopak was moving around and not at home and was apparently not available until after 4 pm or something. Savita Sethi was leaving for Tokyo that night. Her signature was also needed.

I was making calls to contacts trying to see if we could find stamp paper and a notary. But I was unsuccessful.

Suddenly I was told that Praveena has found a notary on the internet who also had stamp paper. The discussion was that we needed to backdate the POA and therefore the stamp paper had to be back-dated as well. I was told Roopak had agreed to this. Apparently Roopak also agreed to affix his signature after notarization. I was told that an office assistant was going to this notary’s office for the POA.

I found the idea of a notary located on the internet risky and said I would go myself to make sure the notary was genuine. So I asked Ash if I could use his car and driver and went in his car. The number Pravena gave me was for some entity called Dox. The mobile number was +919899760180.

When I got to the notary, it was a hole in the wall kind of place with one person there who was not the notary. This guy pulled out some stamp paper from a drawer with what he told me were the notary’s signatures already on it. I found the signature very suspicious as I could make out no name and it was just a scribble. I was told the notary could not come to the office. I then called up Ash and said we can’t use these papers. I explained why. I told Ash we would use what we have as that document is really ok. Ash tells me why don’t you get it and then we’ll decide if we want to use it. Something about the way he said this made me realize that something was not right. I said no, I am not getting it, we will use what we have. I returned to the office. On the way, I realized that this whole idea of getting a backdated POA was non-compliant. I decided I was not going to get a back-dated POA. I also thought that maybe Ash had tried to trap me earlier.

When I told the guy at Dox that I was not going to get the POA or the stamp paper and was about to leave, he started asking me for money because he had had to come in especially on a Sunday and open the office. I refused to pay him and left.

I returned to the office and told Ash that if we need a POA, it would have to be of today’s date. There is no rule against getting a POA notarized on a Sunday. I told Ash we needed to be fully compliant on this. Ash was still very insistent that we need a new POA.

I called up Deepak Adlakha and told him what the problem with the POA was. He agreed with me that the POA we had could be used and would not be non-compliant. I told him we would use that but still try and get a new POA if we could manage it as Ash was insisting.

All through this I was on medication, in pain and not functionally optimally either mentally or physically. I believe that if I had been well, I would have been more assertive on this issue from the beginning. I was essentially following Ash’s direction without being in a position mentally to challenge it. Interestingly, all this while, neither Ashish nor Ramesh offered to help on this issue. They were simply watching what was happening. Throughout this time, Prat was in constant touch with Ash and Praveena on the phone. But Prat did not once call me to ask me for my views on whether we needed a new POA. I think at some point soon after Ash raised the issue, Prat and Ash decided to use this to harass me as well as to try and trap me into participating in a non-compliant act.

After speaking with Deepak, I called Prat and told him that both Deepak and I were in agreement that the POA we had was OK. I told Prat that I was still trying for a POA but it would be dated 11 July. Prat asked me who all was in office. He said he was coming in. I told Ash about Deepak’s view as well.

I was making frantic calls to my contacts to see if we could find stamp-paper and a notary. Finally, a lawyer friend’s clerk did locate a stamp paper vendor in his house in Moti Nagar. At my request, the vendor issued stamp paper in the name of GE Global Sourcing for 11 July. A friend also assured me that he knew a notary who would execute the document even if we took it to his house in Ghaziabad at midnight.

Meanwhile Prat had come in. We were all sitting in his office. We started to talk about the POA. I told Prat that in my view what we had was fine and we could use it. Ash then reacted very strangely, his mask slipped and with an angry face he told me that I had been going on about the certificates for weeks, and now was not concerned about the POA. This was another brief moment when the truth shone through. I looked at Ash and told him send your driver to this address for the stamp paper, I will get you your POA.

Prat then jumped in and said wait. I will ask Amit Kumar (Amarchand) about this. He called up Amit, put his phone on speaker and told him this is what the issue with the POA is, can we use it. Amit said yes, I will bet my career that you can use this. Prat with a flourish then told us that we would use what we had. I kept silent and just listened. Ash then asked but how did this mistake happen. Prat then looked at Ash and gestured that he should let it be.

I believe Ash and Prat intentionally built up the whole issue on the POA on 11 July, created a false environment of panic and urgency, and then tried to harass me. They were either getting back at me or had a more sinister motive to distract me, bully and intimidate me, and drum up allegations against me. I think at one point Ash went much further and actually tried to encourage me to do an illegal act. If I had gone ahead and obtained the POA from the “notary”, I would have been guilty of procuring a fake document. I could have been blackmailed. I believe they did all this because they were trying to hide their having faked the Kazakhstan certificate. Both Ash and Prat were acting with a criminal intent.

Were Prat and Ash really so concerned about the minor mistake that they were ready to backdate a POA, use a fake notary or do something as risky as finding a notary on the internet? What Praveena found was essentially a fake documentation outfit, that illegally fakes documents. And they had decided to send an office assistant there, until I stepped in and said I would go.

I had told Ash at the very beginning that I thought there was no problem with the POA we had. At what point did Prat or Ash speak to other lawyers? Did Prat by any chance call Amit Kumar while he was still at home. If they did not call other lawyers, why did they not do that? Prat has otherwise been known to call up Amit Kumar (usually) or even Deepak at the slightest need. Prat did not even call me.

When I called Ash from the Notary office, I told him we could not use this notary or the papers because they were fake. Yet, he told me that why don’t you get the document executed and bring it to the office and then we’ll decide what to do. Not only was I being pressured into getting a non-compliant backdated POA, but Ash encouraged me to obtain a patently illegal and fraudulent document. I am so glad that despite being unwell and medicated and under great stress, I refused. The way Ash said this warned me. He was clearly trying to trap me.

It was after about three-four hours of all the drama and hue and cry over the POA, that I finally called Deepak. Ash insisted we needed a new POA even after I told him that Deepak agreed with me that we did not. If it was so necessary then why did they stop once I found a compliant source for stamp paper. Why did they call Amit Kumar then and not earlier?

Ash told me the next evening (Monday) that it was not possible to get the POA eventually because Savita had a flight to catch. This is when both he and Prat were lying to me and were pretending to be contrite in order to stop me from quitting. However, if it had been essential, would not Savita have cancelled/ postponed her trip?

We were all still sitting around.[36] Ash made a call to someone in Erie and checked on the technology mistake he found earlier. This needed to be corrected. It was decided that the RFQ would have to unbound and rebound for this as pages needed to be substituted.

After that was decided, I started to try and tell Prat what I had told Ramesh the day before – that we should have used the Dankuni language for the E Loco RFP IP clause comment. Prat started to accuse me of trying to put Ramesh down, and of not having raised the issue in a timely fashion. I tried to explain that I had formulated a query as requested by Prat on Friday morning and I saw Ramesh’s language only after he had sent it to the Railways. Prat flew into a rage at me, started shouting and accusing me of being unprofessional, wouldn’t let me explain, shouted at me that he would not allow anyone to be a bottle-neck and was very obnoxious. I think he shouted at me at the top of his voice for about five minutes non-stop in front of everybody sitting there.[37] And his shouting at me was totally unjustified and uncalled for.

I kept sitting there listening to him. He reduced me to tears. Everyone saw me crying. Once again I think I reacted this way because of all that had happened earlier on the POA and because I was unwell and not my usual self.

I said nothing.

After sometime most people left the room. I was having problems moving, and especially sitting down and standing up. So I was gearing myself to make a dignified exit. I then told Prat that Brett Begole had emailed me about the back-to-back terms and that I wanted to discuss this with Prat sometime. Prat told me to tell Brett Begole that Prat did not want to speak to me about this. I got up and left his office. I went to my room, I was crying. I thought for about 5-10 minutes. I decided to quit.

I went to Prat’s office and told him that I had decided to quit and that he should find a lawyer he respected and trusted. He said that is your decision. I said yes and I have taken the decision. I told him I would send my resignation letter the next day. I then went home.

I reached home and after a while I received a call from Deepak. Deepak told me that Prat had called him and told him what I had said to Prat. He asked me if this was true. I said yes, I did not want to work with Prat. Deepak never asked me what happened. He asked me if I was sure of my decision or if I had spoken in anger. I said I was sure. I asked Deepak if he could perhaps find some other role for me in GE. He said he was also thinking about that but that I needed to give him a few days as he was really tied up and because he also needed to talk to John Flannery about this. I said OK.

I will describe events from 12 July onwards in a separate note. I do want to mention one incident. About a week to 10 days after 12 July, I asked Ashish if the original Kazakhstan certificate had arrived.[38] He said yes. I told him we need to decide whether we want to hand it over to the Railways on our own. I also said we need to make sure that the Railways does not treat the copy we had filed as an original. 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.

Seema Sapra

6 December 2010

---

[1] There was some tension/ turf-battles between Ramesh and Ashish. At some point we were told by Steve that Ashish would lead in getting the documentation ready.

[2] I had reviewed selected documents earlier with special queries.

[3] This contained the scanned customer certificates.

[4] These conversations as well as Ashish’s comment that the models were the variants makes it clear that whoever had interpreted the RFQ on what certificates were required had interpreted it incorrectly. Actually I wonder if anyone even bothered to interpret it. If the certificates were obtained in December/ January and the RFQ was issued in March, then who did interpret the RFQ? Or were the certificates blindly obtained on the basis of what was done in 2008? Such “copy-pasting” on the basis of what was done earlier without obtaining adequate legal and other advice was the way Ramesh and Praveena were operating for Prat until I and Ashish joined. This practice of “copy-pasting” has resulted in many mistakes both in the Dankuni and the E Loco RFQs. I had the opportunity to correct a few but not I suspect all mistakes in the E Loco RFQ. This is because I was not allowed by Prat to review the E Loco RFQ fully (more on this in a separate note). Many mistakes would again have been replicated in D Loco if these had not been corrected by me, with help from Jamie and Steve.

[5] All of these were recorded on email.

[6] When this detailing was done, it turned out Ashish and Ramesh were wrong about all GE locos being AC-AC and IGBT.

[7] At one point early on, I was told Vale had refused to provide an original. The Vale certificate was also relevant for the 6000 HP requirement. This had been discussed earlier and GE had no option but to rely upon two different year 2000 projects to meet this requirement. There was a risk these projects from the year 2000 could be interpreted as falling outside the prescribed time period. If we had gotten the original Vale certificate, that would have helped on the variant requirement as well. But no one (including Ash) made an effort to get this. I was told the only way to get an original from Vale was for Dave Tucker to contact Vale. Why could someone not have asked Dave Tucker to help with this?

[8] Remarkably both went on long vacations at this crucial time. I believe it was to avoid being around and to avoid being held accountable for the RFQ. This is a good measure of their professionalism and commitment or lack of it. Both had left someone as incompetent as Ramesh in charge, who (as I will demonstrate in this and other notes) made zero contribution to the RFQ prep except fight turf battles, speak the most and the loudest on our prep calls and interrupt everyone, obstruct people from doing their jobs, being grossly incompetent and negligent on the certificates and contributing to the dysfunctional and tense work environment. Ramesh became completely silent once the certificates issue cropped up after my review. Ashish told me at one point that Ramesh was not allowing him to do his job. This is after I made the same complaint about Ramesh to Ashish. Prat sitting in the United States was calling up Ramesh and Gaurav multiple times on a daily basis. An examination of the entire RFQ prep process will demonstrate that almost everything Ramesh did was wrong and had to be corrected, he made no positive contribution and he along with Ash and Prat was responsible for the problems we had with the customer certificates.

[9] These were biweekly calls that included Steve, Jim Gerson, Ramesh, Ashish, me, and occasionally Gaurav or Ash. Jim commented on the dys-functionality of these calls.

[10] I asked this because I found out that EMD was able to show supply of passenger locomotives.

[11] I view such behavior as bullying. Not letting me speak and contribute to the discussion prevented me from doing my job.

[12] I also said that the Railways might use legal advisors and that they might advice the railways not to overlook errors like undated certificates. The RFQ prescribed a format for the certificates which included the date of issue. The RFQ stated: “It may be noted that in the absence of any detail in the above certificates, the information would be considered inadequate”.

[13] Once again an example of bullying.

[14] Getting Prat to agree to even attempt to do this was difficult. From what I have observed of Prat’s working style, he does not like to face up to issues when under pressure, and that is why he relies so heavily upon “Yes Men” like Ramesh Mathur notwithstanding his incompetence.

[15] As I do not have access to my email records at GE, I cannot be sure if this email was forwarded to me and if I sent it on to Jamie and Steve. Maybe it was the Indonesia certificate email or both Kazakhstan and Indonesia. Further, if I did open the annexed pdf file, it would have been nothing more than a quick glance to note that the certificate was dated.

[16] This is apparently how GE had interpreted this in 2008.

[17] Also I did not know who had given such verbal assurance and what had been discussed.

[18] This was a rather quick review by me. I did not look at the documents substantively or in detail, as that part was already all complete. I probably looked to check everything was there and in the right order.

[19] Actually I had been trying to contact Deepak for over a week just on the RFQ.

[20] I thought this was a good idea and should have been discussed.

[21] It would be interesting to see what phone-calls between the group preceded Ramesh’s email.

[22] I think he was referring to my having recorded his suggestion that we consider filing both documents.

[23] Clause 2.12.2 of the RFQ read with Clause 2.13.2 (i) and instruction 10 of Annex IV makes it clear that the RFQ required original customer certificates. The Authority could treat an application as non-responsive in case original certificates were not submitted as required. The need for originals was discussed by me with Steve, Ashish, Ramesh, Gaurav and Emily on an earlier call in the context of the financial net-worth certificate also (see instruction 7 of Annex III). GE filed original customer certificates in 2008 and intended to file original customer certificates in 2010. Given all this, relying upon a verbal assurance from the Railways was risky. Maybe Prat and Ash also realized the risk though they outwardly maintained there was no risk. Clause 1 of Appendix I (the letter comprising the application) cannot be read to mean that there was no requirement in the RFQ to file original documents.

[24] I told Ramesh on Saturday that he should have shown me the E Loco RFP comments that he had sent out to the Railways late Friday evening because I would have recommended that we use the same language for the IP Clause that we used for Dankuni (as this had been vetted by Shawn McClintic). Ramesh had modified the clause himself without discussing with me.

[25] I do not remember his name.

[26] The problem was quite strange and corrected itself on Monday. I would not put it past Prat and Praveena to have managed this somehow with the help of someone in IT.

[27] There is a lot that happened over this issue in the last two weeks of June. Jamie’s words to me at that time were that Prat had dug himself into a hole that he could not get out of. And that Prat had made a lot of enemies in Erie because of how he treats people.

[28] I will deal with this issue in another note.

[29] This was probably around 4 pm.

[30] I do not remember for sure but wonder if I heard or understood Ashish say we also had a color scan. I think I remember thinking he was referring to a scan I had not seen.

[31] I did not think through everything that happened until the end of September after I had left GE. I could not figure out what was going on while I was in GE and in the middle of everything. I sent my email of 1 October as soon as it hit me that maybe this is what was making Prat, Ash, Ramesh and Praveena so worried. They were very panicky after I said I was raising my concerns. This also explains a lot of things that happened after 12 July including the heightened targeting by Prat; using Deepak to get me to leave; the manipulation of the manner and timing of my leaving; the attempt to get me to leave without notice after 3 August; the panicked attempt of Prat to get me to work on D Loco after 11 August when I told Alpna I was going to stay and raise my concerns which she promptly went and told Ash, Prat and Praveena; and Prat ensuring that I am not offered another role in GE by speaking with John Flannery (as I was informed by Deepak). I will describe all this in great detail. Plus I will explain why all this did not fall into place for me until when it did.

[32] I also want to state that my physical condition (my hurt back), the amount of pain I was in, and the impaired physical movement really meant I should not even have come in. Despite that and at the risk of hurting my back further, I had come in after medicating myself heavily. In these circumstances, I accepted what I was told on the certificate. I therefore do not blame myself in any way for not being able to prevent the submission of the faked certificate if that is what it is. In my view, I already did more than required of me by simply coming in to work that weekend. I did the best I could under the circumstances. I relied upon what I was told by Ashish. Those who took advantage of my medical condition, lied to me, and bullied me are answerable for all their actions, including any fraud and forgery. Additionally, it seems as if Prat asked Deepak to call and tell me not to follow up on the certificates. I wonder if I might have done something differently if Deepak had not called. Further, I was harassed and bullied on Sunday despite my being very unwell. I would describe this behavior as not only criminal but cruel.

[33] I wonder if behind this reluctance lay the intent to tell me later that the original had arrived and had been substituted. I would never have known the truth. And no one else would have. But I insisted on asking. Also, the whole thing about my Saturday morning email. Again, I wonder if I had not sent that email, was everyone including me supposed to be told that the original had arrived and been included. No one would have checked to see when the courier arrived. And no one would have ever known the truth. Was this the plan that my email disrupted? And my subsequent physical presence?

[34] Actually Ash did not want to review the RFQ. Another example of avoiding responsibility. But Prat was insistent. Is it not remarkable that Ash did not review the RFQ until the last day and then too upon being pressurized to do so? Ash and Prat were the two key guys responsible for this deal in India.

[35] According to Ash this error was huge enough to disqualify GE.

[36] At some point Prat had rudely put his legs up on the table.

[37] Actually I think he yelled at me for longer. Maybe 10 minutes. Plus he went on about this issue for about 20-25 minutes.

[38] I am not sure but this might have been in the week starting 26 July when Prat was in the US. I remember that Prat was traveling or busy when I spoke with Ashish.

Note 2

12 July to 3 August 2010

The note below is a broad summary. It is neither comprehensive nor fully detailed.

I think during this period I was in a state of psychological shock. I was under severe stress, was not sleeping well, was eating badly, and was coming in to work late.

Plus the atmosphere at work became very abusive and hostile. At the same time, a lot of work was thrown at me with unrealistic deadlines and unreasonable and hostile demands. People ganged up against me over the work I was required to do.

12 July

I came in.

Ash spoke to me briefly in the evening – I told him did you hear how Prat spoke to me and that I was not the kind of person to put up with that.

I asked to speak with Prat. He came in, looking upset and sorry for what happened. I told him he needed to find a lawyer he could work with and someone he respected and trusted. He told me he did accept everything I said (the advice I gave) even if he did not tell me that himself. We talked and I tried to tell him what I thought had been going wrong. (We did not talk about the weekend of 10 and 11 July.) I thought Prat seemed to listen. He gave me to understand that he wanted me to stay.

I was still not sure if things would change. I spoke with Ash the day after or the next. I told him that I spoke with Prat and Prat wanted me to stay but I was not sure if things would improve. I said that it would be better for the deal if I left now than after a month if things did not improve. I said I thought Praveena was the problem. I asked him for his advice on whether I should stay. He said I should stay, give it another shot, hang in there.[1]

I decided to stay. I called Deepak to tell him. I said that I had spoken with Ash and Prat and we had decided I would stay. I asked him to still keep me in mind if something else came up elsewhere in GE, because I would prefer that. Deepak said but that is not what they told me. He said that I should look for another job. He said these guys are very clever, they will not tell you themselves. I asked Deepak if Ash said that also. Deepak said yes. Deepak then told me that he and I could not even imagine who all Prat and Ash could reach out to. He said Prat might have spoken with John Flannery also and that John would ensure that Prat got whatever legal support he wanted.

Maybe a couple of days later, I asked Deepak if he was already looking for someone else for my position. He said yes and that he was interviewing candidates for other positions and was asking them if they would be interested in my job profile. I told Deepak that he had known how tough things were in Transportation and how Prat had tried to blame me over the Joint GE-BHEL consortium issue.[2] Deepak told me that if someone had tried to blame him then he would have left. I said that this was very unfair. He said life is unfair. I asked Deepak if there was anything else in GE that I could do. Deepak mentioned a couple of open positions but said they would not suit me. I said I was ready to take up any position and even move to Bangalore. Deepak said Prat might have spoken to John Flannery about me in negative terms and that if Deepak hired me then he would have to explain to John why he was hiring me for another role.

I told Deepak that in that case, I would leave immediately and that I did not want to be a stop-gap arrangement. Deepak got upset and told me I should not leave him in the lurch like this.

Prat was travelling and returned on 19 July. I went to him and told him that Deepak had told me that he was looking for someone else for my job. Prat said I should talk to Deepak about that. I asked Prat if he knew about this. Prat said yes. He then said that he was not the person who had been speaking to people. I asked Prat if someone was speaking to people about me. Prat said yes. I told Prat that I would leave and not be a stop-gap arrangement.

I was very upset. Also, I was upset with Deepak that he had not told me that someone was speaking to people about me. I thought Deepak was not being straightforward. I could not figure out what was going on. Around this time, Himali came to my office and tried to convince me to stay. I decided that I would stay. I think I did this because I was being pushed out and I thought I have a contract, why should I leave like this. If someone wanted me to leave, then they needed to tell me why.

This week itself, I must have spoken with Tara (either before or after my decision to stay). I told her that Prat had been talking to Deepak about me. Tara told me that Prat had mentioned me in some meeting and that Brett Begole had said that Seema was just trying to do her job. Tara also said, that she and Jamie thought I was doing well, and that she would “fight to the death” to keep a lawyer who was trying to keep the company safe.

I decided to stay. Soon after, I received a call from Sanjeev Adlakha, Deepak’s cousin. This might have been on 22 July. Sanjeev was my classmate in law school and knew I was working in GE. He had recommended me to Deepak when I applied for this job. Sanjeev told me Deepak had told him that the team I was working with was giving me trouble. I said yes, it had been quite tough. Sanjeev told me he had called to advise that I should stay until I found another job as that would be much easier than finding a job after quitting. I told Sanjeev that I had decided to stay since I had a contract.

In this week, I was also trying to work on the back-to-back terms for BHEL that Brett Begole was sending me urgent mails about. I told Prat I was working on it but I needed his help. Prat sarcastically said “lucky Brett”. I told Prat that he was the one who had asked Brett to ask me about this. I asked Prat and Ash on Tuesday/ Wednesday if I could discuss this with them. I raised a couple of other points about the definition of project agreements, and the clause providing for suspension of the contract. Prat got angry at my raising these issues.[3] He and Ash then said they hadn’t read the RFP for a long time and they needed to go through it. We discussed setting up a group to do this (go through the RFP together) the next day. I said we could also discuss my questions on the back-to-back terms then. Prat said we can also get Amarchand on call for this group meeting. He was trying to undermine me. I said there was no need. Ash agreed with me, and said lets not get them because of their charges. (What I did not understand the whole time I was in GE until the very end was that Prat and Ash worked as a team and were playing me as a team.)[4]

The next day, I asked Prat and Ash if we could discuss the RFP and the back-to-back terms, but they pretended to be busy. I believe they were deliberately avoiding discussing this with me. The intent I now believe was to set me up for failure on this and then tell Brett I had not delivered.[5] I did get Ash to talk to me for about half an hour, but then he said he had meetings.[6]

Because Prat was being difficult over my work (the back-to-back terms and some other routine work, plus he was sending some very critical and unfair emails about my work) during these 2-3 days, and because I needed Prat’s support for my work, I decided to try and talk with him. I called him at home on or around Tuesday and asked if we could have lunch some day later in the week. I said I wanted to discuss how to improve our working relationship. Prat said we could possibly do that, on Thursday or Friday. But he never mentioned it again.

On Thursday again, Prat and Ash again pretended to have no time to discuss the back-to-back terms with me. I specifically asked them if they had time. I decided to send them what I had done on email, for the record. Prat replied saying I should schedule time. I asked Praveena. She did not schedule a meeting. I tried to again find time with Prat on Friday, but he said he was busy. He asked me for a hard copy to take with him to the US. I gave it to him.

The kick-off calls in Erie must have been arranged this week. I was not told about them. I was not told about Janaki’s appointment as project manager or that she was going to Erie as well. I knew nothing about what was going on, whereas it seems everyone else did. I was completely out of the loop.

Deepak told me sometime around this time that he had had long conversations with Tara and Jamie. This was either towards the end of the week of 19 July or maybe the week after that.

On another occasion soon after, Deepak asked me how things were going. I said they were going well. Deepak said something to the effect that Prat had changed his mind about me before, so it was possible that he might still do so in the future.

The next week (week starting 26 July) I again got some emails from Brett and Jamie about the back-to-back terms. I sent what I had done to Brett and Jamie with an explanation. I was not on any kick-off call or other discussion in Erie.[7] I spoke with Jamie on Thursday and he told me that he and Tara had had meetings with Prat on the deal. Jamie told me he would be working on the contracts including the BHEL back-to-back terms directly from Erie implying that I would not be doing that.

Meanwhile the BHEL MOU interactions were going on all through the weeks of 19 and 26 July.[8]

In the two weeks from 19 July to 30 July, I was working on the turbocharger deal review, the BHEL MOU, the back-to-back terms, some signaling NDAs, tenders and contracts including ITP issues.[9] There was also pressure from Sanjeev on the SVB application, some service contracts, the tax compliance documentation, etc.[10]

On or around 29 July, I went shopping with Praveena.[11] I was trying to improve relations. I also spent a couple of hours with her the next day generally talking.[12]

Some signaling contracts had ITP issues. I insisted that we needed ITP approval for bidding as sub contractor with a Prime. Ashish and Ash were very difficult on this.[13] Ash especially because I believe this legal advice exposed Ash to charges of submitting non-compliant bids in the past where requisite ITP approval was not obtained.

2 August

On Monday, Ramesh called me to ask if he could have a copy of the back-to-back terms with BHEL because he wanted to use them for discussions with Bharat Forge.

I had learnt that Janaki had been designated project manager for D loco and was also in Erie for the kick-off calls. I saw her sitting in the conference room on Monday. I had never met her, so I went in to introduce myself. I also mentioned Ramesh’s request. Janaki was very cold and dismissive towards me for no apparent reason. This ties in with my belief that legal support for the D loco deal was discussed in Erie in my absence and a decision was taken to exclude/ replace me.

On Monday, Prat and I had discussions over the ITP issue and the BHEL MOU. I had been working on the BHEL MOU for the last two weeks. Prat was rude and hostile. I thought some of the behaviour was because of Praveena.[14] I told Prat that I could not continue working like this. When I complained Prat said something that now ties in with the rest. He said he had been in Delhi only 2 weeks since mid June, so how could I complain of his having harassed me.[15]

I told Prat that Jamie had told me about the meetings he had in Erie with Tara and Jamie and asked why he did not take me to Erie as well. Prat said that it would have cost money.[16]

That evening Prat stopped by my office when he was leaving. He apologized for his behavior in the morning. I told him I was trying to do my best. He said something about the chemistry not being right. I said I thought there was no problem with the chemistry. Prat said he was trying not to get riled up at me but I pressed all his hot buttons.

That night I could not sleep and I woke up late the next day. I was not on the Tuesday morning op review call (3 August).

3 August

I got a call from Praveena asking me if I was on the morning call. I said no. She said Prat wanted to speak with me to discuss a contract with me, this was the transport services contract. She asked if I was coming in. I said yes.

I came in around 11.30. Prat and Gaurav were not there but their stuff was. I asked Praveena where Prat was. She said he had gone for lunch.

At lunch time I saw Gaurav, Janaki, Deepak walk in together. I asked Gaurav and he told me they had gone to BHEL to discuss the MOU that I had been working on. Deepak had not previously worked on the MOU at all. I tried to speak with Deepak but he avoided me by saying he had a meeting.

I then realized that I had been excluded without even the courtesy of being formally informed.[17]

I spoke with Gaurav and told him I felt insulted. He told me not to get worked up. I spoke with Himali and she told me to go on vacation.

I asked Prat about the meeting with BHEL after lunch. He said I was not in office so he took Deepak. I told Prat that he could have called me or told me about it earlier. Prat said something about his not having planned it.[18]

I called Prat about this again later that day. I asked him if he needed me to do something on the MOU. He said Deepak was handling it. I protested angrily over the way I had been treated and told Prat I would quit.

I told Gaurav I was going to quit. He suggested that I do that without creating a fuss and I should leave GE without harming relations as I might someday interact with the same people in future. He said (and he repeated it on later occasions) that how I left GE would determine the possibility of my ever coming back to GE.

I decided to quit and sent in a resignation email on 3 August to Deepak and Prat. Neither replied.

I spoke with Ashish after this. During this conversation he suggested that everyone could see that there were problems between me and Prat.

---

[1] The next day or maybe the day after that, I received a call from the Dox Number. The guy insisted that I still had to pay him money for the fact that they had opened the office on Sunday. I said I did not think so. But he kept insisting, so I told him I would see what I could do. I went to Ash and told him that the Dox guy had called me and why. I gave him their number and address, told him he should sort this out and that his driver knew where the place was. Ash said he would do this.

[2] Deepak himself had told me in mid-June that he knew how tough things were for me and he wondered how I managed to go in to the office everyday. Also, during the GE-BHEL joint consortium RFQ issue, Deepak had told me Prat was either trying to blame me or he was trying to find a solution. We had had other conversations besides these on this issue as well.

[3] This was unjustified and I was making very useful points. I think this was an example of Prat making himself deliberately obnoxious to upset me. Or he did not want me analyzing the RFP.

[4] Once they were talking in a meeting about one of them playing the bad guy and the other the good guy in some talks with Railway officials. I think this was how they were interacting with me also. Prat was more obviously the bad guy and Ash would then step in as the good guy. Sometimes Prat would be friendly and nice. I was being both misled and pumped for information this way. This was duplicitous behavior intended to fool me. Ash dropped his mask very rarely. Himali described him to me afterwards as two-faced. The whole time I was at GE, Prat and Ash’s interactions with me were scheming, planned, calculated, and in bad faith with them acting in concert. Also party to such scheming and deception were Praveena and Ramesh, and I now understand Ashish as well after 12 July. Others helping Prat “handle” me were Gaurav, Alpna, Sanjeev, Arvind and Ashwani.

[5] I can now see that the back-to-back assignment was a strategy by Prat calculated to make me fail so that Prat could then complain to Brett about my work.

[6] Again I think this was just a pretence by Ash of being the good guy.

[7] I believe Alpna who had gone to Erie for these calls and related meetings and maybe Gaurav (who was in Erie for the last two weeks working on the deal ) were in these meetings.

[8] I will deal with this separately.

[9] All of these were supposedly urgent and left me with no time to do anything else, leave alone think and observe what was going on. I did not see that I was being excluded from the D Loco deal. I believe that during this period Prat, Ash and Deepak spoke with people in Erie, Gurgaon and perhaps Fairfield about replacing me. It seems from surrounding circumstances that a decision might have been made to replace me, but I was not informed.

[10] It was a very busy time. At the same time, there was a lot of aggressive and hostile behavior towards me from many quarters. The turbo-charger deal review generated a lot of hostility towards me from Alpna. Sanjeev was hostile on the SVB issue. Ashish who supported me in the past was not supporting me, though to my face he was always supportive. I will deal with the general team behavior towards me separately. I believe the atmosphere became abusive. Problems, hurdles and pressure were deliberately being created for me.

[11] This is when I think I heard Praveena answer a call with “Ash Honey”.

[12] This is when she told me that Prat’s wife did not use their couple membership in the gym and that she wanted to ask Prat if she could go as his wife. I reported this as a fact showing a close relationship between Prat and Praveena. However while preparing this note I realized this might also have been a deliberate lie given what I had told Ash.

[13] Rasmi Ray and Bhavin Shah also behaved very unreasonably and aggressively over these issues. I believe the broader team was roped in to create stress for me. There is a lot of detail about this aspect that I am able to share.

[14] At the time and until writing this down I thought that Prat’s behavior that day was because of Praveena. I now realize that I had told Ash on 13/14 July that I thought the problems with Prat were because of Praveena. Were they play-acting to make me leave or to throw me off track? In the week of 19 July, I saw Prat become rude towards me after exchanging glances with Praveena on many occasions. I complained about this after I resigned on 3 August including to Deepak. When I resigned on 3 August, I spoke to three people before quitting – (1) Gaurav – I told him Prat had treated me like shit throughout my time at GE. I said I don’t know if it was because of Praveena, maybe they were having an affair; (2) Ashish – I told him Prat was treating me very badly and no one sitting in Erie could help me. Ashish kept telling me to go to HR, appeared sympathetic, told me to speak to Erie, or Deepak. I said Deepak was also not supporting me and neither was Arvind Subramanium; I said no one in the US could help me if Prat did not want to work with me (3) Himali – who told me not to quit but to go on vacation. Actually I spoke to Ashish after I sent in my email saying I was quitting.

[15] I think I was close to breaking down. Deepak walked past the office and saw me. So did Janaki from the conference room.

[16] I have omitted my earlier statement that I think I realized at this point that I was being excluded. I did not realize this then and in fact until much later, perhaps even until much after 20 September. I told Prat that Jamie was doing the back to back terms and I would tell him that Ramesh wanted them. Prat told me to work on the BHEL MOU.

[17] I think I was being eased/ pushed out and I imagine the expectation was that I would get embarrassed and leave on my own. Or perhaps, the intent was to terminate my contract for non-performance and the ground was being prepared for that.

[18] I think he did plan it. I believe it was intended to humiliate me and no one including Deepak even had the courtesy to speak to me about it before or afterwards.

Note 3

Sequence of some events between 3 August and 20 September 2010 – This is a broad outline and is neither comprehensive nor fully detailed.

3 August

I resigned. I felt a palpable sense of relief and I even mentioned this to some people.[1]

4 August

I spoke with Prat. He asked me if I had any special reason for resigning. I said we both knew it was not working out.

I said I would serve the notice period but did not want to work on D Loco.

He said he would speak to Arvind about the notice period.

Prat asked me to prepare a note on limitation of liability for the turbocharger deal review. He and Ashish then told me they couldn’t share a draft presentation with me because I had sent in my notice. I needed this presentation to prepare the note on limitation of liability.

I forwarded my resignation letter to Tara and Jamie.

I called Arvind. He suggested I leave immediately because otherwise I might not like the awkward silences around me.

Jamie called. Said he was sorry to hear and had been very happy with my work. Offered to give a reference, to help in any other way, and to speak to Tara and Deepak about the possibility of moving me to a non-hostile work environment.[2] I told Jamie that Arvind wanted me to leave immediately. Jamie said, no I should stay for a transition, at least until he came to Delhi in two weeks.

I called Arvind and told him that Jamie wanted me to stay for a notice period.

5 August

I told Prat I would stay for the notice period and had no problem working on D Loco until I left. Prat seemed upset but told me I could go with the team for an E Loco pre-bid meeting the next day. [3]

Prat called me to discuss some queries on E loco. These were all issues I had raised earlier which he had dismissed angrily at the time I raised them. He made some comment in front of Janaki Choudhary and Ashish Malhotra that he was having to do all the work.

There was a tollgate 1 call for D Loco. I said I would attend that. He then tried to embarrass me by telling me publicly that I need not attend this call. Another attempt to make things awkward for me.

6 August

Prat and Ashish were worried about some problem with the certificates in the D Loco RFQ that they had presumably been told about by the Railways.[4]

I attended the E Loco pre-bid meeting.

9 August

Tara sent me an email. It read as if she thought I had already left or was about to leave. She asked me to share my views if I was “willing to share”. She did not ask why I had quit.

I replied saying I would like to discuss the circumstances. And that I was still working as advised by Jamie.

Tara replied and asked me to give her a call. She was at the airport. I called and spoke with Tara. But the impression I got was that she was speaking to me as a formality. The conversation was very casual and I was left with a sense that the decision to remove me had already been taken. For someone who had told me about 10 days earlier that she would if necessary fight to the death for me, Tara was not very concerned about why I decided to leave. I did not get a real hearing.

On this call, I asked Tara if she knew that there was a mistake in the D Loco bid last time. She said “not that she could remember”.

She told me that she could try speaking with Prat but she could not force Prat to work with me. She said the deal was very important and her first priority was to provide legal support to Prat for that. She said maybe I could come back after a break. I told her I agree the deal was important.

Tara did not mention the possibility of my working with her or completing my contract. We both understood that I would leave.

10 August

This was my birthday. I felt very unfairly/ badly treated because of the way I had been targeted. I also thought that I had not received adequate support. I decided to stand up for myself and sent an email withdrawing my resignation.

I spoke with Deepak in the afternoon about this and told him I wanted to stay and raise concerns.

Deepak tried to bully and intimidate me into leaving. He said Prat could terminate my contract at any point and without any reason. I insisted I would stay and that if GE/ Prat wanted me to leave then they should terminate my contract. I also said that GE had certain policies and I thought the way I was treated was against those policies.

I asked Deepak how I could raise my concerns. He said he would get back to me.

I mentioned that Prat was targeting me and that it was possibly because of the D Loco lies in 2009 and because of my conversation with Radhika about Praveena. I mentioned that the targeting had been going on for a long time and everyone was aware of it.

11 August

Alpna came to see me and asked about my resignation. I told Alpna that I had withdrawn my resignation and that I would raise my concerns. I believe that Alpna reported back to Prat and Ash about this.

Prat came to me looking panicky and politely requested me to work on a substantial multi-day task for D Loco. He sent an email about this with a copy to Deepak.

Deepak asked me a day or two later if I was doing this work. I said yes. He said I don’t know why Prat asked you to do this.[5]

16 August

I emailed Deepak asking for a response to my conversation with him on 10 August.

He replied saying he would come back to me.

I had still not been told whether I could stay on or how to raise my concerns.

18 August

I put down a brief summary of my concerns in writing. I tried to hand over the note to Deepak, He refused to take the note and told me to speak with Tara first. I said I had a call with Tara on 19 August.

Deepak told me to be careful about how I worded my complaint on the 2009 bid mistake cover-up.

Deepak suggested that I consider delaying raising my concerns by about 2 months.

Deepak also suggested I should take it easy and need not come in everyday.

19 August

I spoke to Tara. She told me that I could complete my contract working directly for her. She said I could also help Deepak. She said she did not want the shit to hit the fan in the next two months. She asked me if I had any other concerns. I say no.

It appeared Tara had spoken to Deepak since my conversation on 18 August.

20 August

I tried to give the note on my concerns to Deepak, He said I had told Tara I had no concerns.[6] I said she already knows about these.

He said something about my working with Tara and him and the possibility of another permanent position becoming available in the meantime.

Deepak again suggested that I could also raise my concerns a couple of months down the line. I refused and said I wanted to do this right.

Deepak told me Tara was wondering if I wanted to complete my contract as a consultant working from home. I refused and said I wanted to work full-time with an office at GE.

I insisted on handing over the note. Deepak refused to take the note and said I was with Transportation so I needed to contact them. I forced it on him eventually saying my contract was with GE India. Apparently, Deepak gave it unopened to Jamie who was in Delhi at that time.[7]

I also emailed the note to Tara Plimpton and Mrigank Sharma. I got no reply.

Jamie spoke with me about my note.[8]

23 August

I emailed a further note to Tara and Mrigank.

24 August

Tara replied and told me Anil Chaddha would be the point of contact for my concerns.

She said I should ask Deepak for help on moving to Gurgaon and that she would schedule a call to discuss what I could work on. She said I would be working directly for her. Tara specifically mentioned that I would be helping Deepak as well.

27 August

I asked Deepak about what I might be able to work on with him. He replied saying that I would be getting my assignments only from Tara and her team. Deepak told me on another occasion soon after that I would not be a part of GE India and that I would have no assignment to work on GE India matters.

I emailed Tara for time to discuss future assignments.[9]

30 August

I requested Deepak that I wanted to stay on in AIFACS in order to complete my contract.[10]

I emailed Anil Chaddha about taking my complaints forward. I added a note on the Vineet Sood issue.

Anil replied and scheduled time for 2 September.

2 September

I again requested Tara for time to discuss assignments.

2 September

I spoke with Anil Chaddha and Liz Hackett. I specifically asked Anil if he knew Prat and Ash and expressed concern that they should have no influence over the investigation.

3 September

I noticed that Alpna and many others including Prat, Ash, Gaurav, Praveena seemed to know about what I had told Anil. I believe that everyone in AIFACS knew.

6 and 7 September

I sent more information to Anil – the note on Yashdeep Sule.[11] I found that people in AIFACS seemed to have found out about this as well.

I emailed Anil and asked him if he had spoken to people. He did not reply.

I emailed again asking for time to speak to Anil.

I spoke with Anil and Liz. Anil assured me that he had not spoken with anyone yet and there could have been no leaks.[12]

I briefly mentioned my conversation with Radhika (about Praveena and Prat) on this call.

The very next day Praveena seemed to know that I had mentioned this conversation to Anil and Liz.

7 September

I received an email from Arvind Subramanian asking me to move to Gurgaon by end of day, 8 September.

People in AIFACS seemed to know that I had complained about the leaks. Some of them suddenly appeared polite, said hello and acted as if nothing was going on.

Prat attempted to greet and speak to me. I rebuffed him.

8 September

I came in and Ramesh was sitting in my office at AIFACS. I asked him to vacate. He asked me if I needed the room.

I emailed Arvind saying I did not want to move to Gurgaon. He replied and asked me to talk to Tara.

I emailed Deepak saying that I had a call with Tara on 9 September, but I was not going to move to Gurgaon. I asked Deepak what this implied for me. Deepak replied stating “the discussion with Tara should help clarify these points.”

9 September

I came in and Chandan Vijay was occupying my office. I asked him to vacate.

I spoke with Tara and told her that I did not want to move to Gurgaon. She insisted I needed to move there and that I should do that by Monday.[13] She said I seemed to be complaining about everyone including Arvind Subramanian having harassed me.

Tara told me I would be working under Deepak’s supervision.

I told Tara about the leaks. She simply brushed that aside. Tara mentioned some call on which Prat had publicly spoken about my compliance and harassment complaint. She told me that she could send Anil to Delhi to speak with me sometime next week. As an alternative she suggested Mona Dange. Tara set up a call for 10 September for me to tell her whether I wanted Anil to come to Delhi so that he could book tickets.[14] Tara said we could also discuss what work I could do.

I went home.

I emailed Brackett Denniston, the GE Corporate ombudsperson and Jeff Immelt about the 2009 bid mistake cover-up. I mentioned my harassment complaint as well. I was told that this would be investigated.

I emailed Tara and Deepak with detailed information about the leaks. I sent a separate email to Tara and Deepak about the role played by Deepak in helping Prat to get me to leave.[15]

I canceled my call with Tara because I needed time to think.[16] I sent an email saying I would take the next week off. I said I wanted to stay at AIFACS (or I would have to leave). I also said that I would make sure my concerns were investigated properly.

10 September

I received an email from Jamie Winget about some assignments for me. I had not been assigned any work since my resignation on 3 August. I told Jamie I was on a break and would get back to him upon my return to work.

Week of 13 September

I got a query from Ozell Freeman. I answered that from home.

20 September

I came in to work around noon. I spoke with Ashish. He asked me about my move to Gurgaon.

After lunch, Arvind came into my office with Geetanjali Shivdasani and handed me a notice terminating my contract with immediate effect. I was asked to hand over GE property and leave. I asked Arvind who had taken this decision. Arvind told me that it was a joint decision by Tara Plimpton, Deepak Adlakha, Prat Kumar, David Lobo, Arvind Subramanian and Anil Chaddha.

I called Deepak to ask him who took this decision and why but he refused to speak with me. He mentioned something about the emails I had been sending.

I told Arvind and Geetanjali that this was very unfair and that I had raised a harassment complaint which was still to be heard.

20 September

I reached home and sent Brackett Denniston, Tara Plimpton and Deepak Adlakha an email protesting the termination of my contract.

22 September

I received a call from Joydev, a lawyer at GE Capital

25 September

I received a reply from Brackett Denniston to my email dated 20 September 2010

---

[1] Prat’s targeting after 4 August did not affect me negatively on a psychological level.

[2] Deepak had continued to hold out the possibility of another position in GE and he told me in the latter part of July that he would speak to John Flannery about this after John returned from a vacation. I told Jamie that Deepak had been talking about another option within GE.

[3] There was a Dankuni pre-bid meeting on 5 August. I was not informed about that meeting.

[4] I told Jamie about this when he was in Delhi in August 2010.

[5] I worked on this for 3-4 days. This ended with a loud and angry argument between Prat and me. I believe Prat complained about this as well to some people. Deepak told me Prat also called him. Deepak asked me to stop working on D Loco. I said I myself did not want to work with Prat and would share what I had done with Jamie.

[6] Again Deepak had spoken with Tara sometime between my call with Tara on 19 August and my conversation with Deepak on 20 August.

[7] 3- 4 days later Deepak asked me for a copy of my note. I gave him printouts of both my notes dated 20 and 23 September 2010.

[8] During this conversation, I also mentioned the harassment over the 10-11 July weekend because of my Saturday morning email. Jamie and I also briefly talked about the 2009 bid mistake.

[9] This conversation did not take place until 9 September.

[10] Deepak had told me earlier that he had asked Arvind Subramanian to organize space at Gurgaon. I had not heard from Arvind.

[11] Deepak had earlier tried to discourage me from raising the Yashdeep Sule issue.

[12] I also asked Anil if I could speak with someone in Delhi face-to-face as talking on the phone was not very conducive. He insisted that my concerns needed to be handled through headquarters in Erie.

[13] On the call I did agree to move to Gurgaon. I had no other option.

[14] Anil had told me earlier on 2 September that he was travelling to India for a wedding.

[15] Deepak had started to avoid me since I formally raised my concerns. He was coming into AIFACS almost everyday but would avert his eyes if he saw me. At the same time he was interacting closely with Prat and Ash. On one occasion I insisted on speaking to him. I then told him that Deepak I think you have played a role.

[16] I also decided that I would not move to Gurgaon.

GE docs–2009 securities fraud and obstruction of justice

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM
Subject: Please pass on this message to the Hon’ble Richard J. Holwell, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York
To: william_donald@nysd.uscourts.gov, brett_kaufman@nysd.uscourts.gov, usanys.crcomp@usdoj.gov, NDwebmail@state.gov, askdoj@usdoj.gov
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, kdonovan-maher@bermandevalerio.com, greg.danilow@weil.com, rcohen@lowey.com, fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov, ffetf@usdoj.gov, newhaven@ic.fbi.gov, ny1@ic.fbi.gov, usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov, CleggD1@state.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, help@sec.gov

Dear Judge Richard J. Holwell,

I am an attorney in India and had worked as Legal Counsel for GE Transportation’s business activities in India in 2010. I have brought to your attention that I made a compliance complaint to General Electric that is relevant to lawsuits which were filed by General Electric investors before your Court.

I complained that GE employees engaged in criminal conduct amounting to obstruction of justice under US federal statute and tampered with evidence about events that occurred in February 2009. These facts and this evidence are relevant to the cases filed by GE investors before you in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

I complained that material information regarding GE’s failed bid for a multi-billion dollar tender for an Indian Railways project for manufacture and sale of diesel locomotives was not disclosed to GE investors in February 2009. This information was capable of influencing share-prices and thus relevant to the shareholder lawsuits filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. I further complained that once these lawsuits were filed in 2009, GE employees tampered with the evidence establishing knowledge of this failed bid by GE officers including Mr.Jeffrey Immelt, Mr. John Rice and Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli. I accidently found out information about events of February 2009 even though I joined GE in April 2010. I mentioned the information I thus acquired to a colleague without realising its significance. This started a process of harassment and retaliation against me by the employees in the New Delhi office who were involved in concealing evidence and creating a misleading record. I ended up raising a compliance concern to the GE General Counsel and Ombudsman in September 2010 that this might involve a securities fraud. (At that time I had no knowledge about the cases filed against GE in 2009. I found out about these cases only in April 2011.) GE retaliated against me and terminated my services. It then carried out a compliance investigation in which Gibson Dunn was involved. However, my complaint was not investigated by GE and Gibson Dunn and the matter was covered up. GE declared its investigation over at the beginning of February 2011. I subsequently responded to GE in writing in April 2011 pointing out that the matter was being covered up and there was sufficient basis for my complaint. It was at this time that I found out about the lawsuits filed by GE investors after February 2009 and I only then understood the full significance of my complaint. I pointed out to GE that evidence showed that offences amounting to obstruction of justice might have been committed. Tampering of evidence, asking employees to lie,suppression/ destruction of evidence and creation of a misleading record to influence a United States Federal Court proceeding would amount to US federal offences and obstruction of justice under US federal statutes.

Among other evidence of what happened around GE’s failed bid in February 2009, I have seen an email sent by GE Transportation employee Mr. Brett Begole to Mr. John Rice and Mr. Karan Bhatia (another GE lawyer) in February 2009 suggesting that a news report from February 2009 that had hinted at GE’s difficulties with the bid be either allowed to die a natural death or that senior Government of India officials (Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Mr. Ronen Sen, the then Indian Ambassador in Washington) be spoken to. This email was shown to me by Mr. Jeffrey Eglash in New Delhi in late 2010 when he met me during a compliance investigation. This email is suggestive of corruption and demonstrates why GE officers, attorneys and employees might have wanted to prevent their documentary record pertaining to the failed February 2009 bid from being scrutinized by a United States Federal Court. I would like to submit documentary and other evidence on this issue to the Court.

I had informed GE lawyers and ombudsman about my complaint in 2010. The matter was covered up. I thereafter brought the complaint to the attention of the United States SEC and the United States Department of Justice. In 2011, I also brought my complaint to the attention of the Plaintiffs attorneys in several of the law-suits including the partners at Berman DeValerio representing “State Universities Retirement System of Illinois”. I was then contacted by Mr. Ronald J. Keating, the Director of Investigations at Berman DeValerio and I shared detailed facts and documents (substantiating my complaint) on email with Mr. Ronald J. Keating. Ms. Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, an attorney and a partner at Berman DeValerio was copied on all my correspondence with Mr. Ronald J. Keating. I subsequently made General Electric including Mr. Brackett Denniston, the SEC and the United States Department of Justice aware of my entire communications with Berman DeValerio. I have also recently brought my complaint to the attention of the attorneys representing General Electric before your Court including Mr. Greg Danilow. Further I have contacted various authorities including the United States Ambassador in New Delhi, the United States Attorney General and also the US Legal Attaché (from the FBI) in New Delhi.

I face a grave, immediate and on-going threat to life on account of this complaint as it adversely affects General Electric Executives including Mr. Jeffrey Immelt, Mr. John Rice, Mr. Brackett Denniston, Mr. Alex Dimitrief and Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli.

On the night of 12 January 2012 (Indian time) which would be the forenoon of 12 January 2012 (EST), I called and spoke with the Deputy to your Court (Mr. Bill Donald) and informed him in brief about the nature of my complaint. I told him I was an attorney who had complained about obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence by General Electric concerning facts which were relevant to the General Electric investor law-suits filed in your Court. I informed him that I faced a threat to my life on account of this. He transferred my call to Mr. Brett Kaufman who I was told was the assigned clerk for the case. I briefly explained to Mr. Kaufman why I was calling and informed him about my complaint of obstruction of justice and evidence tampering in connection with the General Electric investor law-suits. I told Mr. Brett Kaufman that I wanted to bring the facts about my complaints to the notice of the Judge. I was advised to send an ex-parte letter to you and I sent a letter addressed to you on the email addresses of Mr. Bill Donald and Mr. Brett Kaufman. I am now providing further detail regarding my complaint.

In 2010, I worked for GE as Legal Counsel for GE Transportation’s business activities in India. I directly reported to Ms. Tara Plimpton, General Counsel for GE Transportation. My boss in India was Mr. Prat (Pratyush) Kumar who is a US citizen and was at that time employed by a US based General Electric entity. He was heading GE Transportation’s business activities and efforts in India and he reported directly to Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli.

I was hired towards the end of April 2010 to provide legal support for General Electric’s bid to win a multi-billion US dollar tender from a Government of India entity, the Indian Railways. This tender provide the opportunity to win a contract from the Indian Railways to set up a plant(factory) in India for the manufacture of diesel locomotives. The tender also included a confirmed purchase order of a 1000 locomotives to be manufactured and supplied over a period of ten years. The purchase order would also include a maintenance contract for the supplied locomotives for a period of 15 years. I refer to this business opportunity hereafter as the “Tender”.

General Electric had participated in this Tender along with another US company, EMD in 2008-2009. The process for winning the tender has two parts. The first step is a pre-qualification process where bids are invited, evaluated and accepted based upon meeting prescribed technical and financial criteria. The second step is the financial bid where the short-listed bidders are invited to submit a price-bid and in the normal course the bidder offering a more competitive price is awarded the contract.

GE failed to win this Tender in February 2009. A fresh Tender for the same project was opened again by Indian Railways in 2010.

When I joined GE in April 2010, I was told that GE and EMD had both prequalified in the earlier round of the Tender (in 2008-2009). I was told that during the price-bid, GE was the sole bidder and EMD did not submit a bid. I was told that the Indian Railways cancelled the Tender in 2009 because there was a single price bid. I was also told that another factor that cost GE the bid in 2009 was the 2009 General Elections in India. This information was provided to me by Mr. Prat Kumar when I interviewed with him for the job.

I joined GE on 23 April 2010. Sometime during the week of 26 April 2010, I was sitting with Prat Kumar and Ramesh Mathur. We were discussing the language for certain certifications that GE would make in the Request for Prequalification for another Indian Railways tender – this one was for electric locomotives. During this conversation Prat Kumar expressed his view that all this legal precision and back and forth was unnecessary because ultimately in his view the Indian Railways had full authority to do whatever it wanted under the RFQ. He then said that in 2009, GE’s bid “was perfect” yet GE did not get the tender.

On 1 May 2010, I attended a meeting with an Indian Railways official along with Mr. Prat Kumar, Mr. Ash (Ashfaq) Nainar and Ms. Alpna Khera from GE. During this meeting I heard the Railways official tell Mr. Prat Kumar that GE would have won the tender in 2009 if they had not made a mistake in their financial bid. He stated that he hoped GE would not make a mistake in its bidding documents in the 2010 round. I was surprised to learn about this mistake. However after the meeting, Mr. Prat Kumar was aggressive and I did not ask about this.

I had no intention of probing the matter of this mistake even though this information contradicted what I had been told earlier by Mr. Prat Kumar and others at GE. I was preoccupied with the fresh tender in 2010. However, I accidently mentioned that GE had made a mistake in 2009 to a colleague Mr. Gaurav Negi on 12 May 2010. The very next day, I first received what sounded like a warning call from HR. Mr. Arvind Subramanian, the HR Manager asked me if I was feeling disgruntled. Prat Kumar came into the office looking worked up. I was summoned to his room and without preamble he started to target me by picking at my work and raising his voice in the presence of Gaurav Negi and other colleagues. Prat Kumar insisted that the only mistake with GE’s bid in in 2009 was in the Power of Attorney. He humiliated me publicly. Thereafter for the next two months I was at the receiving end of sustained retaliation, targeting and harassment at the hands of Mr. Prat Kumar and the GE employees who worked under him at the local office in New Delhi. I was unable to understand the cause of this targeting which seemed to be intended to make me quit. I discussed this harassment with Ms. Tara Plimpton, General Counsel of GE Transportation and with another GE attorney there, Mr. James Winget. I also discussed this harassment with the GE India General Counsel, Mr. Deepak Adlakha. I was told that Mr. Prat Kumar was difficult to work with, crossed compliance lines and that the team under him was not very competent and that the hostilities were a result of this. I was assured that I had the full support of the legal team. During that period I got the impression that I had committed an error in mentioning the mistake in 2009 and that the hostility towards me was on account of that incident. However I kept quiet about the matter and continued to do my job under difficult conditions.

In July 2010, GE employees I was working with including Mr. Prat Kumar altered a document (a customer certificate received from Kazakhstan Railways) and submitted it to the Indian Railways on July 12, 2010 as part of GE’s Request for Prequalification for the tender. I was not a participant to this alteration which amounts to a forgery under Indian law and as I understand under US federal law as well.

After this incident the targeting escalated. I have complained that I was being drugged during this time. I resigned and then withdrew my resignation and told GE that I wanted to raise compliance concerns. I was discouraged but I persisted. I then filed a complaint that I had been targeted because of my having learnt about the mistake in GE’s price bid in 2009 and because I had mentioned it to a colleague. At that time, I had limited information and I complained that Mr. Prat Kumar and other employees at the local Delhi office had lied to their bosses about why GE did not win the bid in 2009. An internal investigation was launched by Ms. Tara Plimpton. However I realised that this was a cover-up. I therefore escalated my complaint and sent it to to Mr. Jeffrey Immelt, Mr. Brackett Denniston and the GE Ombudsperson as well. In my note to them I stated that my complaint about the bid-mistake from 2009 being covered up might amount to a securities fraud. I was immediately fired after this. I left GE but emailed Mr. Denniston that I would pursue my complaint. In that email, I used the words “securities fraud” in connection with my complaint about the February 2009 cover-up. Mr. Denniston asked Mr. Alex Dimitrief and Mr. Jeffrey Eglash to investigate my complaint.

After this, I found out additional information from the internet and news reports about what had happened in February 2009 in so far as GE’s failed bid was concerned. At that time, I was not aware of the investor law-suits filed against GE that covered the period February 2009. I met Mr. Jeffrey Eglash and Mr. John Chesley (from Gibson Dunn) in New Delhi in November 2010. During this meeting I told Mr. Jeffrey Eglash that GE had failed to disclose to investors in February 2009 that it had lost the bid. That this information was capable of influencing share prices and that failure to disclose material information to investors could amount to a securities fraud. I recall telling Mr. Eglash that what I was saying was at least as significant as the comments made by Henry Paulson. Mr. Eglash did not tell me about the pending investor law-suits. Instead he attempted to persuade me that GE had indeed disclosed the information that it had lost the bid to the Indian press. To support his point, Mr. Eglash showed me a press clipping of an Indian news report dated February 23 2009 that mentioned a mistake in GE’s bid. He told me that this clipping showed that GE was not hiding information. I read the extract Mr. Eglash handed over to me and told him that on the contrary it showed that GE was still claiming it would win the tender and that any difficulties with a “mathematical error” with its price bid had been resolved. I asked Mr. Eglash for the first half of the news report he had handed me. He gave me two additional pages. That is when I read the email from Mr. Brett BeGole from GE Transportation addressed to Mr. John Rice and to Mr. Karan Bhatia, an attorney at GE. This email suggested that the news report dated February 23, 2009 that had hinted at GE’s difficulties with the bid be either allowed to die a natural death or that senior Government of India officials (Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Mr. Ronen Sen, the then Indian Ambassador in Washington) be spoken to. I informed Mr. Eglash of the significance of this email.

When Mr. Jeffrey Eglash showed me the email from Mr. Brett Begole, Mr. John Chesley from Gibson Dunn was not in the room. However, the email and news report was retrieved by Mr. Eglash from a binder/ folder containing documents. This Binder had as I understand been put together by Gibson Dunn after reviewing documents at GE. Therefore, Mr. F. Joseph Warin and Mr. John Chesley from Gibson Dunn have personal knowledge of this email which they must have reviewed.

After this meeting, I sent Mr. Eglash, Mr. Dimitrief and Mr. Denniston a compilation of news reports that I had found on the internet. These reports show that GE submitted a price bid for the Tender on 16 February 2009. By February 23, 2009, the Government of India had already taken a firm decision to scrap the tender. The Government of India held a Cabinet meeting on February 23, 2009 where it took the decision to adopt a different policy route for these projects. The decision to scrap the tender by Indian Railways was communicated to the Cabinet in this meeting on February 23, 2009. Therefore it would appear that this decision to reject GE’s bid was taken by the Indian Railways after February 16 and before February 23, 2009. GE must have been informed of this decision both verbally and in writing. GE did not disclose to GE investors that its bid had failed. Instead the news report from February 23, 2009 and subsequent news reports that year show that GE was misleading news reporters as well as investors on whether or not it would win this contract.

I also found news reports after March 2009 where Mr. Prat Kumar gave interviews to the Indian press stating that the Government of India had rejected GE’s price-bid without any communication to GE. He made no mention of the mistake GE made in the calculations for its price-bid. I sent these to GE as well.

Mr. Eglash refused to discuss my complaints with me after our meeting. I had to send detailed notes. I have complained that during this period after my meeting with Mr. Jeffrey Eglash, I was drugged by GE and an attempt was made to murder me by introducing toxic gas into my home. I fell ill.

I spoke with Mr. Eglash in January 2011. He threatened me by saying that “we do not want you as our enemy forever”.

A few days later, I received a letter from Mr. Alexander Dimitrief on February 3, 2011 stating that GE had investigated my complaints and they were unfounded. I was unwell for a few weeks.

I started to respond to Mr. Alex Dimitrief’s letter in April 2011. At that time I found out about the investor lawsuits in your Court and I was able to connect all the dots. I sent Mr. Dimitrief a detailed note in response to his letter on my complaint that GE failed to disclose to investors in February 2009 that it had lost the locomotives bid. It was only after finding about the GE investor law-suits that I realised why I had been lied to in GE. And why I had been targeted after I found out about the mistake and mentioned it to a colleague. I sent an email to Mr. Joseph Warin pointing out that my complaint had been misrepresented in Mr. Alex Dimitrief’s letter and that it appeared that GE had tampered with evidence about events related to the Locomotives bid in February 2009.

Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli was personally present in New Delhi in February 2009 just for this Locomotives bid. There is email correspondence from February 2009 between Mr. Simonelli and Mr. Immelt on what was going on in Delhi with the price-bid. They all knew about the mistake.

Yet in 2010, I was told by everyone I spoke to in the Delhi office and at GE Transportation in Erie that GE did not get the bid because it was the sole-bidder. No one mentioned the mistake. I found out about it from an external source, mentioned it to someone at GE and was targeted as a result. In August 2011, I asked Ms. Tara Plimpton if she knew about this mistake. She replied – not that I can remember. I was told by a GE Transportation attorney, Mr. James Winget in August 2010 when discussing my complaint of harassment that this should not happen in GE. He told me that a communication from the Indian Railways in February 2009 had been suppressed.

I was told in August 2010 (when I was still at GE) by Mr. Amit Kumar, an attorney from the Indian law-firm Amarchand Mangaldas, that he had provided his services to GE and helped GE get back its security deposit when GE’s bid in 2009 got derailed because of the mistake. He told me he had still not billed GE for these legal services he provided.

I face a grave threat to my life on account of my accidentally finding out about this tampering with evidence by GE. I have been drugged over the course of a year and a half. Attempts have been made and are still being made to poison me.

I request for your help in this matter. I will send to you the news reports and correspondence between me and GE on this issue.

With Regards,

Seema Sapra

————————————————————————————————————-

Response dated 13 April 2011 on Securities Fraud issue

This reply was sent by me to Mr. Alexander Dimitrief on April 13, 2011. (For Mr. Alex Dimitrief’s letter click  here.

Dear Mr. Dimitrief,

Subject: response on the issue of the 2009 securities fraud and public procurement corruption and its effect on my employment with GE

Your letter dated 3 February 2011 misrepresents my complaint and appears intended to cover-up a securities/ shareholder fraud, corruption and possible insider-trading. My response follows:

1. My initial reaction to finding out about the 2009 lie/ mistake was that Prat Kumar and Ash Nainar might have misled GE Corporate management.

1. However, after conversations with Jamie Winget and Himali Arora and some research, I communicated to GE that the 2009 cover-up appeared to be a larger misdemeanour, i.e., securities fraud and public procurement corruption.[1]

1. My discussion with Jeff Eglash during the meeting on 1 December 2010 focussed on the issue of securities fraud. I mentioned that the rejection of GE’s bid was price sensitive information and had not been disclosed to investors in accordance with disclosure norms. Surprisingly, your letter dated 3 February 2011 makes no mention that I complained about a securities fraud and about corruption. Instead you have proceeded as if my complaint was limited to my initial reaction that GE senior management might have been misled.[2]

1. In February 2009, GE share price was plummeting because of the financial crisis.[3]

1. The Diesel Locomotive tender for the supply of 1000 locomotives was a huge order, the largest ever for GE Transportation. GE had informed its shareowners and investors about its participation in this tender and the business opportunity and prospects this provided.[4] The news on whether or not GE got this tender was price-sensitive information capable of driving GE’s share price up or down.[5] GE was under an obligation to promptly and accurately disclose this information to its investors and shareowners under US Securities and Disclosure regulations. Further, GE was under an obligation not to publish any misleading or false information regarding this opportunity.

1. GE submitted its financial bid on 16 February 2009. It is important to ask when was GE told and/ or when did it find out that its bid was non-compliant and that its tender had been rejected. Did GE promptly and accurately disclose this information to its shareowners? Was there any violation of fair disclosure norms?

1. The Government of India held a Cabinet meeting on 23 February 2009 where it took the decision to scrap the tenders and to set up the Diesel and Electric Locomotive factories as departmental units. GE must therefore have been informed before 23 February 2009 by the Government that its bid was non-compliant and/or had been rejected.

1. I was informed by a GE employee that the letter/ communication from the Railways informing GE about the outcome of its bid was suppressed. There are published news reports from 2009 where Prat Kumar is quoted as stating that GE did not receive any communication from the Government on its tender and that the bid was scrapped because of the elections or because GE was the sole bidder. All parts of these statements were false and misleading.

1. How could GE not have been informed by the Government that its bid was not compliant or that it was being rejected? The Government was legally bound by tendering rules to follow due process which I assume it must have done unless GE improperly and illegally influenced the process by suppressing a written communication.

1. Your letter shows that GE knew about its bid being non-compliant on 21 February 2009.

1. GE got back its security deposit for this bid. How did it get back its deposit without having received any communication at all about the tender from the Government?

1. Mr. Eglash told me on 30 November 2010 that GE Corporate senior management was aware that the GE bid was non-compliant and Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli wrote to Mr. Immelt saying that GE had submitted a fresh/ revised bid. As I pointed out to Mr. Eglash then, GE could not have submitted a fresh/ revised bid, this being against tendering rules. So either this statement by Mr. Simonelli was incorrect or GE was engaged in irregular/ illegal conduct.

1. On 1 December, 2010, Mr. Eglash showed me a Business Standard Report dated 23 February 2009. This entire report is extracted at Annexure A at the end of my response.

Mr. Eglash suggested to me that this report showed that GE had disclosed to the public that there was an error in its financial bid. This suggestion is false and incorrect.

The report does not record/ attribute a disclosure by GE that its bid was non-compliant. Instead it states that the “ostensible” reason being given is that the problem is that of a single bidder. This is also what GE had publicly stated and was GE’s official position.[6] The report went on to state that some sources in the Railways have indicated that there was a technical mistake in the GE bid. The report further stated: “When this was pointed out, however, the company said it was a mathematical error and has agreed, in writing, to accept that the price of its locomotives be lowered by the extent of the error — for all the locos. This adds up to around Rs 300 crore over the life of the project.”

Therefore GE did not make any disclosure in this report. Instead, when forced to respond to the Railway source’s information that there was a technical error in GE’s bid, GE responded by stating that it was only a mathematical error and GE had agreed in writing to accept a lower price. GE was clearly implying that this technical error was inconsequential and that it had been rectified.

GE’s statement in this report was false, inaccurate and misleading. According to tendering rules, GE could not have been allowed to correct its financial bid. Further the language used by GE implies as if GE agreed with the Railways to lower its price. This is suggestive of an agreement between GE and the Railways and an acceptance by the Railways of GE’s lower price. Moreover, if GE never heard from the Railways about its tender and no official or unofficial communication in this regard was ever received, how did GE lower its price? The report is dated 23 February 2009, the same day that the Cabinet decided to scrap the tenders. Therefore GE must have known before 23^rd February that its bid had been rejected.

During the meeting on 1 December 2009, I requested Mr. Eglash to show me the first half of this news report as he had handed over to me the second page.

When Mr. Eglash handed over the first page to me, I read the internal GE email trail that this news report was attached to. The email trail originated from Delhi and forwarded the report to GE Corporate in Fairfield and to GE Transportation in Erie.[7] The emails questioned – should we [GE] let this [the report] die a natural death or should someone speak with Montek [Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia] or with Mr. Ronen Sen.[8]

I pointed out to Mr. Eglash that GE was compelled to respond to the statement from the Railway source and had made no voluntary disclosure about a technical mistake. And that the email trail showed that GE was worried and unhappy about the report. So concerned was GE in fact, that senior management was being asked to consider speaking with highly placed, influential and well-connected Indian officials who were not involved with the tender process.

In light of the above, I disagree with Mr. Eglash’s statement that this Business Standard report shows that GE disclosed the material fact about losing its bid to the public, the media or its shareholders.

1. In your letter dated 3 February 2009, you state that I myself have noted in several communications that “the technical non-compliance in GETI’s D-Loco bid was covered widely in the Indian press”.

1. Indeed, my suspicion that Prat had started to target me and became hostile towards me after I learnt about and mentioned the 2009 bid mistake, was confirmed when I first read a news report dated 11 August 2010 that the diesel locomotive bid submitted by GE in 2009 was non-compliant.[9]

1. However, a perusal of the numerous news reports filed contemporaneous to the events in 2009 shows a disturbing and curious feature. There is conflicting information attributed to and sourced from different interests sometimes in the same article. On the one hand there were statements in the press that GE had been awarded the tender or would be awarded the tender. There were arguments in support of why GE would get the bid. Some of these reports then hinted at different unidentified sources stating that there was a problem or a technical error with the GE bid. It was obvious that there were different sources feeding conflicting information to the Press.[10]

1. Did anyone at GE at anytime provide information to the Press which GE knew or ought to have known to be inaccurate or misleading? Did GE omit to correct misleading or inaccurate information appearing in the Press? This would be actionable misrepresentation or an actionable omission amounting to misrepresentation of a material fact?

1. GE had the obligation to promptly and accurately disclose the news about its failed bid and the reason there-for to its investors and shareowners. There is no evidence that GE did this. Further, it appears that sources in GE and /or GE supporters in the Railways or in the Railway Minister’s office (acting at GE’s behest) were behind the misleading news reports.[11] Moreover, there are statements in news reports filed in 2009 attributed to GE and/ or its employees including Prat Kumar which are materially false, misleading and inaccurate. GE also failed to correct misleading reports published in the Press even after it knew that its bid was non-compliant and had been rejected.

1. A news report dated 20 February 2009 quoted GE’s partner BHEL.

"We have signed the agreement with GE, but the setting up of the company depends on winning the contract from railways," said BHEL chairman and managing director K Ravi Kumar, while handing over an interim dividend cheque of Rs298 crore to the central government.

GE has emerged the single bidder for assembling and supplying 1,000 dual-fuel locomotive engines to the Railways. The company is yet to receive the final order. "First, GE has to get the order for supplying the locomotives. Only then can we go ahead and form the joint venture," Kumar said.

…

Kumar refused comment on whether the tender would be cancelled because it received a bid from only one company.”

Did GE know on 20 February 2009 that its bid was non-compliant and/ or had been rejected?

1. There was a curious report published by Livemint on 23 February 2009. This was titled “Railways seeks CVC cover for $6 bn tender”. The report indicated a lot of background intrigue and lobbying and raised concerns of propriety in the award of the tenders. The Railways was stated to be considering approaching the Vigilance Commissioner to protect itself from being pressured. This report contained the following statements:

“The Railway Board official cited earlier said a tender committee set up by the railways will scrutinize GE’s offer and then decide whether the price it quoted was reasonable or not. “The due process will be followed,” he said.

…

“We do have an objection to the project being awarded to GE,” said an official with one of the firms that were bidding for a tender. However, this executive added that he was unsure whether the company would take legal action. This person neither wanted to identify himself nor his company.

“There is no harm in the railways negotiating with a company if it turns out to be the only one to submit a bid,” said Arvind Mahajan, an infrastructure expert at KPMG. “They also have the prerogative of negotiating a price with the bidder. However, the concerns raised by other companies—of not having been provided enough time—is indeed an issue.””

February 23 was the day the Cabinet decided to scrap the tenders. GE would have known before this date that its bid was non-compliant and not being accepted.

1. Prat Kumar was interviewed for a Business Today report dated 2 April 2009. This report contained the following misleading information:

“In February, the government rejected GE Infrastructure’s financial bid to be a 51 per cent partner in the Rs 2,000-crore diesel locomotive factory in Bihar. The reason: GE was the only bidder!
And, within 18 days, the Union Cabinet changed its mind on the ownership pattern: instead of the government holding a 26 per cent stake, the factory would be fully owned by it.”

1. A news report was published by the Financial Chronicle on 14 April 2009. The report stated that BHEL and GE were planning to seek approval for setting up the locomotive factory. It stated that “The consortium is expecting to sign a formal agreement with the railways in the second half of 2009.” Both these statements were inaccurate and misleading and the same report recorded a denial by Ministry officials.

This report was based upon information provided by BHEL, GE’s proposed partner. GE and BHEL had an existing MOU for this project. Once again GE was either responsible for the publication of this misleading information or actionably failed to correct it.

1. A news report was filed by Bhupesh Bhandari on 22 May 2009. From its content and language it is clear that GE provided information and perspective for this report. It contained the following misleading information:

“Still, GE has an axe to grind. Its proposal to set up a diesel locomotive plant at Marora in the Saran district of Bihar is stuck. In February, the Railways had invited bids for the project and GE was the sole bidder. EMD Locomotive Technologies, which was also in the fray, opted out of the race. On the ground that it might cause a political scandal just before the general elections, the Railways decided to scrap the bid. Instead, they suggested that they could build the plant themselves.”

This report further stated:

“Whether the Railways will be able to match GE’s price is not known. The internal reserve price of the Railways was Rs 12.9 crore per locomotive. GE says its bid was below that. The bid document, prepared by the Planning Commission, said that the price would come down by three per cent every year. This advantage will be lost if the Railways put up the plant themselves.”

1. A news report filed by the Hindu on 18 September 2009 that interviewed Prat Kumar contained the following misleading information:

“GE Transport, part of GE’s infrastructure operations, was the sole bidder for the project, to be located in Bihar at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,000 crore, but the project was dropped “without any communication to us,” GE Infrastructure President and CEO Pratyush Kumar said. The company is hopeful that the new Railway Minister takes interest in the project with multiple benefits and revive it.

Speaking to The Hindu here on Wednesday, Mr. Pratyush Kumar felt that the Government was “not comfortable” in awarding the project before the elections as only one bid was received. But, it is natural as it required a company of GE’s scale of operations to pull it off,” he said.”

1. There are other news reports from 2009 and 2010 that I rely upon but do not discuss here.

1. It is therefore evident that GE was involved in some kind of improper/ illegal and/ or corrupt conduct pertaining to its financial bid for the diesel locomotive factory in February 2009. Further GE also violated provisions of the United States Securities Exchange Act and the regulations promulgated there-under by misrepresenting and/ or omitting to disclose material facts about the business, finances, value, performance and prospects of GE inter alia by not promptly and accurately disclosing the rejection of its bid in February 2009. GE also violated fair disclosure norms. This conduct amounted to a securities fraud.

1. I have recently found out that a shareholder Class Action complaint is being heard in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against GE and senior management officials including Mr. Immelt, Mr. Rice and Mr. Denniston.[12] This complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in fraudulent activity by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts. The complaint was filed on 19 March 2009 and covers the period 23 January 2009 to 27 February 2009. The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented and/ or omitted to disclose material facts about the business, finances, value, performance and prospects of GE which resulted in artificial inflation of the market price for GE common stock during the said period.

1. The misrepresentations that I have complained about would be relevant for this lawsuit or similar complaints. An inference can also be drawn that Prat Kumar’s misleading statements to the Press signalling that GE received no communication from the Railways, and that GE did not get the tender only because it was a single bidder along with the suppression of the communication from the Railways were motivated by the institution of this lawsuit on 19 March 2009. GE was trying to cover up the misrepresentation and non-disclosure of the 2009 diesel loco failed bid.[13]

1. The securities fraud that I describe, had a direct negative impact on my employment with GE. I found out information that could have uncovered the fraud and I was targeted because of this. When I joined GE, I was told that GE did not get the tender in 2009 because it was the single bidder. This was also what I heard from everyone I spoke to in GE India and in GE Transportation. Soon after joining, during a meeting with an official from the Railways I heard that GE had made a mistake in its financial bid and this was the reason GE did not get the tender. A few days later (13 May 2010), I mentioned the fact that a mistake was made to Gaurav Negi. The very next day I faced retaliation and targeting from Prat Kumar. He was extremely angry with me and publicly humiliated me and went to the extent of saying that I need not take responsibility for the Madhepura tender RFQ that was being prepared.[14] He insisted that the only mistake in 2009 concerned the Power of Attorney. I even received a warning call from Arvind Subramanium, the Human Resources Manager. Prat Kumar continued with targeting me the next day (14 May 2010), and I asked him why he was being so hostile. I offered to quit if he was that unhappy with my work. Prat’s hostility continued on Monday and on Tuesday (17 and 18 May 2010) when he tried to blame me for a mistake that I was not responsible for. The harassment, targeting and retaliation that started with my finding out about the 2009 mistake and my mentioning it to Gaurav Negi, continued thereafter throughout my time at GE for this and other reasons.[15]

1. Once I raised a formal concern that I was being targeted for finding out about the 2009 mistake among other reasons, GE attempted to deal with my complaint by initiating a fixed/ rigged inquiry/ investigation where everything I shared was leaked to the persons I had complained against. I objected to this rigged inquiry/ investigation. I reached out for help to Mr. Denniston and the GE Corporate Ombudsperson. Instead of being provided help or an opportunity to be heard, I was immediately pushed out in violation of whistleblower protection laws. My contract was terminated in a humiliating fashion. No explanation or reason was provided. Mr. Denniston failed to let me know that he, Mr. Immelt and Mr. John Rice themselves had a conflict of interest in the matter.

1. Given all of the above, I reject your finding that I could not have been targeted for this fraud. The enormity of the complaint and the fact that the top most management of GE would be accountable for this fraud, demonstrates exactly why I was targeted.

Thank you,

Seema Sapra

Annexure A

Railways may scrap diesel loco bid

BS Reporter / New Delhi February 23, 2009, 0:41 IST

Railway Board to decide on the matter.

Within a week of floating tenders for setting up two locomotive manufacturing joint venture (JV) plants, one each for diesel and electric locomotives, the railways are likely to go for it alone.

While the railways got no bid for the electric locomotive manufacturing unit, they got one from General Electric (GE) of the US, for the diesel locomotive plant.

The bidding parameter for both the plants is the price at which the loco would be supplied in the first year, after which the prices are to fall according to a pre-specified formula in the bid documents.

The diesel plant will produce 1,000 locomotives (in the 4,500 HP and 6,000 HP range) over 10 years and the winner will also get a repair and maintenance contract for these locos for another 15 years; the electric plant is to produce 800 locomotives (of 12,000 HP range).

A decision on whether the railways should go ahead on their own will be taken by the Railway Board later this week. Two years ago, when the railways first mooted the proposal to set up locomotive manufacturing facilities, they wanted to do it alone. But they were persuaded to go the public-private partnership (PPP) route and look for JV partners instead, since it would lower costs and also ensure better quality.

So, if this decision is taken, it will represent a complete U-turn in the railways’ philosophy over the past few years.

The ostensible reason why a section of the railways is in favour of manufacturing diesel locomotives on their own is that since there was only one bidder, there is no way of knowing if the price quoted is correct.

Electro Motive Diesel (EMD), the only other manufacturer of diesel locos in the world, asked for some more time in view of the global financial crisis.

This is also believed to be the reason why none of the three big global manufacturers of electric locos bid. Also, according to sources in the railways, there also appears to be some technical mistake in the GE bid.

When this was pointed out, however, the company said it was a mathematical error and has agreed, in writing, to accept that the price of its locomotives be lowered by the extent of the error — for all the locos. This adds up to around Rs 300 crore over the life of the project.

Prior to the bid, the railways set up an internal committee to examine what would be the cost if the plant was to be set up on its own.

Sources say the GE bid for diesel engines is below the cost arrived at by this committee. The Railway Board will now take a call based on this. The other option, apart from producing the locos on its own, is to import them for the next year and then call for new bids when global financial conditions improve.

---

[1]It might also raise questions about insider-trading.

[2] That your misrepresentation of my complaint is intentional and deliberate is evident because when I spoke with Mr. Eglash on the phone on 30 November, 2010, he specifically mentioned that he had been told my initial complaint was that Prat Kumar had misled senior management. I clarified to Mr Eglash that since my initial reaction, I had spoken with Jamie Winget and Himali Arora and had conducted extensive research, and I was now of the view that a securities fraud was committed. This elaboration of my complaint is reflected in many emails including my email dated 20 September 2010 to Mr. Brackett Denniston. I do not have a copy of my emails to Mr. Immelt, Mr. Denniston and the GE Corporate Ombudsperson that I sent on 9/10 September 2010 but I believe I mentioned and discussed the issue of a securities fraud in that email.

[3] GE was eventually compelled to cut its dividend. It also lost its credit rating.

[4] In a webcast to investors on 10 February 2009, Mr John Rice, GE Vice President, GE Technology Infrastructure discussed the $6 billion Indian Rail tender and JV opportunity as a driver for GE Transportation’s growth in Asia. Earlier a GE Press Release dated 21 October 2008 had informed investors about this business opportunity for GE: “GE Transportation, a unit of General Electric Company (NYSE: GE) and global diesel locomotive technology leader, and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) joined forces to compete for a 1,000 diesel locomotive tender issued by Indian Railways. GE was recently shortlisted by the Indian Railways to compete for this tender. GE and BHEL along with Indian Railways intend to form a Joint Venture company for this purpose.” GE issued a statement on 16 February 2009, the day it submitted its bid. Livemint in a report dated 16 February 2009 included this statement: “Confirming that GE had submitted a price bid, a GE spokesperson said, “We submitted what we consider a competitive bid for the diesel locomotive tender Indian Railways issued in September 2008… We remain cautiously optimistic that Indian Railways will consider our bid favourably. Next steps in the bidding process will be determined by Indian Railways and the government, we eagerly await their decision.”

[5] For example, when GE Transportation announced that it had secured an order to supply 115 locomotives on 24 September 2010, GE shares rose 30 cents.

[6] I was told this when I joined GE. All GE employees I spoke with (until I raised my concerns) stated this.

[7] Karan Bhatia and John Rice were addressed on this email along with others.

[8] Mr. Ronen Sen was at that time the Indian Ambassador to the United States. Dr. Ahluwalia is the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India.

[9] I mentioned this news report to Deepak Adlakha and he told me to be careful of what I said in my complaint because I could not be sure what the Government’s reason for rejecting GE’s bid was.

[10] Even the Hindu Business Line report dated 25 February 2009 you mention contained conflicting information from different sources. It stated: “While the Ministry’s official position remains that there was a ‘technical snag’ in the GE bid, an official source said that the Railway Minister was not comfortable taking a decision on a single bid just before the elections.”

[11] These misrepresentations suggested that GE had been awarded or would be awarded the bid; or that there was no error in GE’s bid and the single bid issue was the only concern; or that GE had corrected its mistake; or that GE received no communication from the Railways and the bid was scrapped because of the elections and because it was a single bid.

[12] Case No. 09 CIV 2566

[13] When I first searched Google for news reports in September/ October 2010, I did not find the 23 February 2009 Business Standard report. Instead I found all the later reports including those where Prat Kumar made misleading statements. However, once I mentioned the existence of these reports to GE, the Prat Kumar reports disappeared from Google search. I did of course save all the reports when I first found them.

[14] Even at that time with no knowledge of these detailed facts, I sensed that I had made a mistake in mentioning the 2009 mistake to Gaurav Negi.

[15]I intend to institute legal proceedings against Prat Kumar and GE for the harassment (including sexual harassment), retaliation and targeting that I faced at GE from him and from some others at his instance. I do not want to burden this response on the securities fraud issue with that detail.

—————————————————————————————————————-

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Subject: Message for Judge Richard J. Holwell
To: william_donald@nysd.uscourts.gov, brett_kaufman@nysd.uscourts.gov, usanys.crcomp@usdoj.gov, NDwebmail@state.gov, askdoj@usdoj.gov
Cc: "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, kdonovan-maher@bermandevalerio.com, greg.danilow@weil.com, rcohen@lowey.com, fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov, ffetf@usdoj.gov, newhaven@ic.fbi.gov, ny1@ic.fbi.gov, usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov, CleggD1@state.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, help@sec.gov

Please bring the following information to the attention of Judge Richard J. Holwell. This is further clarification on my complaint regarding obstruction of justice and evidence tampering in connection with the GE investor law-suits.

Thank You,

Seema Sapra

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:10 PM
Subject: Further response to Mr. Alex Dimitrief’s letter dated February 3, 2011
To: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Cc: jeffrey.immelt@ge.com, john.rice@ge.com, john.flannery@ge.com, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, james.winget@ge.com, greg.danilow@weil.com

Mr. Alex Dimitrief,

I write in connection with your letter dated February 3, 2011. I have already sent several responses, however because I was being drugged and poisoned since July 2010 and all of last year as well, I was not able to point out some readily apparent falsehoods in your communication.

You state that I was engaged as Consultant. This is false. My contract stated otherwise and the work profile I filled was that of Legal Counsel. I was hired as Legal Counsel but on a contract for eleven months. The internal website of the GE Transportation legal team had a pdf organizational chart with pictures and names of the attorneys in Ms. Tara Plimpton’s team. (Ms. Tara Plimpton was the General Counsel for GE Transportation from 2008 till January 2012). When I joined GE in April 2010 there was a place on that chart for the India Legal Counsel. In August 2010, I downloaded that chart and my name was printed on that chart as the Legal Counsel for India for GE Transportation.

I limit this communication mostly to the issue surrounding my complaint of me being misled by GE executives about the reason why GE did not win the Locomotives tender in February 2009. I later understood that GE executives were actually covering up facts and tampering with evidence about these events of February 2009 to avoid these facts from emerging in connection with the GE investor lawsuits filed after February 2009. Please read my comments below in the light of my previous communication on this matter with you and other GE attorneys, external counsel and GE executives.

As already stated before in other communications, my initial complaint made to Ms. Tara Plimpton in August 2010 when I was still at GE, was that Pratyush Kumar and Ashfaq Nainar might have misled GE Officers by concealing the mistake that GE made in its price-bid on February 16, 2009. You go on to state in your letter essentially that GE Officers including Mr. Immelt, Mr. John Rice and Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli all knew about this mistake and that there was a thorough post-mortem review undertaken by GE and therefore the fact of the mistake could not have been concealed.

I have stated that I was told by Pratyush Kumar and others in the Delhi office of GE Transportation and by GE executives from GE Transportation’s Erie office, who I spoke with and exchanged emails with, that GE did not get the bid only because it was a single bidder. I was told by Pratyush Kumar on one occasion in the presence of other GE staff that GE’s bid in 2009 was perfect and on another occasion that the only problem with GE’s bid in 2009 was a printing error in the Power of Attorney. It is clear that Pratyush Kumar was concealing the fact of the mistake in the price-bid from me.

I found out about this mistake accidentally from an Indian Railways official. This led to repercussions. Ten days later, I mentioned the fact of this mistake to another colleague. This started a three-month long process of harassment and targeting directed at me by the GE Transportation India staff which seemed aimed at making me leave my job.

When I first stated in August 2010 that I was being targeted because of my having found out about this mistake, I asked Ms. Tara Plimpton if she knew about this mistake and her reply was “Not that I can remember”.

I spoke with Mr. James Winger, Senior Counsel at GE Transportation in Erie who was working on this deal about this mistake. He admitted knowledge about the mistake and told me the information had filtered down. He also stated that a communication from the Indian Railways had been suppressed.

Ms. Tara Plimpton then started a compliance investigation/ inquiry by nominating Mr. Anil Chaddha, an attorney at GE Transportation based in Erie to gather information from me. This inquiry commenced before I contacted Mr. Brackett Denniston or the GE Corporate ombudsperson.

If the fact of the mistake was common knowledge and was the subject of a post-mortem as you claim and was not being suppressed, then why would Ms. Tara Plimpton tell me that she could not remember if there had been a mistake. Further and more importantly why would Ms. Plimpton appoint a GE attorney to investigate my complaint. All Ms. Plimpton had to do was to tell me that she and other GE executives in Erie and Fairfield were aware of the fact of this mistake and that I could not have been harassed for finding out about it. I add that if this was the mere substance of my complaint on this issue, why would Mr. Brackett Denniston ask you and Mr. Eglash to investigate this complaint, why would GE engage the services of Gibson Dunn to investigate a complaint that had no initial substance in the first place. All Mr. Denniston had to tell me was that he and others were already aware of the fact of this mistake.

After Ms, Plimpton nominated Mr. Anil Chaddha to hear me on my complaint, I spoke to Ms. Himali Arora, the then CFO for GE Transportation in India and she told me everyone knew about the mistake including Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli who was present in New Delhi at the relevant time in February 2009.

Therefore by the time I realised that Mr. Anil Chaddha and Ms. Tara Plimpton were trying to cover up my complaint, I already knew that everybody knew about the mistake.

I thereafter emailed Mr. Brackett Denniston and the GE Corporate Ombudsperson and I asked them to intervene. I sent these emails while I was still at GE and therefore used my GE email account and GE laptop. I do not have a copy of this email but I recall writing that there appeared to be a possible securities fraud here. I received replies from Mr. Brackett Denniston, Mr. Alex Dimitrief and from Mr. Mark Nordstorm that my complaint would be investigated. Instead I was immediately summarily fired on September 20, 2010. I then contacted Mr. Denniston on email the same day on bringing to his notice that I had been fired and that whistle-blower laws had been violated. I quote from this email sent by me to Mr. Denniston on September 20, 2012:

“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.”

This email that I sent on September 20, 2010 was also sent to Ms. Tara Plimpton and Mr. Deepak Adlakha with a copy marked to Mr. David Lobo.

Your letter dated February 3, 2011 therefore misrepresents my complaint on this matter. I have already described in earlier communications the interactions that I had later on with Mr. Jeffrey Eglash and Mr. John Chesley during their alleged investigation.

I have also pointed out that GE’s bid had already been finally rejected by the Indian Railways before February 24, 2009. GE would ordinarily have received a written communication from the Indian Railways rejecting GE’s bid and providing reasons there-for. Was this the letter Mr. James Winget told me was suppressed?

The email that Mr. Jeffrey Eglash showed me (sent from Mr. Brett BeGole to Mr. John Rice and Mr. Karan Bhatia) was dated February 24, 2009.

Mr. Amit Kumar, an attorney from the Indian law-firm Amarchand Mangaldas was brought in to provide legal advice on this matter in 2009.

I have provided news reports from 2009 (dating March 2009 and thereafter) where Mr. Pratyush Kumar gave press interviews stating that the Indian Railways cancelled the tender without sending any communication to GE and suggesting that GE was left guessing at the reasons for this action. Why was Mr. Pratyush Kumar making these false statements? Since it is clear that he was not trying to mislead GE executives and Officers, who was Mr. Pratyush Kumar trying to mislead? What was the purpose of these false statements to the Press?

The only inference that can be drawn is that these Press interviews by Mr. Pratyush Kumar were a response to the investor law-suits that were filed against GE after March 2009. All these facts and evidence tie in with my complaint (which I made for the first time in an email sent to Mr. F. Joseph Warin from Gibson Dunn in April 2011, more than two months after your letter dated February 3, 2011) that GE Executives and Officers were tampering with evidence about the events surrounding this tender from February 2009 and the only reason to do so would be the GE investor law-suits that included February 2009 in their class-period.

I have emailed you that I am being drugged, poisoned and gassed because of the above and other compliance violation complaints that I made about General Electric.

Seema Sapra

——————————————————————————————————————

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Subject: termination of my contract
To: "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>, deepak.adlakha@ge.com, brackett.denniston@ge.com
Cc: david.lobo@ge.com

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

brackett.denniston@ge.com

————————————————————————————————————

Copies of some correspondence on my complaint against General Electric on the securities fraud issue

————————————————————————————–

Email sent to Mr. Jeffrey Eglash by me on December 3, 2010 (the attachments with the news reports and GE investor update are also extracted below:

———- 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

Attachment 1 – GE Press Release

21 October 2008

GE Transportation and BHEL Team-up in Pursuit of 1,000 Locomotive Tender for Indian Railways

Erie, Penn. and New Delhi, India (Oct. 21, 2008) - GE Transportation, a unit of General Electric Company (NYSE: GE) and global diesel locomotive technology leader, and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) joined forces to compete for a 1,000 diesel locomotive tender issued by Indian Railways. GE was recently shortlisted by the Indian Railways to compete for this tender. GE and BHEL along with Indian Railways intend to form a Joint Venture company for this purpose.

GE Transportation plans to supply diesel locomotives based on the company’s global Evolution® Series locomotive platform. The Evolution® Series locomotive is the most technologically advanced, fuel-efficient and low emissions locomotive to-date. With more than 2,800 units in use today, the Evolution Series locomotive is one of GE Transportation’s best-selling products worldwide. These locomotives deliver 5% higher fuel efficiency and a 40% reduction in emissions over previous locomotives. GE’s locomotive reduces fuel consumption by approx. 300,000 gallons, or more than 1,1 million liters, over the life of the locomotive.

The Evolution Series locomotive serves as one of GE’s first products to be certified as part of its “Ecomagination” initiative. Ecomagination is a company wide commitment to developing technology designed to help customers satisfy environmental challenges, to maximize performance and reduce cost.

Should it win the tender, GE is prepared to bring the most advanced rail technology to India. GE’s locomotives for India have been designed in the John F. Welch Technology Center in Bangalore, India, and will have a peak output of 6,000 GHP delivering 40% more power at 30% less weight than the locomotives of the same series currently utilized in North America. These locomotives will be up to 5% more fuel-efficient and generate 84% fewer particulate emissions compared to fleets currently in use.

“We are excited about the prospect of expanding our relationship with Indian Railways and to partner with BHEL, one of the leading technology companies in India,” said Lorenzo Simonelli, President and CEO of GE Transportation. “BHEL’s know-how, customer centricity and local operations will help us deliver our product to Indian Railways in a timely and cost-effective manner.”

“GE is known to build the world’s most reliable and fuel-efficient diesel locomotives to-date,” said K. Ravi Kumar, Chairman and Managing Director of BHEL. “We are proud to expand our successful association with one of the most respected companies in the world to bring best-in-class locomotive technology to our long-time customer, Indian Railways.”

For more than 45 years, BHEL has been a leading supplier of propulsion systems and locomotives to Indian Railways. BHEL manufactured approximately 160 electric locomotives and supplied over 4,000 sets of electric propulsion systems to Diesel Locomotive Works.

GE Transportation has established itself as a global technology leader. With close to 4,000 researchers and engineers, GE’s John F. Welch Technology Centre in Bangalore, India, is the company’s first and largest integrated, multidisciplinary Research and Development Center outside of the United States. GE Transportation maintains a specialized technology team located at the Centre providing advanced engineering design solutions for existing and next generation locomotive platforms in India and around the globe. The team works closely with scientists and engineers from GE’s Global Research Center, who are also located at the Centre. Technologists from Global Research provide core technology expertise in electric motors, combustion processes and sophisticated systems modeling to help optimize the design of locomotives for breakthrough power, fuel and emissions performance.

GE Transportation already applied Evolution Series technology to serve its global base of rail customers. On Sept. 1, 2008, GE Transportation delivered the first of three hundred 6,000 GHP China Mainline locomotives to the Ministry of Railways P.R. China. Kazakhstan Temir Zholy (KTZ), Kazakhstan’s state-owned national railway company, ordered 310 Evolution-based locomotives in 2006. Rio Tinto Iron Ore received forty heavy haul Evolution Series locomotives to support its mining operations in Australia’s Pilbara region in 2008. In addition, GE Transportation introduced its new PowerHaul™ engine and locomotive for the UK and European markets in October 2008.

About GE Transportation

Established more than 100 years ago, GE Transportation, a unit of General Electric Company (NYSE: GE), is a global technology leader and supplier to the railroad, marine, drilling, mining and wind industries. GE provides freight and passenger locomotives, railway signaling and communications systems, information technology solutions, marine engines, motorized drive systems for mining trucks and drills, high-quality replacement parts and value added services. With sales in excess of $4.5 billion, GE Transportation is headquartered in Erie, Pennsylvania, and employs approximately 10,000 employees worldwide. For more information visit www.getransportation.com

About BHEL

Established over 40 years back, BHEL is the largest engineering and manufacturing enterprise in India and caters to core sectors of the Indian economy, viz. power generation and transmission, industry, renewable energy, defense and transportation. BHEL is the single largest partner to the Indian Railways over the past four decades in the supply of propulsion systems to meet Indian Railways production requirement of diesel locomotive, electric locomotive and EMU coaches. BHEL is the only producer in the country for main line locomotives for the Indian Railways. The overall turnover of BHEL is $5.5 billion and an employee strength of 40,000 with about 10,000 engineers. For more information visit www.bhel.com.

PRESS CONTACTS

Stephan Koller
GE Transportation, Communications Manager
+1 814 875 3457
+1 814 431 3150(mobile)
stephan.koller@ge.com

Attachment 2 – New reports sent to GE on December 3, 2010

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 | Updated 12.54PM IST

2 Oct, 2009, 07.22AM IST, Priyanka Sangani,ET Bureau

GE plans to turn India gradually into a sourcing base

GE may have shelved its plans of garnering $8 billion in revenues from India by 2010 thanks to the slowdown, but by no means is the infrastructure and energy major going slow on its plans for the country. At GE Day, its annual two-day jamboree in Hyderabad, the company announced that it would be setting up a wind turbine manufacturing plant in South India by mid next year. For a company that has a presence in manufacturing primarily through local partners, this is a big step forward. Tejpreet Chopra, president and CEO, GE India, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh says that while initially the company would be working with supply chain partners globally and assembling the units in India, it would, over time, develop a local supply chain and indigenise production.
Quiz Chopra on the company’s prospects in India and he hands you a line one suspects he uses rather often : “What this country really needs – apart from education – is bijli, paani and healthcare . And GE is among the largest players globally in all three segments.” GE plans to script its growth primarily in healthcare , energy and infrastructure through a clear three-pronged strategic approach. This will be a mix of localisation of products and services to adapt them to local needs, partnerships such as the existing ones with BHEL for gas turbines and SBI for credit cards, and public-private partnerships (PPP) with the state on defence and infrastructure projects.
Pratyush Kumar, president & CEO, GE Infrastructure, India, the biggest contributor to the company’s $2.6 billion revenues last year, says that while GE is the largest infrastructure technology supplier in the world, it is still in the process of getting to where it would want to be in India. A significant part of this, he says, will come through PPP. One such major project is with the Indian railways where GE would be setting up a locomotive factory in Bihar which would bring in cutting edge technology as well as create thousands jobs in the region. “The mandate is to produce 1000 diesel and 800 electric locomotives over 10 years. The project had been put on hold earlier this year because of the elections, but we are keen to revive it,” says Kumar.
From the time GE first did business with India in 1903, the company has slowly moved up the value chain, from outsourcing with GECIS (now Genpact) in 1998 to setting up its largest technology research centre outside of the United States in Bangalore the next year. Alongside, it has grown its business through a slew of partnerships with homegrown biggies like L&T , Wipro and SBI. Going ahead too, these collaborations will contribute significantly to the company’s growth in India, says Chopra. Now, GE also has plans of gradually turning India into a sourcing base, starting with the wind turbines once the plant is running at full capacity, followed by other parts like blades, towers and gearboxes.

The company got another shot in the arm when it got a VEU (validated end user agreement) from the US government which gives it permission to sell advanced defence technology to specific Indian institutions . “We have done a lot of work in the defence and security space in the United States which we will now be able to sell in India,” says Chopra.
And with the India-US nuclear deal finally going through, GE expects to be doing a fair amount of work on nuclear energy by next year as well. Given the company’s dedication to going green, nuclear is going to be one of the big focus areas for GE. So far though, the company has a negligible presence in this renewable energy space, something that it will be looking to change with this latest announcement . “The renewables space in India has only just taken off in the last few years, but now, with the government actively taking steps to promote it, we do expect to be present in it in a larger way,” says Kishore Jayaraman, president & CEO, GE Energy India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka.

The energy business is also a significant area of focus at the John F Welch Technology Centre, with 1700 of the 5500 scientists there working exclusively on this business. “What we do here is principally develop technology and innovation to support the energy business which can be taken to other markets as well. We want to develop products here with local contribution and grow them globally,” says Jayaraman.

Meanwhile, the company has been doing a lot of local innovative projects locally like running a biogas plant solely on cowdung in Ludhiana , something Chopra says they could replicate in other parts of the country as well provided certain conditions are met. The third arm, healthcare, is perhaps where the most innovation has happened out of Bangalore. Under the company’s healthymagination venture, GE has earmarked $6 billion globally to come up with affordable healthcare solutions for the developing areas of the world. One such, a portable lowcost ECG machine made in Bangalore has managed to bring the cost of an ECG down from Rs 1000 to Rs 50.
Little wonder then, that Chopra and his team remain extremely upbeat about India. And the reason he says is simple: “What we (GE) do for a living in this country is what this country needs.”

Top of Form Bottom of Form

Copyright© 2010 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.

Your Reason has been Submitted to the admin.

Bottom of Form

GE may have shelved its plans of garnering $8 billion in revenues from India by 2010 thanks to the slowdown, but by no means is the infrastructure and energy major going slow on its plans for the country.

Railways: Right on track

Shalini S. Dagar

April 2, 2009

Stoicism and patience are two virtues that infrastructure investors need in plenty. Pratyush Kumar, President and CEO, GE Infrastructure India, is no exception. In February, the government rejected GE Infrastructure’s financial bid to be a 51 per cent partner in the Rs 2,000-crore diesel locomotive factory in Bihar. The reason: GE was the only bidder!
And, within 18 days, the Union Cabinet changed its mind on the ownership pattern: instead of the government holding a 26 per cent stake, the factory would be fully owned by it.
Sitting in his office in central Delhi, across the Rail Bhawan, Kumar, though disappointed, is determined to be there whatever the opportunity, whenever. “We will not walk away from this,” he says, all the while hoping that a better decision will be arrived at. At the Rail Bhawan, senior railway officials admit that it is difficult for the government to take such decisions close to the general elections.
“We recognise that this opportunity will still be there after the elections because the fundamental need for locomotives has not gone away,” says GE’s Kumar. Sure, that is true for many of the other opportunities in the rail sector.
“The New Delhi Railway station modernisation is another missed opportunity. It was delayed for rather inane reasons—one of them being cross-ownership, which was causing discomfort to the bidders. Now it will take another 8-9 months to bid it out again,” says a high-ranking Railway Ministry official.
These two stalled projects were clear and present opportunities and had held out hope for public-private partnership in the Railways on a really big scale. But there are plenty of others waiting to be grabbed. According to industry estimates, opportunities in construction and development projects, adding up to nearly Rs 1,60,000 crore, would be available over the next few years.
Reason: Movement of goods across India is an expensive proposition. The cost of the supply chain in India is estimated to be around 13 per cent of GDP, as compared to 9 per cent of GDP in developed nations. That translates into a $45-50 billion logistics opportunity straight away. And rail freight has an advantage over road freight not just in terms of cost and ease of operations, but in terms of environment friendliness, too.
In line with this logic, and aided by the Budget surpluses of the last few years, several big-ticket item of investments were proposed by the Railway Ministry. A major one being the dedicated rail freight corridor connecting the northern regions to the ports on the east and west coast of India.
A special purpose vehicle Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India (DFCCI) was formed two years ago to plan, mobilise resources and execute the project. This is likely to throw up several opportunities to bid for turnkey projects for the private sector. V.K. Kaul, Managing Director, DFCCI, says: “Loan financing from the Japanese investors and World Bank will be finalised shortly. And the freight corridor will come up in 5-6 years after that.” The corporation has sought some 11,000 hectares of land for the corridor.
Railway Ministry officials say land is not a problem. “We need to acquire very little land for the freight corridor. We will need to acquire only in towns or where it has been encroached, otherwise we have space for four lines from Delhi to Mumbai,” says Sudhir Kumar, Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Railway Minister. The same is the case with the Eastern Corridor where work was initiated recently. Of the recently bid out contracts, the cost of earthworks alone adds up to Rs 500 crore, says Railways’ Kumar.
The freight corridors will spawn huge logistics and warehousing infrastructure alongside. Bids invited by the Indian Railways for multi-modal logistics parks received enthusiastic response from logistics players. Industry watchers peg the opportunity at Rs 20,000 crore.
Fitting into this piece of action will be the private container trains, which were introduced a few years ago. The current downturn in traffic volumes has added to their woes.
Many of them had blindly replicated the business model of Container Corporation of India. Ajay S. Mittal, Chairman & Managing Director, Arshiya International, a logistics company, admits that many players did not get things right. “There has to be an equal investment in rakes, containers and associated infrastructure. Private players will certainly rectify these issues now,” he adds. Much of that will mean more investments.
Arshiya, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Arshiya Rail Infrastructure, started its rail operations in February. It plans 30 rakes for Vedanta Aluminium with custom-built containers. “This will not only help in lowering Vedanta’s operational costs, but also reduce damage to the cargo (aluminium powder and ingots). The end-to-end solution will lead to direct and indirect savings of around 20 per cent in the cost of the supply chain,” says Mittal. The BSE mid-cap company is planning Rs 6,000 crore of investments in sidings, rakes and free trade warehousing zones over the next six years. One of the earliest proposed warehousing zones will be at Khurja—where the two freight corridors will meet.
Fresh investments apart, the existing rail network will also need continuous modernisation to make it perform. The good thing is that money and the inclination are not missing, both in the state-run Railways and the private companies. As GE’s Kumar says, there is no reason to walk away from building infrastructure in India.

---

URL for this article :

http://businesstoday.intoday.in /content_mail.php?option=com_content&name=print&id= 10735

@ Copyright 2008 India Today Group.

Tue Sep 21, 2010

12:53 PM IST

GE Infra awaiting revival of bids for setting up locomotive unit

HYDERABAD, September 18, 2009

M. Rajeev

GE Infrastructure India, the infrastructure arm of global leader GE, is anxiously awaiting the Central Government’s decision to recall bids for setting up a diesel locomotive manufacturing unit in association with Indian Railways.

GE Transport, part of GE’s infrastructure operations, was the sole bidder for the project, to be located in Bihar at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,000 crore, but the project was dropped “without any communication to us,” GE Infrastructure President and CEO Pratyush Kumar said. The company is hopeful that the new Railway Minister takes interest in the project with multiple benefits and revive it.

Speaking to The Hindu here on Wednesday, Mr. Pratyush Kumar felt that the Government was “not comfortable” in awarding the project before the elections as only one bid was received. But, it is natural as it required a company of GE’s scale of operations to pull it off,” he said.

Eyes aviation sector

The company was looking at the aviation sector and was in touch with the Ministry of Defence which invited bids for 126 multi-combat medium range aircraft. Meanwhile, General Electric will be setting up its first wind turbine manufacturing plant in India.

The diversified $183 billion conglomerate’s energy arm, GE Energy, will be setting up the Indian plant in South India, Tejpreet S. Chopra, President and CEO of GE India, said.

Date:25/09/2009 URL: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/09/25/stories/2009092551250600.htm

---

GE Cap to provide new tech platform for credit cards

Amit Mitra

Hyderabad Sept. 24 GE Capital, which is partnering with State Bank of India in the SBI Card business in India, is bringing in new technologies from its parent company, the $183-billion General Electric conglomerate.

The new technology provides better risk management and monitoring of card holders. “Some technologies have already been incorporated in the joint venture and newer ones are in the process of being injected into the business,” Mr Anish Shah, President and Chief Executive Officer of GE Capital, told Business Line.

“We may consider sharing the technology with other cards that are part of the SBI Card portfolio. Apart from servicing SBI Card customers, GE Capital Business Process Management Services also services customers of several third-party loyalty programmes in the country, including those of the Tata Group and the Indian Railways,” he said.

GE Capital, which is in the process of exiting from its unsecured loans business, is planning to step up its commercial lending operations, including corporate debt. “We are looking at shoring up our commercial lending in sectors such as infrastructure, aviation, energy and healthcare. We also need to build scale in terms of our mortgage lending,” Mr Shah said. In the home financing segment, the company has an exposure of Rs 1,700 crore and is looking for ways to add value.

GE Infrastructure

GE Infrastructure India, another arm of the GE group, will be participating in the re-bidding process for setting up the proposed Rs 2,000 crore diesel locomotive manufacturing unit in Bihar in association with the Indian Railways.

Last time, when bids were called for the project, GE Infrastructure was the sole bidder, but subsequently the bid was cancelled by the Railways.

“This time we are anticipating competition as our price is already on the street. But we are preparing for it,” Mr Pratyush Kumar, CEO of GE Infrastructure, said.

© Copyright 2000 – 2009 The Hindu Business Line

Business » Industry

Published: September 18, 2009 00:33 IST | Updated: September 18, 2009 00:33 IST HYDERABAD, September 18, 2009

GE Infra awaiting revival of bids for setting up locomotive unit

M. Rajeev

GE Infrastructure India, the infrastructure arm of global leader GE, is anxiously awaiting the Central Government’s decision to recall bids for setting up a diesel locomotive manufacturing unit in association with Indian Railways.

GE Transport, part of GE’s infrastructure operations, was the sole bidder for the project, to be located in Bihar at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,000 crore, but the project was dropped “without any communication to us,” GE Infrastructure President and CEO Pratyush Kumar said. The company is hopeful that the new Railway Minister takes interest in the project with multiple benefits and revive it.

Speaking to The Hindu here on Wednesday, Mr. Pratyush Kumar felt that the Government was “not comfortable” in awarding the project before the elections as only one bid was received. But, it is natural as it required a company of GE’s scale of operations to pull it off,” he said.

Eyes aviation sector

The company was looking at the aviation sector and was in touch with the Ministry of Defence which invited bids for 126 multi-combat medium range aircraft. Meanwhile, General Electric will be setting up its first wind turbine manufacturing plant in India.

The diversified $183 billion conglomerate’s energy arm, GE Energy, will be setting up the Indian plant in South India, Tejpreet S. Chopra, President and CEO of GE India, said.

Printable version | Sep 21, 2010 1:08:12 PM | http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/article21779.ece

© The Hindu

Published on mydigitalfc.com (http://www.mydigitalfc.com)

---

Bhel, GE to seek nod for locomotive unit in Bihar

By :Chaganti Sarita & Parul Chhaparia

Apr 14 2009

The country’s largest engineering and manufacturing company, Bharat Heavy Electrical (Bhel), along with the US-based General Electric, is planning to seek the railway ministry’s approval for setting up a locomotive factory in Bihar.
“We see a big opportunity in Indian Railways’ scrapping the bidding for locomotives supply contract in Bihar. This could be a big risk. The company has expressed its willingness to the government to take a financial risk by setting up a locomotives factory on its own,” K Ravikumar, chairman and managing director of Bhel told Financial Chronicle.
Indian Railways had planned to set up two locomotive factories and one coach factory in Bihar on the public private partnership (PPP) basis. However, the plans were abandoned in February as the railways received only one bid for each project. The Bhel-GE consortium was the sole bidder for the railways’ diesel locomotive plant in Marhowra, Bihar. The consortium is expecting to sign a formal agreement with the railways in the second half of 2009.
Railway ministry officials, however, denied any move to go for a private company participation in the project. “As of now, there is no plan to get back to the PPP model or get it wholly developed by the private company. It is not possible, at least till the elections are over and the new government is in. If the new government wants to revisit the project, it can opt for private investment again,” said a senior ministry official on condition
of anonymity.
The railways is now planning to turn the factories into fully-owed departmental production units. The present plan may hit the finance hurdle because of significant increase in the project cost.
The railway official said that it was in the
best interests of the railways to go for private partnership. “The ministry will require Rs 4,800 crore to set up three factories on its own. If the private players participate, the railways with the 26 per cent stake will have to shell out only Rs 300 crore,” the official said.
The railways is still exploring options to bring in private investments for other work related to the project.

© 2010 Financial Chronicle, All rights reserved

Source URL: http://www.mydigitalfc.com/companies/bhel-ge-seek-nod-locomotive-unit-bihar-786

GE, Siemens in race for electric locomotive unit

Sharmistha Mukherjee / New Delhi August 11, 2010, 1:17 IST

Leading manufacturers of railway rolling stock like GE, Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier have been shortlisted for setting up a Rs 1,960-crore electric locomotive manufacturing unit at Madhepura in Bihar.

The facility, to come up on the public-private-partnership (PPP) mode, will roll out 120 IGBT (insulated gate bipolar transistor) electric locos of 12,000 horse power every year.

“GE, Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier have been selected for the first stage of bidding to set up the factory at Madhepura. We expect the project to be awarded by the end of the year,” said a senior GE executive on condition of anonymity.

Railway officials said efforts were on to expedite the bidding process so that the unit could become operational in three years.

At the same time, they are considering applications for setting up a diesel locomotive manufacturing unit at Marhowrah, also in Bihar’s Chhapra district. The railway ministry expects the Rs 2,720-crore unit will manufacture 130 diesel locomotives every year.

The overall investment envisaged for setting up both the facilities and manufacturing rolling stock units at Madhepura and Marhowrah is estimated to be Rs 29,000 crore. The ministry would procure 1,000 units each of electric and diesel locomotives from the two facilities over an eight-year period.

The railways had floated tenders for setting up both the facilities in April 2008. On receiving one non-compliant bid each for both the units in February 2009, the ministry had resolved to establish the factories as departmental production units.

The four companies were shortlisted even that time for the electric loco unit. GE and US-based EMD were shortlisted for the diesel loco plant, though GE was the only one to put in the final bid. The private sector entities entrusted to set up the units would be responsible for maintaining the locomotives for a period of 25 years.

The factory at Marhowrah was approved in 2006 and that at Madhepura in 2007.

A senior official at the ministry informed, “Due to the slowdown last year, we had received feeble response from potential bidders. Initially, the projects were considered to be set up as production units of the railways. Consequently, Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee gave a go-ahead to put the units on the PPP basis.”

Both the factories were envisaged for commissioning during the current five-year Plan period (2007-12). They are now slated for commissioning by 2013.

Low budgetary allocations for the projects have raised concern from industry experts. Of the Rs 2,720 crore required for setting up the Marhowrah factory, Rs 29 crore — just over one per cent — has been provided till date. Another Rs 667 crore is to be raised from private sector entities. The remaining resources have to be provided by the ministry.

Similarly for the Madhepura unit. Of the total requirement of Rs 1,960 crore, Rs 63 crore — about 3 per cent — has been made available by the ministry, while Rs 667 crore is to be raised on PPP basis.

Bottom of Form

Bhupesh Bhandari: GE waits for the railway signal

Bhupesh Bhandari / New Delhi May 22, 2009, 0:52 IST

General Electric lobbied hard in favour of the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal. And it agreed to stick to Satyam when the company was in serious danger of imploding. Large customers were ready to junk the scam-tainted provider of software services. Alarmed, the government-appointed board soon after it took charge started calling up large customers not to cancel the work given to Satyam.

It would be unreasonable on GE’s part to expect anything in return in a democratic setup. There is without doubt self-interest involved in both Satyam and the nuclear deal. Under its new owner, Tech Mahindra, Satyam will in all probability deliver the services mandated by GE. Moving the business to a new service provider at this moment could be unwise. And the nuclear deal will mean huge orders for GE which is a key maker of nuclear power plants in the world.

Still, GE has an axe to grind. Its proposal to set up a diesel locomotive plant at Marora in the Saran district of Bihar is stuck. In February, the Railways had invited bids for the project and GE was the sole bidder. EMD Locomotive Technologies, which was also in the fray, opted out of the race. On the ground that it might cause a political scandal just before the general elections, the Railways decided to scrap the bid. Instead, they suggested that they could build the plant themselves.

The plant, the Railways have said, will now be built using the “technology transfer” route. Since there are only two companies that make the kind of diesel locomotives the Railways want, there is a good possibility that GE may still get some business out of it. But there are flaws in this decision.

To begin with, the technology in such transfers remains frozen in time. The provider has little incentive to upgrade it. There are enough examples of it in the country. The plants put up with technology transfer have gone to seed in no time. Two, often the technology is not customised for local conditions. Indian Railways run their locomotives on broad gauge. So, what India needs is broader and shorter locomotives.

On its part, GE had spent millions of dollars to develop such a locomotive. It had put together a team of 80 for the project. Since it was designed specially for India, it is unlikely it can be used elsewhere in the world. So, GE’s India team will find it difficult to justify the costs if the project is lost. What will it do with the engineers on its rolls?

Whether the Railways will be able to match GE’s price is not known. The internal reserve price of the Railways was Rs 12.9 crore per locomotive. GE says its bid was below that. The bid document, prepared by the Planning Commission, said that the price would come down by three per cent every year. This advantage will be lost if the Railways put up the plant themselves.

Then there is the question of investment. The Railways have said that they will invest up to Rs 2,000 crore in the project. In GE’s scheme of things, Railways’ investments wouldn’t have added up to more than Rs 100 crore — it was a public-private partnership. The Railways will have to find additional resources to the tune of Rs 1,900 crore at a time when its freight earnings are under strain, thanks to the economic slowdown. GE has not disclosed what would have been its investment in the project. But it is safe to assume that it would have been of the same magnitude as the Railways — Rs 2,000 crore.

GE is no stranger to bureaucratic hassles. Of its four lines of business — finance, energy, technology infrastructure and the media —, at least two (energy and technology infrastructure) involve a huge interface with the government and bureaucrats. And it knows that the wheels of government turn very slowly all over the world. India is no different. Patience and perseverance hold the key in government negotiations.

Once the new Congress-led government has settled down, which shouldn’t take too long, it will need to take a final decision on the issue —whether to revive the GE proposal or go ahead with the Railways. At a time when countries the world over are falling over each other to get investments, should we let the GE proposal die? Companies now have limited budgets for investments. If not the diesel locomotive plant at Marora, GE could find some other use for the money. Will GE go to the courts? That is unlikely because it has to do business with the Indian government in the future. It has zeroed in on China and India as the engines of future growth.

Meanwhile, the story of the Dabhol power plant, owned now by Ratnagiri Gas and Power, has taken another turn. The turbines supplied by GE had stopped functioning. Much time was lost in finger-pointing and passing the buck — who was responsible for maintaining those turbines? A maintenance contract with GE is being drawn up. This will open another revenue stream for GE from India. This could be crucial at a time when global corporations are downscaling their revenue projections.

http://www.domain-b.com/companies/companies_b/Bharat_Heavy_Electricals/20090220_ge_hybrid.html

BHEL signs deal with GE for hybrid diesel-electric locomotives news

20 February 2009

Public-owned equipment giant Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd a public sector equipment manufacturer, has signed an agreement for a joint venture with US-based General Electric (GE) to manufacture diesel locomotives for Indian Railways, with an investment of Rs1,000 crore. The Railways will also hold a stake in the venture.

The facility is to be set up in Marhoura, Bihar, with an initial capacity to manufacture 120 locomotives a year. Bhel would hold a significant minority stake of 23 per cent, while GE would have the majority shareholding of 51 per cent in the joint venture. Indian Railways would take up the remaining 26 per cent.

"We have signed the agreement with GE, but the setting up of the company depends on winning the contract from railways," said BHEL chairman and managing director K Ravi Kumar, while handing over an interim dividend cheque of Rs298 crore to the central government.

GE has emerged the single bidder for assembling and supplying 1,000 dual-fuel locomotive engines to the Railways. The company is yet to receive the final order. "First, GE has to get the order for supplying the locomotives. Only then can we go ahead and form the joint venture," Kumar said.

The proposed joint venture will make 100-120 high-powered locomotive engines capable of running on both diesel and electricity at Marohwara.

GE Locomotive is designing a hybrid diesel-electric locomotive that will capture the energy dissipated during braking and store it in batteries. The energy can then be reused by the crew on demand, reducing fuel consumption by as much as 15 per cent and emissions by as much as 50 per cent compared to most freight locomotives in use today.  The energy dissipated in braking a 207-ton locomotive over the course of a year is enough to power 160 American households for that year. The hybrid locomotive will capture that energy, which can be used to produce more more horsepower and simultaneously reduce emissions and fuel use.

Kumar refused comment on whether the tender would be cancelled because it received a bid from only one company.

The new venture would also include setting up a component manufacturing facility in Bhopal, where BHEL already has a similar plant. "In this new facility, we will manufacture components that will be used in the locomotive assembly unit in Marhaura," BHEL director (industrial systems and products) B P Rao said. BHEL and GE would own equal stake in the component-making unit.

Bhel is also looking to set up a unit to manufacture electric locomotives in Madhepura, also in Bihar. "We are in talks with Siemens, Bombardier and Alstom, which are the three qualified technology providers for the railways’ proposed contract," Kumar said. This facility would also manufacture 120 locomotives a year.

The three foreign companies were shortlisted by the Indian Railways to supply electricity-run locomotive engines, but none have made their bids so far. BHEL will make such locomotives in a joint venture with the company that is awarded the tender, Kumar said.

The railway ministry has planned procuring 800 new electric locomotives of 12,000 HP each and 1,000 diesel locomotives of 4,500/6,000 HP each over a period of 10 years. These locomotives will also be maintained by the joint venture company over the next 25-26 years.

BHEL, which has an order backlog of Rs120,000 crore to be completed in 42 months, expects a revenue growth of 25 per cent to 30 per cent this fiscal. Ravi Kumar told CNBC-TV18 that "This financial year and we are expected to see a double digit growth in profits."

He said, "I would be happy if we end the year with 30 per cent, but definitely there will be between 25–30 per cent growth in sales." He sees profit growth in the range of 10–15 per cent for the financial year.

http://www.livemint.com/2009/02/23000634/Railways-seeks-CVC-cover-for.html

Railways seeks CVC cover for $6 bn tender

Only one bidder each for the two projects on offer; railways hopes CVC endorsement will pre-empt any disputes

K.P. Narayana Kumar and Rahul Chandran

New Delhi: The Indian Railways is to approach the Central Vigilance Commission, or CVC, seeking to shield itself from potential controversy before awarding to the sole bidders a $6 billion project to manufacture electric and diesel locomotives in Bihar, home state of railway minister Lalu Prasad.

The proposal to approach CVC, the government oversight body, follows attempts in the last two months by the railways to speed up closure of the project, conceived two years ago, to manufacture electric engines at Madhepura and diesel locomotives at Marora.

When the bids were opened on 16 February, only German engineering firm Siemens AG was found to have bid for the electric locomotive factory and American conglomerate General Electric Co. (GE) for the diesel one. Some companies originally in the race said they didn’t have sufficient time to prepare bids.

“Yes, we are planning to seek a clearance from the CVC, given the special circumstances,” said a top Railway Board official, who didn’t want to be named.

CVC is the apex body that oversees the functioning of government departments and agencies on vigilance issues. An endorsement by CVC that due process had been followed in awarding the tenders would provide the railways a shield in the event of a future legal dispute over the project, and help avoid project delays.

Chairman of the Railway Board S.S. Khurana declined comment on the matter.

“There have been situations earlier, too, when various ministries approached us for a clarification or sanction before completion of awarding (projects) under complicated circumstances,” said a CVC official who didn’t want to be identified. “But normally, if there are serious complaints against the tendering process, the CVC would not agree to their requests.”

A railways official said on condition of anonymity that of the two bids that were received, one was “subject to the ministry agreeing with several conditions stipulated by the winning company”. The official declined to share more details and Mint could not independently ascertain the claim.

Besides Siemens, Bombardier Transportation India Ltd, a unit of Canada’s Bombardier Inc., and France’s Alstom SA had been shortlisted for the the electric engine project. EMD Locomotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd, a subsidiary of US-based Electro-Motive Diesels Inc., had been in the running with GE for the diesel one.

The issue of propriety arose amid concern that if the railways went ahead and awarded the project to Siemens and GE, it could raise uncomfortable questions on the price quoted by the winning bidder in the absence of any competition.

The Railway Board official cited earlier said a tender committee set up by the railways will scrutinize GE’s offer and then decide whether the price it quoted was reasonable or not. “The due process will be followed,” he said.

“But when there was an open tender (and the other companies took a decision not to bid) you cannot say that the awarding will be on a nomination basis,” said this official, who declined to comment on Siemens’ bid.

The project was first approved in early 2007, following which initial bids were called in July 2008. The process gathered pace in January, thanks to consultations between the finance ministry, the Planning Commission and railways to hammer out new terms.

The entire project—first conceived as a so-called public-private partnership—was cleared on 5 February as a joint venture despite objections by finance ministry. This essentially left the firms a fortnight to evaluate terms, tie up funds and make bids in time for the 16 February deadline.

The finance ministry in January had raised several objections to clauses in the project, including the way it was structured, termination payments and the amount of performance guarantees charged from the bidders.

In inter-ministerial consultations, the finance ministry said a public-private partnership was preferable because with an equity of just Rs100 crore, there was a “distinct possibility” that the railways would have no more than a nominal presence on the board of the proposed joint venture.

The railways responded that it had approached both the finance ministry and the cabinet committee on economic affairs for advice on the public-private partnership and joint venture models. The railways said that with the bid process being at an advanced stage, it would not be possible to modify the project structure.

Meanwhile, Mint reviewed the letters EMD and Alstom had sent to the railways seeking an extension of the date of submission of financial bids.

EMD, in a letter dated 13 February, had stated that it was interested in the tender but only if all issues pertaining to the request for proposal, or price bid, were satisfactorily addressed and the opening of the bids was extended by a few months.

Similarly, Alstom, which had shown interest in the electric engine project, told the Railway Board that 16 days were not enough to submit a bid for the project. “We would like to submit that a period of 12 weeks is the bare minimum required for us to explore viable financing models for the project in order to prepare a satisfactory bid,” Alstom said in the letter.

“We do have an objection to the project being awarded to GE,” said an official with one of the firms that were bidding for a tender. However, this executive added that he was unsure whether the company would take legal action. This person neither wanted to identify himself nor his company.

“There is no harm in the railways negotiating with a company if it turns out to be the only one to submit a bid,” said Arvind Mahajan, an infrastructure expert at KPMG. “They also have the prerogative of negotiating a price with the bidder. However, the concerns raised by other companies—of not having been provided enough time—is indeed an issue.”

narayana.k@livemint.com

• Posted: Mon, Feb 16 2009. 11:55 PM IST

Two mega rail engine projects get just one bidder each

Three of the five companies in the running for the project have not bid amid concerns about the terms and the efforts of the railways in the last two months to accelerate the project announced two years ago

Rahul Chandran and K.P. Narayana Kumar

New Delhi: German engineering services company Siemens AG and US-based conglomerate General Electric Co. (GE) have emerged as the sole bidders in separate contracts for an ambitious $6 billion (Rs29,220 crore) Indian Railways project to manufacture electric and diesel locomotives.

Three of the five companies in the running for the project have not bid amid concerns about the terms and the efforts of the railways in the last two months to accelerate the project announced two years ago.

If Siemens, GE get the project, it could raise questions on the price quoted, in the absence of any competition

A government official, who did not want to be named, said that if the railways did go ahead and award the project to Siemens and GE for two factory tenders, it could raise uncomfortable questions on the price quoted by the winning bidder in the absence of any competition.

Most company officials did not want to be named because the bid process was still “live”.

On 3 February, Mint had reported that railway minister Lalu Prasad planned to fast-track proposals for this project. The railways confirmed that it had received only one bid each for the factory tenders.

The project envisages manufacturing electric locomotives at Madhepura and diesel ones at Marora, both in Bihar, the home state of Prasad. GE bid for the diesel locomotive factory; Siemens for the electric locomotive one.

The shortlisted companies that failed to submit bids were Bombardier Transportation India Ltd, a unit of Canada’s Bombardier Inc., and France’s Alstom SA for the electric locomotive project and EMD Locomotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd, a subsidiary of the US-based Electro-Motive Diesels Inc., for the diesel project.

“There is a possibility that the players didn’t see that this is going to happen in such a short period of time. Otherwise most of those players should have bid. Most of the companies were very keen on the project,” said Arvind Mahajan, an executive director with audit and consulting firm KPMG Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd.

An official handling one of the tenders said that GE would be awarded the contract since its competitors had failed to submit a bid. “This is final as the others have not submitted their bids,” he said on the condition of anonymity.

Confirming that GE had submitted a price bid, a GE spokesperson said, “We submitted what we consider a competitive bid for the diesel locomotive tender Indian Railways issued in September 2008… We remain cautiously optimistic that Indian Railways will consider our bid favourably. Next steps in the bidding process will be determined by Indian Railways and the government, we eagerly await their decision.”

Alstom and Siemens officials did not respond to emails seeking comment. A Siemens executive, who did not want to be identified, confirmed that the company had submitted a bid, but refused to share more details.

Another Railway Board official handling the electric locomotives contract said that while Siemens was the only company to submit a bid, another company had sought an extension.

Refusing to disclose the name of the company, this official said, on condition of anonymity: “There is no precedent as such of allowing others now, but there are a number of ways of taking such circumstances into consideration.”

Technically, the railways can award the projects despite receiving only one bid each, though some ministries, such as the roads ministry, have chosen to approach the cabinet to clear the awards of such projects.

An official from one of the companies participating in the electric locomotives tender said they had submitted a letter to the Railway Board putting across their “point of view” on the tender.

However, he insisted the letter was not a protest note and was only an effort to get some clarifications from the ministry.

The railways had issued revised draft request for proposals (RFPs)—essentially guidelines for final price bids—in the last week of January, with a deadline of 16 February. This was finalized when the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs cleared the project on 5 February, which some companies claim left them with very little time.

The winning bidder is decided based on the price they bid per locomotive, with all other costs, including maintenance costs, built into the price.

The projects were cleared for investment as joint ventures on 5 February despite the objections by the ministry of finance over many of the conditions laid down in the bids.

The clearances came after a round of inter-ministerial consultations to take the project forward.

The two projects—estimated at a combined $6 billion—include a procurement contract as well as a 15-year maintenance component, where the railways would pay 3.25% of the cost of the locomotive every year to the winning bidder for maintenance.

The winning bidder was also required to build a township, school and hospitals near the factory.

Railway equipment manufacturer GE Transportation, a unit of GE, will tie up with state-owned Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (Bhel) to manufacture the diesel locomotives, provided it wins the order estimated to be worth more than Rs10,000 crore.

“Once the tender is awarded to us, we (Bhel) are looking at a total investment of Rs1,000 crore,” he said.

rahul.c@livemint.com

Utpal Bhaskar contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2007 HT Media All Rights Reserved

Date:25/02/2009 URL: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/02/25/stories/2009022550731500.htm

---

New loco, coach factories to cost Rly Ministry Rs 5,137 cr

Plans to import 100 locomotives till production starts.

---

Projects planned

The Cabinet has approved setting up of a diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra, Bihar

The Railways will also build coach factory at Rae Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh

---

Our Bureau

New Delhi, Feb. 24 The three new electric loco, diesel loco and coach factories to be set up by the Railways as wholly owned departmental production unit will cost the Ministry about Rs 5,137 crore. It is not yet clear if any budgetary provision for the project has been made.

Earlier, the Railways share of investment was much lower as Railways was to put in 26 per cent of the equity for projects.

“The Ministry has to invite bids for an engineering procurement contract for setting up each factory. It also needs to invite bids to select a company from which it will import the rolling stock and enter into a transfer of technology agreement for each manufacturing unit,” said a source in the Ministry.

Rs 2,052-cr factory

The Cabinet on Monday approved setting up of a diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra, Bihar, as a fully owned unit of the Indian Railways at a cost of Rs 2,052 crore. The factory would produce 150 modern technology, high horse power, fuel efficient locomotives a year.

The Railways will also build a wholly owned coach factory at Rae Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh with an investment of Rs 1,685 crore. The factory will build 1,000 railcars a year.

The Cabinet also approved a proposal by Indian Railways to set up a factory as a departmental production unit to build electric locomotives at Madhepura in Bihar.

The factory will produce 12,000 horse power electric locomotives. While the official release does not specify any cost of the project, the Railways have earlier stated that the project is expected to cost Rs 1,400 crore.

Financial bids scrapped

Before the factories start production, Indian Railways proposes to import 50 electric and 50 diesel locomotives over the next three years.

The Railways has scrapped financial bids invited for setting up locomotive units as a joint venture. GE had emerged as a sole bidder for the diesel locomotive unit.

Technical snag in GE bid

While the Ministry’s official position remains that there was a ‘technical snag’ in the GE bid, an official source said that the Railway Minister was not comfortable taking a decision on a single bid just before the elections.

© Copyright 2000 – 2009 The Hindu Business Line

http://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/8676/ge-transportation-to-supply-locomotives-to-brazilian-railway-operator-mrs-logistica-8676.html

GE Transportation To Supply Locomotives To Brazilian Railway Operator MRS Logistica

GE Transportation, a division of General Electric (NYSE:GE), and Brazilian rail operator MRS Logistica, said Friday that they have entered into a purchase agreement.

Under the agreement, GE transportation will provide MRS with 115 fuel efficient and low emissions AC44i locomotives, which generate up to 15% fewer greenhouse gas emissions.  MRS also has an option to purchase an additional 100 units.

The purchase order is part of MRS’s efforts to meet demand for locomotive transport in light of infrastructure developments in Brazil.

Ninety units are scheduled for delivery in 2011, including 30 units covered under a previous contract and 60 as part of the newly signed agreement. The remaining 55 locomotives will be delivered between 2012 and 2015.

The locomotives will be manufactured at GE Transportation’s plant in Contagem, Brazil and its plant in Grove City, Pennsylvania, will supply the needed components.

As a unit of General Electric, Erie, Pennsylvania-based GE provides freight and passenger locomotives, railway signaling and communications systems, and other transportation-related technology solutions.  The company employs approximately 8,000 people worldwide.

Since the announcement, General Electric’s stock has increased by almost 2% to trade at $16.4 as of 9:47 am ET on the New York Stock Exchange.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/09/24/business-energy-us-ge-mrs-locomotives_7958166.html

Associated Press

GE division sells locomotives to Brazil’s MRS

Associated Press, 09.24.10, 01:04 PM EDT

NEW YORK — General Electric Co. said Friday its transportation division sold 115 locomotives to Brazil’s MRS Logistica S.A. with an option for 100 more.

Financial terms were not disclosed.

MRS ordered AC44i locomotives that will be built at a GE plant in Brazil. A plant in Grove City, Pa., will supply key components including the diesel engines.

The locomotives are scheduled to be delivered between 2011 and 2015.

GE shares rose 30 cents to $16.44 in morning trading.

Bhupesh Bhandari / New Delhi April 26, 2010, 0:54 IST

GE India’s new president & CEO, John Flannery, plans to resurrect the company’s fortunes by localising operations

Till recently, General Electric (GE) honchos would often talk of a turnover of $8 billion in India by 2010. This was 16 per cent of the company’s projected emerging market business for the year. At that time, GE hoped to sell gas turbines, consumer loans, water treatment plants, medical equipment et al in large numbers; hence the ambitious target. GE had ended 2008 with $2.8 billion. So, will it hit $8 billion when the books are closed for the year? The day of reckoning is almost here.

GE India President & CEO John Flannery says the company no longer discloses numbers for one country alone. So it’s difficult to get him to comment if GE is on course to reach that size. But he does indicate that the target may have been ambitious. “There is no shortage of opportunities in India, and there is a good fit to become two or three times the size we are today. That puts us somewhere close to the number you are poking at,” says he. “Some of those things were aspirational, an attempt to get the organisation excited.”

In his letter to shareowners in the 2009 annual report, GE Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt had said that GE had a $38-billion business in growth markets, which include resource- and people-rich regions like West Asia, Latin America, China and India. “We sought out pockets of growth wherever we could find them. We deepened our position in fast-growing markets in Australia, Brazil, China and India.”

That GE may have fallen short of its target for India does not mean that GE hasn’t tasted success in India. It ran a hugely successful business process outsourcing outfit, Gecis, till 2004 when it was sold to General Atlantic Partners and Oak Hill Capital Partners for almost $500 million. The John F Welch Technology Centre in Bangalore, which was inaugurated in September 2000, has helped GE cut drastically go-to-market time (up to 50 per cent in some cases), save huge amounts of money and develop products for world markets. No estimates of the benefits are publicly available. Bangalore is a cost centre for GE, into which it has so far invested $175 million. It has four partnerships going in India with state-owned Bharat Heavy Electricals Corporation, State Bank of India, Wipro and now Triveni Engineering. And it is very much in the reckoning for the Indian Air Force’s order for 126 fighter jets.

But there have been serious reverses too. GE Capital had taken a huge exposure to unsecured loans and delinquencies were high. It so much wanted to invest in a diesel locomotive factory in the country; but right before the general elections last year, the government scrapped the bids and decided to put up the factory on its own. The GE gas turbines at the Dabhol power plant of Ratnagiri Gas & Power broke down. Nuclear power is another huge opportunity (GE was one of the most vocal supporters of the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal), but nobody knows when it will start rolling. Then TPS Chopra, the successor of GE’s first CEO in India, Scott Bayman (he drove GE in India for ten long years), left last year. Chopra would often complain of the slow pace of affairs in India.

Clearly, things haven’t gone the way they were intended. How much has that deterred GE? “We are very proud of what we have accomplished so far in India. Are we satisfied with where we are? No, we have still higher aspirations,” says Flannery. “We are here for the long haul. We will make major investments. We are going to do what it takes to win in India. Some things have balanced favourably, some unfavourably. That’s not uncommon in a developing economy.”

The task ahead
Flannery brings with him considerable experience. A 1983 graduate of Fairfield University and an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, he has spent 22 years in GE. Before he moved to India, he was president & CEO of GE Capital for Asia Pacific. His brief, before he winged his way to India in January, from Immelt was three-fold: Grow GE’s presence in multiple dimensions, localise it and transform the organisation for the long haul. Flannery doesn’t like to call it Plan B — it is more like revised Plan A, says he. The macroeconomic opportunity in India still excites GE. The opportunities in GE’s core areas of infrastructure (power, railway, water treatment and so on), oil & gas and finance continue to remain huge. “These (growth) markets are investing trillions of dollars in infrastructure and favour a multi-business company that can bring solutions. This allows us to form a ‘company-to-country’ approach in countries where government and business work together to solve infrastructure needs,” Immelt had said in his letter to shareowners.

Flannery’s first step has been to change GE’s reporting structures in India. Ever since GE set up shop in India, all the business lines reported to their global business headquarters. As a result, they didn’t have a reporting relationship with the Indian CEO. What it meant was that GE’s business in India was not looked as a single profit & loss centre. Key decisions on products, distribution and investments were taken outside India. The results, as a consequence, were less than desired.

All management thinkers have stressed the need for multinational corporations to think local. Those who listened carefully to the Indian customer have gained immensely; those who didn’t have failed miserably. The success of LG and Samsung of Korea and Suzuki of Japan can largely be attributed to strong local product development, manufacturing and distribution. All of them empowered their local employees to take important decisions. GE now is a standalone profit & loss account in India. Business lines all report directly to Flannery. “I will be able to control the vast majority of decision-making,” says he. In fact, the buzz in the market place is that the Bangalore technology centre too may become a part of the integrated Indian operations soon.

This will help GE go to a customer with more than one product. Till recently, various GE teams often made separate sales pitches to the same customer. Flannery admits this can often become very frustrating for the customer. With integrated operations, GE will be able to present a unified face to the customer. “It also gives us more scale and critical mass, creates better jobs and career opportunities. The company with the best team on the field ends up number one or number two,” says Flannery. But he stresses that India will still stay very closely connected to GE’s international business: “The centre of gravity will be India, but we are not seceding from the company. We will get the best from GE. It has the history of evolving as the markets change. The hallmark of the company is constant evolution.”

Go local
That taken care of, Flannery wants to localise GE’s business. This means sending people out to the market to gather what products and services are required, designing and manufacturing those products in India, and finally distributing them in India. The first is on track, says he. For design, Flannery plans to leverage the skill sets of the Bangalore technology centre. So far, it has focused on GE’s global requirements. To save cost and time was the first brief to the centre. The business verticals for which this work is done are aviation (commercial aircraft engines), energy (oil and gas, power and water treatment), transportation (diesel locomotives and signal systems) and healthcare. In addition, there is a 400-strong team which carries out work on “Blue Sky” technologies — new substances, materials, nanotechnology and solutions.

The brief could now change. In addition to the work it is doing, it will work on products that could be relevant for India. “The brief is changing as we speak in an incremental and supplemental way. It will continue to be a key base for GE’s global operations; that won’t stop. But we will add resources to go local; some resources may be shifted,” says Flannery. “For the past 18 months, there has been in-country, for-country team at work for India-specific products and designs.” To be fair, some products developed at Bangalore have already found their way to the Indian market — the electrocardiogram that weighs just 1.1 kg and costs around Rs 35,000, the low-cost baby warmer which sells for around Rs 150,000, for instance.

The next part of the jigsaw puzzle is local manufacturing. Here, Flannery wants to make use of frugal Indian manufacturing skills. Immelt had outlined the strategy in his letter. “Our focus is on introducing more new products at more price points. We are driving management practices to capture new opportunities, called reverse innovation. Essentially, this takes a low-cost, emerging-market business model and translates it to the developed world,” he had said. “To this end, we have developed a full line of high-margin, low-cost healthcare devices, designed in China and India, and now marketed successfully in the developed world.”

GE already has two manufacturing joint ventures in India with BHEL and Wipro; it has now signed a third one with Triveni for steam turbines. GE, says Flannery, found Triveni efficient in turbines of up to 30 MW. Its own strength is above 100 MW. So, the two have come together for turbines of 30 MW to 100 MW. “If it works well, you’ll have a new player in 30 MW to 100 MW with the best in technology and cost-competitiveness. We could distribute these turbines globally in the long term. That’s where GE’s distribution capability, global footprint and customer relationships would come in,” says Flannery. GE, of course, is impressed with Triveni’s supply chain, production design and costs. It can deliver turbines at low price points. “Triveni can do reverse innovation. It, we observed, was consistently hitting price points lower than that of global manufacturers. We are not talking of a 5 or 10 per cent change in margins,” says Flannery. The prices could be 30 to 40 per cent below global prices, experts reckon. The reason for the tie-up is clear.

GE could do more such tie-ups with low-cost manufacturers in the days to come. “You will see more investments in supply chain and direct manufacturing capabilities. That can be green-field or partnerships or even acquisition of companies with a manufacturing footprint,” says Flannery. So far as a distribution network in the country is concerned, Flannery says he still needs to figure out how to go about it.

Ups and downs
A broad strategy is fine, but Flannery needs to look at individual businesses as well. In financial services, it was an open secret that GE Capital was stuck with huge delinquencies in its retail portfolio. There was also talk in the market that GE Capital was looking for a buyer for its portfolio. Flannery admits there was a problem of delinquencies with unsecured retail loans. To deal with that, GE Capital has shrunk its retail loan book. A part of its transportation finance portfolio was sold to Shriram Transport Finance Company in December last year. This, says Flannery, has brought down the delinquencies as well as the losses. “GE Capital became profitable in India for the first time in two years during the January to March 2010 quarter,” says he.

Going ahead, Flannery has decided to focus on institutional finance in areas that tie up with GE’s business. In other words, it could finance the purchase of turbines by power plants, water treatment equipment by factories and healthcare machines by hospitals. At the moment, this book is as small as that of retail finance. “We aren’t talking of big dollars at present,” says Flannery. On the positive side, he adds that the partnership with SBI, India’s largest lender, for credit cards is steady. “We would like to build on this relationship,” says he, but does not give details.

There have been some positive developments on the railway business as well. Strained for resources, the Indian government has come round the view that it won’t be such a good idea to put up the locomotive factory on its own. So, it has restarted the process to find a private investor. And this time the stakes are bigger: Not just diesel locomotive, it also wants an electric locomotive plant and another one to make spares for the two factories. “We will take another crack at it. We will definitely restart our interest in the diesel locomotive factory and assess the other two; they look interesting as well,” says Flannery. In the last round, GE had developed a prototype for the diesel locomotive in its Bangalore centre. So, it has a product ready to offer. Flannery says it is not certain if GE will return with the same prototype.

Power play
Power will be a tougher nut to crack. One, GE’s strength is gas turbines, renewable energy (wind and so on) and nuclear power — the gap in its portfolio is coal, which is 50 to 60 per cent of the market. “We will continue to look at ways to play in that,” says Flannery. But he is convinced that the dependence on coal to generate power will decline over time. “Coal tends to be more commodity- and less technology-driven. We are trying to stay up on the technology curve. Coal tends to be a very basic technological and engineering undertaking. For environmental reasons, higher growth will be in other sectors of the energy space.”

Two, there have been aggressive sales from China. So much so, local manufacturers of power equipment are lobbying hard with the government for protection in some form. Flannery feels GE still has an advantage over others. “It’s very important to look at the life-cycle cost of this equation. We have a very strong story there around technology and service offering. These are very long-lived assets.”

Three, Dabhol was bad publicity for GE’s turbines. Flannery says GE engineers have fixed the problem and all turbines at the power plant in Maharashtra are on stream. A service contract has been written for GE. And, adds he, Dabhol no longer crops up when GE executives make a sales pitch to power companies. Four, the fate of nuclear power in India, which can be a huge opportunity for GE, still hangs in balance. Consensus is yet to emerge on the liabilities that could arise from a Chernobyl-like accident. Still, Flannery is convinced of the opportunity for GE in power; what also excites him about the business is that every order for turbines comes with regular revenues from maintenance contracts.

Jack Welch, GE’s best-known CEO and Immelt’s predecessor, had laid down the principle that the company ought to be amongst the top three players in every line of business in a market; it should exit any business where it is a laggard. It may not be the right time to put India through that test. Flannery, on his part, says if he can grow the company, localise it and change its structure, his job will be done. “If I can do these three things, my bosses, I think, will be happy.”

GE arm-Bhel JV bags Railways tender
Economy Bureau
Posted online: 2008-10-22 00:43:58+05:30

Mumbai, Oct 21GE Transportation, a unit of General Electric Company and global diesel locomotive technology leader, and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (Bhel) on Tuesday joined hands to compete for a tender issued by the Indian Railways to manufacture 1,000 diesel locomotives.

GE was recently shortlisted by the Indian Railways to compete for this tender. GE and Bhel, along with Indian Railways, intend to form a joint venture company for the purpose. Bhel’s alliance with GE Transportation is in line with its move to enter into manufacturing of locomotives and coaches.

GE Transportation plans to supply diesel locomotives based on the company’s global Evolution Series locomotive platform. The Evolution Series locomotive is the most technologically advanced, fuel-efficient and low emissions locomotive till date. With more than 2,800 units in use at present, the locomotive is one of GE Transportation’s best-selling products worldwide. These locomotives deliver 5% higher fuel efficiency and a 40% reduction in emissions as compared with the previous ones. GE’s locomotive reduces fuel consumption by approximately 300,000 gallons, or more than 1 million litre, over the life of the locomotive.

The Evolution Series locomotive serves as one of GE’s first products to be certified as part of its “Ecomagination” initiative, said a company statement. Ecomagination is a company-wide commitment to develop technology designs to help consumers beat environmental challenges, maximise performance and reduce cost.

GE’s locomotives for India have been designed in the John F Welch Technology Center in Bangalore and will have a peak output of 6,000 GHP delivering 40% more power at 30% less weight than the locomotives of the same series currently utilised in North America. These locomotives will be up to 5% more fuel-efficient and generate 84% fewer particulate emissions compared to fleet currently in use.

“We are excited about the prospect of expanding our relationship with Indian Railways and to partner with Bhel,” said GE Transport president and CEO Lorenzo Simonelli. “Bhel’s know-how, customer centricity and local operations will help us deliver our product to Indian Railways in a timely and cost-effective manner.”

“GE is known to build the world’s most reliable and fuel-efficient diesel locomotives to-date,” said Bhel CMD K Ravi Kumar. “We are proud to expand our successful association with one of the most respected companies in the world to bring best-in-class locomotive technolog to our long-time customer, Indian Railways.”

For more than 45 years, Bhel has been a leading supplier of propulsion systems and locomotives to Indian Railways. Bhel manufactured approximately 160 electric locomotives and supplied over 4,000 sets of electric propulsion systems to Diesel Locomotive Works.

——————————————————————————————————————-

GE documents–Alex Dimitrief letter covering up my complaints

Letter from Alexander Dimitrief (3 February 2010)