Why all the lawsuits by BTU Ventures, BTU Industries (Wael Al-Mazeedi) against former employees and contractors? The "other" side of the story.

Wael Al-Mazeedi has used a multitude of lawyers and probably spent significant amounts of money suing people that worked for "BTU." Since we've already established that Al-Mazeedi is in complete control of the "companies" mentioned above we'll just assume he is behind all the litigation against employees/contractors.

We get a more detailed discussion regarding Al-Mazeedi's motives from excerpts taken from Defendant, Martin Betancourt's Renewed Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims/Third Party Complaint.

[Note: as discussed elsewhere in this blog the trial court judge denied, in its entirety, BTU's motion to dismiss Betancourt's counterclaims/third party complaint.]

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

"In connection with the proceedings before this court, Betancourt filed an amended affidavit under seal."

[Note: Betancourt's amended affidavit was sealed as a result of BTU Ventures and BTU Industries Motion to Place Under Seal]

"...LITIGATION COMMENCED BY BTU WAS DONE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SILENCING BETANCOURT FROM EXPOSING POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL AND/OR FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY AS WELL AS AIDING IN ITS DEFENSE AGAINST LAWSUITS COMMENCED AGAINST IT"

BTU/Al Mazeedi knew that Betancourt was the source of BTU documents filed in the IFIC lawsuit in Middlesex County. As a result, BTU and Al Mazeedi, brought process, the instant lawsuit, for the ulterior and/or illegitimate purpose of

1. punishing Betancourt for assisting IFIC challengers in exposing BTU and Al Mazeedi‟s potential fraud; 
2. to gain a strategic advantage in the IFIC lawsuit; 
3. and to discourage Betancourt from further exposure of their actions.

Time and time again, the plaintiffs have asserted that the purpose of the litigation against Betancourt was to 

“achieve judicial enforcement of Betancourt‟s obligations to Ventures not to disseminate Ventures' confidential and proprietary documents and information to third parties.”

 In its motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs claim that Betancourt sent proprietary documents to opposing counsel and characterized the fruits of the results of this preliminary injunction as follows:

“this Court allowed the Companies' motion for a preliminary injunction ....this Court's injunction has yielded hundreds of thousands of pages of the Companies' documents, in electronic and hard copy form, that Betancourt wrongfully and unlawfully had removed to his possession, custody or control. “

• In reality, the actual number of documents “yielded” was 12,290, of which 6,321 were turned over to BTU as the others were covered by some privilege (e.g. 3rd party NDAs, medical records, etc.)
• The 12,290 documents were “responsive” to approximately 300 keywords, many of them generic terms (e.g. solar, wind, fund, Italy, Germany, China, etc.).
• If a document was responsive and not privileged it was turned over to BTU regardless whether it was a “BTU” document or not.
• For example, about 3,300 documents were from the public domain and could be anything from the New York Times daily emails that Betancourt received to annual reports from PSEG. Another 700 or so documents were blank and contained only metadata and no legible text. 
• The net result was approximately 500-600 pages of BTU related documents.

It is undisputed that Betancourt did not disclose any proprietary information to BTU to third parties, the sole disclosure was limited to documents which Betancourt reasonably believed were evidence of potential fraud and criminal activity on the part of BTU and Al Mazeedi. These documents numbered approximately 12-13 pages.


[Note:  BTU/Almazeedi fired and sued Betancourt on the same day.]

"BETANCOURT WAS WRONGFULLY TERMINATED FOR HIS DISCLOSURE OF SUSPECTED FRAUDLENT/ CRIMINAL ACTIVITY"

 In the present case, it is undisputed that Betancourt was terminated by BTU for disclosing/forwarding documentation to counsel for a third party who was suing BTU for among others things, fraud.

• This suit was from investors of BTU who were alleging a litany of claims including fraud. Betancourt‟s actions were that of a whistleblower.
• Betancourt had raised his concerns regarding BTU‟s business practices with Al Mazeedi. Said concerns fell on deaf ears.
• Betancourt owed a fiduciary duty not only to BTU but, the investors of BTU who were challenging the operation of BTU.

• Betancourt‟s conduct in disclosing documents to a third party represents just such a limited circumstance, in which the Courts have permitted redress “for employees terminated for performing important public deeds even though the law does not absolutely require the performance of such a deed.”