Want to be an employee that makes a difference at QGEN (and BTU Ventures before it "disappeared.")? Read On...

People make a difference at BTU Ventures, BTU Power, and QGEN!  Actually, no.

WHAT THEY SAY

Within the last few weeks Almazeedi had his BTU Ventures website "deleted" and his QGEN website "updated".  Many statements and "concepts" were transfered over from the deleted site to the updated site.

  

QGEN includes the quote immediately below in its website.  BTU Ventures, before its disappearance from the web, also included the exact same statement.  It could be considered somewhat of a "mission statement" and ostensibly represents the ETHOS of the companies headed by Wael Al-Mazedi.

"All of our people are active participants in shaping the future direction of our company."

The statement seemingly indicates that people, such as partners (Hayat), directors (Hayat), advisors, consultants, employees, etc. are EMPOWERED.

WHAT THEY  DO

Re: Hayat: 44% Owner , Director as well as "Employees in General"

Hayat Original Complaint, paragraph 30

"After the initial investments into BTU Group, Al-Mazeedi began operating BTU Group so as to limit Hayat's and other employee involvement, regularly replacing officers and junior and senior staff, forcing the resignations of others who disagree with him, and outright rejecting qualified individuals suggested by Hayat. 

Re: A Key Advisor and Consultant for BTU Group
Defense and Counterclaim, paragraph 36

"As Mr. Mazeedi's behaviour became more selfish, erratic and of dubious propriety many of those who worked for or with the BTU Group felt it necessary to leave in their own interests.  Dr. Rathnam's departure falls into this category."  

Re: A Former BTU Financial Controller
Kenny Leung Email to BTU and Draft Letter to Evolvence, 3rd page, 4th paragraph

"As I had noted at the beginning of this letter, I ceased to be BTU's Financial Controller as of 18 September 2007.  My employment was abruptly terminated on that date after I sent an email and memorandum within BTU documenting ethical concerns I had about actions and positions taken and/or not taken by BTU which clearly harmed the interests of its various stakeholders." 

Re: A Former BTU Ventures Anonymous Employee
glassdoor.com: BTU Ventures Reviews

Ownership is intently disingenuous having little regard for employees - exceptionally talented at the "bait and hook" - making exceptional sales pitch when recruiting candidates in to the organization and offering exceptional compensation - then on a whims notice discarding employee - at times with malice. 

WHAT THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTS HAVE TAKEN AS UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court & Middlesex Superior Court

from: Memorandum and Order on Defendants Motion to Dismiss Verified Amended Complaint

"Hayat was to have a seat on BTU Holdings' board of directors and participate in all major management decisions of the BTU Group..."

"From that time, forward, the defendants have largely refused Hayat's requests for information concerning the operations of the BTU Group."

"In conjunction with their freeze-out of Hayat from BTU Holdings..."

"In December 2007, Al-Mazeedi had Hayat served with notice of a meeting of BTU Holdings' Board of Directors, in Waltham, for the stated purpose of removing Hayat from the Board. He refused Hayat's request for a three-day postponement so that he could travel from Kuwait to Waltham for the meeting. The meeting was held on December 7, as noticed, and the directors in attendance - Al-Mazeedi and Oishi - voted the absent Hayat off the Board."

from: Abdulmohsen Hayat vs. Wael Al-Mazeedi & Others. Memorandum and Order Pursuant to Rule 1:28

"No subsidiary in the BTU Group has an independent board and only Al-Mazeedi and Oishi make policy and substantive decisions."

Given that last statement included in the Appeals Court ruling there is nothing else that can be added. 

The first of Al-Mazeedi's litigation salvos: the lawsuit filed against Mr. Hayat in the Caymans (original: September 27, 2007)

Among the many documents submitted in support of various motions in Massachusetts and Cayman Islands courts there are exhibits that contain correspondence, corporate documentation, summary financials, etc.  When viewed in the wider context of ALL litigation involving Mr. Al-Mazeedi these exhibits not only inform but also elucidate.  The following email from Mr. Al-Mazeedi to Mr. Hayat (in which he offers essentially NOTHING - beyond the fee that he was already receiving for having brought in the $290 million - for his 44% ownership of BTU Holdings Company) underscores a particular modus operandi of Mr. Al-Mazeedi (and Ms. Oishi).

Note: links to the principal filings in the Caymans litigation are found at the bottom of this post.

2006

Al-Mazeedi describes how much the personal and family relationship he's developed with Hayat means to him.

"However, due to the personal and family relationship we both have and which I, in particular, value..."

 link: Wael Al-Mazeedi "offer" to Mohsen Hayat for his 44% interest in BTU Holdings Company

2007

Al-Mazeedi sues Hayat in the Caymans

Tactical and abusive nature of the Writ  [from Hayat's Defence and Counterclaims] 

2. Mr. Hayat's contacts and business expertise were crucial to the successful formation and funding of the BTU Group. But for Mr. Hayat's considerable endeavours there would have be no prospect of the BTU Group developing past its start-up phase. The subsequent growth in value of the BTU Group was as a direct result of Mr. Hayat's services, particularly in respect of the negotiations which led to the provision of funding under the Evolvence Agreement.

3. The BTU Group was from the beginning intended to operate as a quasi-partnership, drawing and developing upon the respective skills and contacts of the main shareholders. Unfortunately having benefited from Mr. Hayat's work, the other beneficial owners, namely Mr. Mazeedi and his wife, Ms. Mitsue Oishi (together "the Mazeedis"), increasingly sought to exclude Mr. Hayat from the participating in the management of the BTU group and have sought inter alia to improperly divert maturing business opportunities to other companies which are not part of the BTU group, (although these are improperly trading in the style "BTU").

4. This Writ forms part of the break-down of the relationship between Mr. Mazeedi and Mr. Hayat. Worse still it forms part of transparent attempt to obtain a perceived tactical advantage in the wider dispute between the parties, based upon allegations which the Mazeedis know to be without merit or foundation.

5. No notice of this Writ was provided to Mr. Hayat by BTU, despite the fact that certain allegations made related to conduct which took place more the 4 years previously, and of which no complaint was made in the intervening period.

link: Amended Writ of Summons
link: Defence and Counterclaim
link: Reply to Defence and Counterclaim