After my overseas termination, the QBE laptop sat idle in my NY apartment for 5+ months. No return label. No FedEx support. It took a federal court order to resolve the return logistics. The final destination?
QBE VP, 55 Water Street, NYC
From: Arul A <Arul.A@mphasis.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 2:53 PM
Subject: RE: [External] Incident : INC0998747 - QBE & Mphasis emails
Hi Defendant,
Just want to keep you informed, since you already got client laptop, Mphasis IT team will not provide you Mphasis laptop.
Regards,
Arul. A
Global Strategic Resourcing (GSR) | Human Resources | MphasiS Corporate Support
---------- message ---------
Nov 1, 2024 at 1:19:28 PM: Defendant states; “QBE Policy Reference:
Group Acceptable Use Policy.pdf, page 10 4.8 Prohibited Behavior Section (r): Use unauthorized third-party email services for exchanging business-related messages and information. Only QBE-approved systems may be used for transmitting sensitive information relevant to our business.
Additional Note:
Accessing third-party systems, including portals or email clients, through web connectors can pose security risks. Based on experience with companies like Walmart, BofA, and others, security incidents are often internal rather than external.”
---------- message ---------
Nov 1, 2024 at 1:19:28 PM: Defendant states; “Thank you for your time, Yaberry!
Forwarding the email thread as requested, though it’s not an ideal one. I strongly recommend that Mphasis employees avoid accessing the Mphasis web portal using client laptops on their network.”
---------- message ---------
On February 28, 2025, Mphasis management, through Ruturaj Waghmode, transmitted confidential QBE materials to Defendant’s Mphasis email, which he accessed via personal MacBook due to Mphasis’s failure to provide standard corporate hardware. Lacking domainjoined equipment necessary for compliance, Defendant was compelled to forward the QBE.pptx file from his Mphasis email (albert.rojas@mphasis.com) to his personal email (rojas.albert@gmail.com) to complete required work.
Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel (Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology, 274 F.3d 706, 725 (2d Cir. 2001)) and unclean hands (Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945)), Plaintiff cannot assert violations that it induced through its own failure to provide basic resources. Plaintiff’s failure to furnish tools required for compliance negates any assertion of willful misconduct (Heckler v. Community Health Services, 467 U.S. 51, 59 (1984)).
From: Ruturaj Waghmode <ruturaj.waghmode@mphasis.com>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 10:23 AM
To: Albert Rojas <albert.rojas@mphasis.com>
Subject: QBE draft deck
Regards, Ruturaj +1.650.507.9809
QBE.pptx
Dec 20, 2024 at 2:34 PM: QBE states; “Al – Due to funding changes for our application roadmap and role re-alignments we will need to do as a result, we will be ending the contract for your position ,in order to get you some notice and continued billing through the holidays , we have advised Mphasis that you can bill through Dec 31st. However please do start the process to return the QBE laptop assigned to you starting next week due to the holidays and please co-ordinate with the Mphasis leadership on how to return to the QBE location. Calling the service desk for a pre paid shipping label is also a option. I thank you for some of the observations you have provided us on the Q-GPT application. Best wishes on your onward journey. Group Product Manager – Gen AI
Dec 22, 2024 at 8:06 AM: Defendant states; “The QBE laptop is locked, so I’ve picked up a Mac and am preparing for some travels around Europe. I’m planning to drop off the QBE laptop at the QBE London office tomorrow Monday.”
Dec 22, 2024 at 2:33 PM: QBE states; “Hi AL You have to drop off the laptop in the office you picked it from. These are leased equipment. @Dilip Nayak please inform Mphasis on this”
Dec 22, 2024 at 8:41 AM: Defendant states; “Copy. I was going to stop by QBE London office tomorrow and ask for permission to mail it to New York QBE.”
Dec 22, 2024 at 2:51 PM: QBE states; “Thank will cost a lot. Please return the equipment where you picked it from”
Dec 22, 2024 at 9:14 AM: Defendant states; “Thank you, Palav! I completely understand the frustration around costs—especially the ongoing expenses of keeping the Accenture team involved to reconcile the issues I highlighted below. If they’re unable to resolve it, don’t hesitate to reach out to me directly. Just to clarify, I never picked up the QBE laptop—it was FedExed to my New York apartment. I’m hoping QBE IT can provide me with a FedEx shipping label so I can return it promptly, particularly since I’m currently abroad. Had the QBE Workday system simply locked the Cisco QBE client, I could have continued using the laptop instead of needing to pick up a Mac. As you know, having a reliable machine while traveling is essential.
Dec 22, 2024 at 3:28 PM: QBE states; “@Defendant Yes QBE will give you shipping with in US not sure about UK. Please discuss with Mphasis leadership on their agreement on hardware with QBE. @Mirza Ali @Jitendra Borkar Can you please guide AL here? I don’t enjoy your persistent smear on QBE application build with their partners or QBE partners (including Mphasis) . I don’t want to hear or see any more email from you on any QBE application or partners. @Dilip Nayak Need your steer here.
Dec 22, 2024 at 4:36 PM: Defendant states; “Thank you for the email, Palav. Let me assure you, there’s no intent to smear anyone. The attachments and data speak for themselves. The current system is like flying from London to New York by heading west instead of east across the Atlantic—an unnecessarily complicated and costly route. As you mentioned, the Azure Search blob is expensive, and as demonstrated in the attached exhibits, it’s not even needed. I was hired to consult on the application, and I fulfilled those responsibilities as required. It’s been an honor working with QBE”
Mar 28, 2025 at 9:05 AM: Defendant states: “Hey Dilip,
I’m still in Cannes, my friend, and your QBE Dell laptop is just collecting dust in my New York apartment. In hindsight, I should have dropped it off at QBE London. I’ll take care of it once I’m back in New York, just drop it off at QBE offices down in the financial district. Hope all is well, Defendant https://mphasis.it.com/
Apr 11, 2025 at 11:02 PM: Mphasis Console states; “As I have instructed you repeatedly, immediately stop using any email impersonating Nitin Rakesh or any other personnel working for Mphasis. This behavior is fraudulent and likely criminal and has been reported to law enforcement. Additionally, immediately take down the mphasis.it website and stop communicating with Mphasis clients”
Apr 11, 2025 at 3:01 PM: Defendant states; “Palavesam Chandrasekhar (Palavesam.Chandrasekar@qbe.com) is the QBE contact who insisted the laptop be returned in New York rather than London. As I mentioned before, I don't believe QBE or Mphasis fully understands what transpired. What I do know is that QBE was taken advantage of—and I can prove it. The video at https://Kestri.com shows my system executing flawlessly in under a second, while the version on the right side stumbles for 30 seconds and even hallucinates when prompted about “data protection.” Let me know if you’d like me to walk you through it.
Apr 11, 2025 at 5:15 PM: Defendant states; “Let’s be clear: if Mphasis leadership hadn’t actively blocked me, there would have been no need for me to create the Mphasis.it.com domain. To this day, I still have the QBE Dell laptop collecting dust in New York. No one from Mphasis or QBE has made any attempt—no FedEx return box, no communication, nothing—to retrieve it. That silence speaks volumes. Now we’re facing a trial over wrongful termination tied to protected actions and age discrimination—and everyone involved knows it. See you in court.
May 6, 2025: COURT ORDER; “Defendant’s good-faith cooperation, Plaintiff shall arrange for QBE to provide a QBEgenerated Federal Express label and box to Defendant no later than May 8, 2025. If such a label and box are provided to Defendant, he shall use them to return his QBE-issued laptop no later than May 9, 2025.
May 7, 2025 at 12:49 PM: Defendant states; “FedEx attempted delivery, but as you know, I’m currently in France and a signature is required. If possible, please instruct FedEx to leave the box in the building’s mailroom. The box is labeled as coming from Kimberly. I assume the return label inside is from QBE and addressed to QBE. If it’s not, please ensure I receive the correct return label directly from QBE. That process is typically confirmed by email from QBEjust as it was when the laptop was originally provisioned to me in October 2024 before I traveled to Morocco. The device was issued to me, and I remain responsible for its return. To be clear, I will not be returning it to Kimberly’s office. The order is to return the laptop to QBE something I have been requesting since December.”
May 7, 2025 at 8:02 PM: QBE Console; “The Fed Ex delivery you reference below is not the QBE delivery of the laptop shipping materials from QBE. The FedEx tracking number for QBE’s delivery to is 881085671508 and no attempt of delivery has been made of QBE’s delivery at this point. Lastly, as I previously stated, the return shipping label that you will receive reflects QBE as the shipping recipient for when you ship the laptop back.”
May 7, 2025 at 7:57 PM: Mphasis Console; “This is the one I sent last week.”
May 7, 2025 at 2:08 PM: Defendant states; “Dear Ms. Anderson, Thank you for the clarification and for confirming that the QBE package has not yet been delivered. I will monitor tracking number 881085671508 and await the QBE-labeled shipping materials. Once received, I will promptly package the laptop and return it using the enclosed label addressed to QBE, as instructed.
May 9, 2025 at 3:25 AM: Defendant states; “Could you clarify what “tried to deliver” means in this context? FedEx typically leaves packages in our building’s mailroom”
May 9, 2025 at 1:26 PM: QBE Console; “FedEx is attempting to redeliver today before noon. The delivery requests a signature to ensure that you indeed receive the shipping materials.”
May 9, 2025 at 6:05 AM: Defendant states; “Thank you for the update. As the package contains only an empty box and return label, I respectfully request that FedEx be instructed to leave it in the building’s mailroom—no signature required. The regular FedEx courier is familiar with the premises, and this will ensure timely and uncomplicated delivery. I appreciate your cooperation.
May 9, 2025 at 2:44 PM: QBE Console; “Unfortunately, because the package is already in FedEx’s possession, I am not able to change the delivery requirements at this point”
May 9, 2025 at 9:44 AM: Defendant states; “Copy noted. If a signature is still required, I’m happy to pick up the package directly from FedEx. There are three locations in the Chelsea 10011 area—feel free to have it held at the nearest one for pickup.”
May 9, 2025 at 6:23 PM: QBE Console; “To avoid delays in QBE’s delivery of the laptop return shipping materials due to FedEx not being able to obtain your signature, QBE arranged for a courier to deliver a new shipping box (with a new shipping return label inside of it) to your address yet today without your signature. Accordingly, RDS Delivery Service has confirmed that the laptop return shipping materials have now been delivered to your address. Please return the laptop using these return shipping materials by placing the laptop inside the shipping box, put the FedEx return shipping label on the outside of the box, and then ship it back to QBE by no later than Monday, May 12, 2025
May 12, 2025 at 8:45 PM: Defendant states; "The FedEx tracking number for the independently generated return shipment I used is: 881169050153 (FedEx Standard Overnight, shipped May 11, 2025). Please note: the shipment was executed on May 11 — the first practical opportunity after QBE failed to provide an electronically traceable label in accordance with the Court’s May 6, 2025 TRO. As detailed in my forthcoming declaration, I acted promptly and in good faith to comply, despite QBE’s failure to implement a compliant return protocol. [Please see attached exhibit: QBE Laptop FedEx.jpg]
Delivery confirmation will be visible upon arrival. The package is addressed to QBE’s VP of IT at 55 Water Street — just a 10-minute walk from my residence in Chelsea. That fact alone underscores how entirely avoidable this breakdown was. More importantly, it confirms that QBE has no functioning process for retrieving endpoint devices — including those provisioned with infrastructure credentials and protected data — even after five months of inaction.
No global financial enterprise routes the return of a regulated asset to an executive’s office. That detail alone reflects systemic governance failure. It is increasingly clear that QBE is relying on its vendor, Mphasis, and its partner HealthEquity to shield the public narrative — promoting a theory of “aggressive hacking” when the evidence points to internal mismanagement.
Had I not created the whistleblower archive at QBE.world and escalated this return myself, the laptop — and the failures surrounding it — likely would have been buried.
This is not a procedural oversight. It is the same structural failure I escalated internally as part of my protected whistleblower disclosures regarding QBE’s unmanaged multi-endpoint architecture. That failure directly preceded the March 2024 healthcare data breach — which QBE has mischaracterized publicly as the result of external threat actors. That narrative is false.
The breach was not caused by external actors. It was caused by the absence of basic internal controls — compounded by outsourced offshore execution by teams operating beyond U.S. jurisdiction and in defiance of QBE’s own enterprise data policies."
Legal action.
The March 2024 QBE healthcare data breach was not caused by external cyber intrusion, but by internal governance breakdowns—precisely the same endpoint and oversight failures I reported. QBE’s ongoing refusal to provide a veridiable digital chain of custody, reliance on physical-only delivery methods, and unwillingness to communicate electronically about this return mirror those systemic dediciencies.
Additionally, QBE and Mphasis operate under layered offshore structures. QBE’s infrastructure is ultimately managed outside the United States, and Mphasis is a subsidiary of an Indian multinational. These cross-border frameworks appear designed not for efdiciency, but to obscure accountability from U.S. courts, regulators, and affected individuals.
Returning the laptop under these conditions does not waive any legal claims. Rather, it evidences—factually and procedurally—the same systemic governance failures that continue to endanger regulated data and operational integrity.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on: May 10, 2025 Location: New York, New York
Scope Clarification for Forensic Examination
To preserve evidentiary integrity and limit unnecessary intrusion into personal and privileged materials, I affirm that the only relevant Mphasis-related content on my device consists of the following:
1. A directory labeled “Mphasis,” created in 2024 to store Mphasis HR materials and work product relating to QBE projects.
2. Any locally stored or cached content from my Mphasis-issued email address: defendant@mphasis.com.
These two items reflect the full extent of any material potentially within the scope of the TRO. Importantly, had Plaintiff Mphasis provided a dedicated work-issued device—as was repeatedly requested but never fulfilled—this data would reside on company-controlled hardware. The QBE-issued laptop I had used for dual-access was permanently locked down in December 2024. Even after this shutdown, Mphasis management continued to deny Defendant a company-issued laptop or access to Mphasis-managed infrastructure. On December 18, 2024, Mphasis’s CIO Office confirmed in writing: “You can use personal machines, but you will be limited to WEB Version only. This has been an Mphasis CIO/CRO policy for at least 5 years. ONLY Mphasis Domain Joined machines can use Desktop apps, which allow downloading and storing of Mphasis data.” (Jared Bulger, Senior U.S. Administration Officer) In short, Defendant never had access to the Mphasis domain, was explicitly blocked from using secure desktop tools, and had no reasonable alternative but to access work systems via a personal Mac. Accordingly, forensic access must be narrowly tailored to the limited, work-specific locations described above. All other content is personal, privileged, or unrelated, and falls outside the scope of the Order.
This site is not affiliated with QBE or Mphasis. It exists to inform regulators, patients, and policymakers that this breach was not an anomaly. It was a failure of ethics, governance, and accountability. And unless systemic reform occurs, it will happen again.
Disclaimer: Protected Legal Submission
This site contains content directly related to the pending matter Mphasis Corporation v. Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-3175 (JMF), before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
All materials are presented in furtherance of a constitutionally protected and statutorily authorized whistleblower defense. They include sworn declarations, factual assertions, legal arguments, and evidence submitted by the undersigned, appearing pro se.
These disclosures are expressly protected under:
No information herein was obtained through unauthorized access or improper means. All content is submitted in good faith to expose and document systemic compliance failures and risks to public interest, consistent with applicable law.