Mphasis & QBE The Next Applied - Data Governance Failures and Retaliation
Mphasis & QBE The Next Applied - Data Governance Failures and Retaliation
The materials on this site reproduce and index publicly filed court documents and related public records. They are provided for public interest, transparency, and compliance review — not as an assertion of new facts beyond those publicly filed. Readers should consult the official court docket (PACER) for source documents
Data Breach & Cover-Up
Retaliation
Management Misconduct
“This is not a case about hacking. It is about executives violating their own rules, ignoring repeated warnings, and targeting the one person who tried to protect patient data.”
Every statement here is backed by court filings and public records. These materials demonstrate an urgent need for independent regulatory review under HIPAA, SOX, Dodd-Frank, and New York Labor Law § 740.
As the filings show, Defendant could not return what QBE never permitted him to return — an impossibility miscast as refusal.
As reflected in the public filings (see ECF 14-25, 14-38, 14-41 p. 52 and ECF 470):
“You couldn’t return what QBE never let you return.”
— Derived from the evidentiary record showing QBE’s five-month delay in issuing a return label.
“Mphasis’s own HR records and correspondence prove…”
“Demonstrates that later allegations were manufactured post-separation.”
This PDF is the exact version docketed with the Court in SDNY Case No. 1:25-cv-03175 (JMF)(OTW).
It remains unaltered and appears here solely for public-record reference.
The HTML summary shown below is a neutral, citation-first overview of the same exhibits for web accessibility.
Disclaimer
This is an independent, public interest whistleblower archive—not affiliated with, endorsed by, mphasis.aied by Mphasis Corporation or any of its affiliates.
All materials published here are based exclusively on court filings and public disclosures, protected under federal and state law, including:
• The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (public concern and protected speech),
• 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b) (Defend Trade Secrets Act – whistleblower immunity),
• The Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
• The Dodd-Frank Act, and
• New York Labor Law § 740.
All citations refer to documents publicly filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:25-cv-03175 (JMF)(OTW).
No confidential, sealed, or privileged information is disclosed beyond what is already publicly filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
This site is dedicated solely to public awareness, compliance transparency, and the lawful documentation of matters of public concern. It is strictly non-commercial and does not seek any financial gain.
If any party believes that any material posted here is not a matter of public record or is subject to a valid court order, please contact legal@mphas.com for prompt review and, if appropriate, removal or redaction.
This archive is provided for transparency, educational, and compliance purposes, and does not constitute legal advice or a waiver of any rights.
For the official Mphasis Corporation website, please visit mphasis.com, mphasis.ai
Protected Disclosure Notice:
This archive constitutes a good-faith disclosure under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1514A.
It reports suspected violations of U.S. data-privacy, compliance, and audit-control laws by entities processing regulated U.S. data from offshore environments.
No classified, sealed, or privileged material is disclosed.