by pugzleyca3 » Wed May 31, 2006 2:31 am
I have prepared this document as a summary instrument to dispute, dissect, and dispel EMC’s abhorrent use of deception and deceit to cover-up and deny the gravamen of the matters at hand. For ease of reference, I have used 29 C.F.R 1980 as a template to present the facts, and I have juxtaposed it to the EMC “Responses” to demonstrate the fabrications thus far made by EMC.<br><br>Overview of Infractions and Review of Grove v. EMC Complaint:<br><br>During my employment at EMC Corporation (and its subsidiary, Legato) I witnessed and was coerced to participate in multiple activities, which my evidence demonstrates were in violation of:<br><br>The USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001): (U.S. H.R. 3162, S. 1510, Public Law 107-56); specifically with respect to Section 314: “…information regarding individuals, entities, and organizations engaged in or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in terrorist or money laundering activities.”<br>The RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS Act (RICO): Specifically, violations of 18 U.S.C. 1513 constitute one of the predicate acts upon which a person may base a civil RICO claim. 18 U.S.C. 1961 § 1513 (e) see also #5, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002<br>The SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934: Any employer who discriminates against a whistleblower in violation of either 18 U.S.C. 1514A or 18 U.S.C. 1513(e)<br>The FALSE CLAIMS ACT (FCA) OF 1863 [31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.] (Qui Tam or “Lincoln’s Law”)<br>The SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002: Specifically, section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002; Section 1107 of H.R. 3763, codified as 18 U.S.C. 1513(e), amends the obstruction of justice statute to clearly prohibit retaliation against employee whistleblowers: “Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.” <br>This Opposition examines EMC’s actions and offers evidence of violation of the 5 aforementioned Federal Laws and Statues. The activities in question were overtly monitored and documented from July 2, 2003 to September 11, 2005. The triggering event for my Sarbanes-Oxley Complaint occurred on January 15, 2004; in the form of a retaliatory termination and attempts to intimidate and financially bankrupt me, to prevent me from making my evidence and documentation of these matters public. EMC Corporation undertook actions in retaliation, with the intention of harming my livelihood; for the purpose of interfering with a legitimate investigation of my then concerns (now Complaint). EMC has omitted the truthful information relating to the commission of several Federal Offenses; and has replaced the Truth with a poorly concocted scenario proven to be patently out of context, if not intentionally fabricated, to avoid prosecution. EMC retaliated against me (without impunity) for conscientiously objecting to their scheme of defrauding Investors, Clients, Employees, as well as the U.S. Government. I hereby submit the following:<br>TABLE OF CONTENTS:<br><br>COVER LETTER INTRODUCTION TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2005 OPPOSITION <br>…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…1<br>TABLE OF CONTENTS & ENCLOSURE LISTING<br>…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…2<br>PREFACE, DEFINITIONS, & PREAMBLE<br>…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…3<br>CHRONOLOGICAL PROGRESSION OF PROTECTED ACTIVITY & RETALIATION <br>…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…4<br>CHRONOLOGICAL TIMELINE SUMMARY OF EVENTS IN QUESTION <br>…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…5<br>SECTION I: PURPOSE AND SCOPE <br>……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13<br>SECTION II: EMC’S VIOLATIONS AND EVIDENCE THEREOF <br>……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..26<br>SECTION III: OPPOSITION TO EMC’S FABRICATED STATEMENTS <br>……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..29<br>OPPOSITION TO EMC’S JUNE 8, 2004 RESPONSE (12 page EMC letter)<br>…………………………………………………………………………………………………....30<br>OPPOSITION TO EMC’S JUNE 13, 2005 RESPONSE (3 page EMC letter)<br> …………………………………………………………………………………………………....45<br>SECTION IV: SAMPLE OF DAMAGES INCURRED FOR CONSIDERATION <br>……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..60<br>SECTION V: CONCLUSION TO CASE 2-4173-04-22<br>……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..65<br>SECTION VI: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THIS OPPOSITION <br>……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..69<br>SECTION VII: ACCOUNT LIST FOR R. ANDREW GROVE; EMC CORPORATION <br>……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..76<br>SECTION VIII: Giametta’s July 31, 2003 Revenue Projections as Provided to LGTO Mgt.<br>……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..77<br><br>ENCLOSURES: <br><br>“Legato & the Sarbanes-Oxley Act”:<br>o application brief, EmailXtender®<br><br>“Legato & the SEC, Rule 17a-3 & 4”:<br>o application brief, EmailXtender®<br><br>EMC CORPORATION: <br>o Business Conduct Guidelines (Note pages 1, 3, 7, & <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>o Amended and Restated Audit Committee Charter<br><br>R. Andrew Grove:<br>o Example of the Self-Created Invitations used for Sarbanes-Oxley Seminars in 2003; offered in explanation for McCarron’s claim that I did anything other than creatively use the resources available to me in an effort to remain employed<br><br>The Enclosures are also included in electronic form as well, on the accompanying CD-ROM; for the Reader’s convenience and authentication.<br>PREFACE to Opposition: Setting the Reader’s Expectations<br>Definitions: Vocabulary and Nomenclature Clarifications<br>Whistleblower: A whistleblower informs the government or other authorities that one of the following questionable acts is being committed: SEC violations, Sarbanes-Oxley Violations, and abuse of authority. Essentially, the whistleblower is "blowing the whistle" on those who are committing these crimes. Herein I am also referred to as “Complainant”.<br><br>Gravamen: As referenced in this document is used to mean: n. Latin for "to weigh down," the basic gist of every claim (cause of action) or the unknown weight or momentum of a charge in a complaint filed to begin a lawsuit. <br><br>Allegation: (law) a formal accusation against somebody (often in a court of law); "an allegation of malfeasance" 2: statements affirming or denying certain matters of fact that you are prepared to prove 3: a statement by a party to a lawsuit of what the party will attempt to prove [syn: ACCUSATION, INDICTMENT]<br>Concern: something that interests you because it is important or affects you; "the security of the company is the CEO’s concern" 2: an anxious feeling; "they hushed it up out of fear of public reaction" [syn: care, fear] <br>[Preamble: I would like to remind the Reader(s) of this documentation of events that I am not an attorney, nor do I contend to act as one; rather, I am an Employee whose rights have been violated, and whose career has been destroyed; so while it is my intent to present these matters in a forthright and concise manner, I ask the Reader to empathize with the fact that the only resources I have at my disposal for the self-defense of my rights are the words and punctuation marks contained herein (and within my extensive documentation). <br><br>Please pardon any digression that the Reader feels is not pertinent to demonstrate my Complaint as being valid; as it was my intention in creating this document, that it should present enough information, in context, to protect myself from whatever EMC Corporation has planned for me next. EMC would have the Reader believe that I made “allegations” in my November 4, 2003 request for asylum and protection from retaliation; and that my termination was an independent event which EMC justified in defending their “legitimate business” concerns. In Fact, if the Reader has sampled any of the correspondences that I had with EMC in November 2003, it is evident and clear that I was relating that I had “concerns”, which I wished to discuss with an EMC Human Resources Representative (first); after which time I would present my documentation of events to EMC’s General Counsel. EMC purposefully neglected to act on my November 4, 2003 letter as a strategy of “plausible denial”, which over the past 2 years has coalesced into my Complaint, and EMC’s erroneously conceived fable as expressed through Elizabeth McCarron’s multiple indirect responses to my April 13, 2004 filing.<br><br>My Complaint presents concerns, which in light of the retaliation and coercive mishandling of these affairs; have not been refuted. I at no time made “allegations”, despite my tone or candor herein; I am merely sharing the facts, documentation, and evidence as they are known to me. The documentation of events is forthright, clear, and contextually demonstrated from multiple angles. EMC’s claim that I was “terminated for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons” is a poorly created illusion, which does not even stand up to direct scrutiny; let alone a 360-degree investigation of the audit trails (which EMC has demonstrably edited) and words of EMC’s own executives.<br><br>If the Reader desires more granular detail, I am happy to entertain and satiate such requests; as it is my responsibility to demonstrate what really happened, and I realize that the ultimate responsibility rests on the Complainant (me), who is burdened to prove that the Company (EMC) violated (my) Rights. The electronic version of this document is interactive in nature, should the Reader desire more clarity or verification; simply click the blue links for more information.]<br>Significant Dates and Events as presented in the May 24, 2004 Document Archive:<br>(P) = Engaged in Protected Activity (R) = Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activities<br> <br>Date of Event Protected Activity or Retaliation page no. Description of Illicit Activity Reported (constituting Engagement in Protected Activity) by me - or Adverse Action Taken (in Retaliation) by EMC <br>June 24, 2003 (P) p 41-42 I sent email to myself @ LGTO re: IBM/LGTO price fixing and possible collusion <br>July 2-3, 2003 (P) p 51-53 I responded to Giametta and objected to being asked to falsify revenue information <br>July 7, 2003 (P) p 55-56 I disputed Giametta's misrepresentation and use of deceptive financial information <br>July 8, 2003 (R) p 59-60 LGTO withheld my compensation as promised by Gheesling/Giametta <br>July 14, 2003 (R) p 64-65 Giametta ordered me to cancel a doctor's appt. to meet on his boat; & to "keep quiet" <br>July 31, 2003 (P) p 73-74 I disputed Giametta's claim of $41 million forecast to LGTO executives <br>August 12, 2003 (R) p 85-87 Giametta revoked an account he had recently assigned to me, and awarded it to a co-worker <br>August 18, 2003 (R) p 89 LGTO HR (Sill) contacts me for "missing" paperwork, threatens non-payment of compensation <br>September 4, 2003 (P) p 115 Giametta con. call wherein I dispute use of misleading formulae, revenue projections <br>September 5, 2003 (R) p 106-109 LGTO payroll informs me that Giametta ordered my commissions paid to Nuzzolo <br>September 9-10, 2003 (P) p 117 I protested Giametta's orders to create "side-letters" to bind Clients to Purchase <br>September 18, 2003 (P) p 132 I related my concerns of illicit fiscal activity to Giametta & Gheesling, posing direct questions <br>September 18, 2003 (R) p 133 Giametta & Gheesling threatened my employment, discouraged my "distractions" <br>September 26, 2003 (R) p 146 Gheesling and Giametta allowed Bruno/Nuzzolo to poach; then construct NG termination scenario <br>October 13, 2003 (P) p 159 I filed a report with Giametta, including a voice recording w/ Northrop Grumman <br>October 13, 2003 (P) p 160 I filed a report with LGTO Accounting regarding 1000's of possible GAAP violations <br>October 27, 2003 (R) p 174 Gheesling attempts to intimidate me by having his (friend) new-hire (Landow) allegedly slander me <br>October 28, 2003 (P) p 192 I inquire again with LGTO Accounting regarding misrepresentation of bookings <br>October 28, 2003 (P) p 196 I email myself @ LGTO re: GAAP violations, specifically Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi <br>October 29, 2003 (P) p 198 I express my concerns of illicit activity ongoing at Northrop Grumman <br>October 29, 2003 (P) p 207 I validate my concerns of GAAP violations with LGTO Accounting, but no action is taken <br>October 30, 2003 (P) p 212-219 I inform Giametta that I had spoken to the SEC after they arrested a Northrop Grumman/LGTO client <br>October 30, 2003 (R) p 219 Gheesling orders Giametta to (again) attempt to construct my discharge, "30-Day-Goals" <br>October 31, 2003 (R) In person Giametta protects Nuzzolo, who is undermining me in my own accounts (McGraw-Hill) <br>November 3, 2003 (P) p 221 I file a report with Giametta, regarding Nuzzolo (& Bruno)'s marauding of my clients <br>November 3, 2003 (P) p 222 I sent an email to myself @ LGTO, documenting GAAP revenue recognition re: BTM <br>November 4, 2003 (P) p 227-232 Since LGTO ignored my concerns, I informed EMC Human Resources/General Counsel*** <br>November 6, 2003 (R) p 239-245 Gheesling, Giametta, and Sill threatened me, seized my records, and terminated my email access <br>November 10, 2003 (R) p 248 Giametta, aware of protected activity- slanders me to clients, colleagues, and dissolves my client list <br>November 10, 2003 (R) p 249 LGTO HR (Sill) contacts me re: "termination" triggered by non-attendance (Nov 4) & "30-Day-Goals" <br>November 10, 2003 (P) p 250 I inform Sill (80 min call) of my concerns, evidence, and desire to remain employed <br>November 11, 2003 (P) call A colleague and I speak with LGTO Accounting, and LGTO agrees to provide GAAP info <br>November 18, 2003 (P) p 265 I reiterate my concerns to Sill regarding EMC Human Resources non-response <br>November 24, 2003 (P) p 273 I correspond with Tucci (EMC CEO) who informs Fitzgerald (Audit Committee Chairman) <br>December 4, 2003 (P) p 281 I (again) appeal to Tucci and Fitzgerald re: LGTO/EMC Accounting concerns <br>December 15, 2003 (P) p 283-4 I attempt track down $25,000 missing; LGTO partner MTI's records do not match LGTO <br>January 13, 2004 (R) p 285 Gheesling & Sill’s actions led to the termination of my health insurance (without notice to me) <br>January 15, 2004 (R) p 285 Gheesling surreptitiously has Sill illegally carry out my termination, with prejudice <br>January 16, 2004 (R) p 286 LGTO's 1-page termination letter is sent by EMC's Leanne Fitzgerald <br>February 2, 2004 (R) p 291 EMC's Fitzgerald(s) fail to act on my notification of the denial of COBRA health insurance <br>February 10, 2004 (R) p 294 EMC's Human Resources neglects to respond to their ongoing denial of COBRA benefits <br>February 11, 2004 (P) p 294-7 I inform Tucci, Sill, etc. of EMC violations, attaching voice recordings of the termination call <br>February 12, 2004 (P) p 298 I send the above referenced recordings to Tucci & Fitzgerald on CD-ROM <br>April 13, 2004 Complaint p 299 I filed a Sarbanes-Oxley Complaint with the USDOL/OSHA, under 29 C.F.R. 1980 <br>May 4, 2004 Complaint p 306 I filed a Complaint with USDOL regarding the Unlawful Denial of my COBRA benefits by EMC <br>June 8, 2004 (R) FOIA EMC attorney McCarron files a slanderous and deceptively misleading response with USDOL <br>June 13, 2005 (R) FOIA EMC attorney McCarron files the 2nd attempt to deceive USDOL and avoid investigation <br> CHRONOLOGICAL TIMELINE OF EVENTS IN QUESTION <br>(pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1980 and Case No. 2-4173-04-22):<br><br>I submit the following summary to be a detailed reflection of my May 24, 2004 Documentation Archive, for the purpose of framing EMC’s responses in the factual context of events; to demonstrate EMC’s premeditated actions to avoid investigation of the events as follows:<br><br>June 2003: After being offered a Channel Manager position at Legato, upon my first day I was informed by Giametta regarding a contradistinction in communication; in other words, he now had “other objectives” in mind for me, and had decided that the Channel Manager position was “no longer available”. I was directly asked to participate in Account Manager responsibilities, which were apparently illicit in nature (and notably, I later brought to the attention of executives at BOTH Legato and EMC; thereby participating in numerous instances of activity classified as protected).<br><br>I witnessed and documented events on numerous occasions wherein Legato executives were abusing their authority, claiming non-standard business expenses, claiming anomalous revenues via non-standard accounting practices through the Partner Channel (Legato Partners), and using coercive and intimidating tactics on a number of Account Managers (sales representatives working under Gheesling and Giametta). The samples included in this timeline are documented either in the May 24, 2004 Documentation Archive (where referenced) or based on my evidence and documentation submitted to the USDOL subsequent to my April 13, 2004 Complaint. <br><br>I witnessed acts of collusion between Legato and IBM, which are discussed later in this document (as well as p 42 of the May 24, 2004 Documentation Archive via hyperlinks to the telephone calls in question). I was also asked to secure revenue by partnering with EMC and Hewlett Packard selling an EmailXtender Compliance solution to Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi (BTM) for approximately $230,000.00. I complied and aggregated the purchase through the proper channels; EMC booked the deal, paying Legato as a partner. In other words, the deal closed, and Legato “booked it”. I would not find out until September (18th) that I was not being paid on this deal, as it had some “special terms to the agreement”, sometimes referred to as a “side letter” or “side deal”. It was also communicated to me that Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi was on a secret (non-published) “hold out” list of accounts as referenced by Giametta and Gheesling in the same September 18, 2003 phone call. Giametta and Gheesling cited this list as the “reason” I was not being paid.<br><br>July 2003: I was asked to falsify documents used, in part, to “convince” EMC that Legato was worth almost $700 million more than EMC had first valuated in January 2003. I validated that the documents I was asked to fabricate were being provided to Legato’s top executives, for the purpose of the acquisition. I objected to this request, but was coerced to comply; I noted this by sending myself an email to my Legato email account (to which I did not have regular access, but which I used to store evidence as per Sarbanes-Oxley regulations) detailing the events. Six days subsequent to this event, EMC purchased Legato for approximately $1.3 billion dollars. <br><br>Post the July 8, 2003 acquirement of Legato by EMC Corporation, I witnessed and documented further illicit events and requests, such as Tyco’s Chief General Counsel, who clearly indicated that though Tyco was under SEC investigation and mandated to retain all email records, that she in fact, was asking Legato how Tyco could destroy these records- as she (Tyco’s counsel) admitted was her practice when she “cooked the books for the Pharmacia merger”. (Note: Pfizer purchased Pharmacia April 16, 2003) Schering-Plough is also an EmailXtender client, using the product for drug trials, and is just one of many examples of clients who are experiencing buyer remorse and have realized that their dealings with Legato have had a “bad taste” left in their mouth after trusting in Legato’s “Compliance” solutions for Sarbanes-Oxley regulatory obligations; but I did not realize the scope (of what turned out to be a valid concern) and consequences of the “anomalous” nature of the questionable acts until August…<br>August 2003: I overtly questioned my management regarding the seemingly illegal atmosphere ongoing, and I was told that I should not be “distracted” by the complex financial dealings. <br><br>As I was self-learning the EmailXtender® product in July 2003, I recognized potential points of weakness wherein the integrity of the product could be compromised and manipulated to reflect whatever the operator was attempting to display; in other words, it was possible to add or delete documents, thereby circumventing the integrity of the allegedly “compliant” product offering. <br><br>It was not until August that I validated this when John Brady, AVP at NASD (a prospective EmailXtender® client) noted that the EmailXtender® product had “loopholes”, and therefore the premise of the product (EmailXtender® allegedly provides an environment where email records- .pst files for instance- cannot be deleted; as Tyco, Enron, Worldcom, Andersen, etc. are guilty of) was validated (to both me and the client) to be flawed at an architectural level. <br><br>I would further note that Giametta (and possibly Gheesling) were party to the abovementioned “loophole” discussion with Brady, and chose not to offer a factual or satisfying rebuttal. In turn, NASD later eliminated Legato and EMC as a viable compliance solution based on Legato management’s non-response to their stated concerns. Legato management failed to provide evidence to uphold their claims of compliance to the NASD. This is one of many examples.<br><br>The Sarbanes-Oxley and SEC 17a-4 regulations (attached) specify the environment for the information lifecycle management of electronic documents as being WORM media (Write-Once Read-Many), to ensure that the data (in this case, email) cannot be deleted. NASD raised legitimate concerns regarding the Legato (now EMC) EmailXtender product providing ways to circumvent these regulations. Specifically, Brady stated that it is possible to delete “container files” (jar files) in the staging effect; before the data is written to the required WORM media. <br><br>The Legato and EMC representation at the meeting (including Giametta) did not deny this fact, hinting that there are “loopholes in everything”. Abovementioned, the NASD abandoned Legato/EMC and, to my recollection, purchased an IBM-based solution. The purpose of the 17a-4 and SOX regulations are to close such “loopholes” and prevent anyone from contaminating or deleting electronic documents; if Legato’s product does not fulfill these regulations, the EmailXtender® product would then be a fraud, potentially being used to alleviate clients of their sizable budgets allotted for Information Technology purchases.<br><br> In essence, Legato and EMC have been selling a product which demonstrably is only a cloak to a deeper level of circumventing accounting standards and regulations (under NASD and SEC regulations) beyond the perception of employees and even auditors. As of September 11, 2005, EMC clients of EmailXtender® have found out the hard way that the product is not “enterprise ready” (as it “crashes” under “normal workloads”), but the vast majority of clients are not aware of the “loopholes”- which pose a substantial threat to the integrity and security of any corporate entity that has purchased the EmailXtender® product. Many corporations have invested hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into Legato/EMC’s “compliance” solutions, only to find out months or years later that the products do not perform as promised. <br><br>Deutsche Bank and John Hancock are just two of the clients known presently to the author that have complained of EmailXtender® crashing when faced with everyday use- and both have recently moved to replace the EmailXtender product-line completely- thus having to spend another several hundred-thousand dollars (or more) on an identical solution. Is this evidence that for the past 2+ years, Legato/EMC’s clientele have been deceived into investing millions of dollars into software that now has to be re-purchased- in effect, a scheme to defraud their clients (and I would note that the U.S. Government, in many forms, is both a Legato and an EMC client)? <br><br>I informed Giametta that the information presented by NASD could “cause problems for EMC”, and he stated that he would “take care of it”; to my knowledge, Giametta did nothing to address the situation of Legato (soon to be part of EMC) defrauding its clients. Other sales reps I knew also had knowledge of these “loopholes”. [Henceforth, EmailXtender® will be listed as “EmailXtender”, assuming said ® Registered Trademark.]<br>NOTE: Despite all of this, Legato announced the SEC’s purchase of its EmailXtender software on April 15, 2004 (p 304 of the May 24, 2004 document) and I would further note that Robert Greifeld (CEO of NASDAQ) is one of Giametta’s previous supervisors/mentors. [Giametta admits this, and NASDAQ spends millions with Legato/EMC annually.] <br><br>As a consequence, one could deduce that, the security of our Stock Market is in danger, as is the Accounting Integrity of EmailXtender Clients; and rather than spending the past 2 years investigating it, EMC Corporation has gone to great lengths to perpetrate a cover-up to prevent this information from reaching the victims of their scheme (thus far). In my estimation, the enormity and breadth of the syndicated fraud was a clear and present danger to the National Security of the United States of America. Thus, I sought to further document, and upon validation, report these activities internally initially (Legato), then to the SEC (who agreed that I engage EMC), then internally to EMC, and finally externally as a response to EMC’s attempts to retaliate against me (for the reporting of said activities). <br><br>[If 2/3 of the world’s critical information resides on EMC (as it claims) what percentage of U.S. Government and Law Enforcement are reliant on the integrity of EMC Corporation? EMC’s attempt to perpetrate this cover-up for the past 2 years has put countless organizations at risk, as EMC still claims that the EmailXtender product is “compliant”; how secure is the document lifecycle management of an organization when even a novice can infiltrate and circumvent the Integrity of the mandated information lifecycle management (i.e. “compliance) solution? In other words, how secure or accurate are accounting records when essentially anyone can “shred” the electronic audit trail, essentially destroying the records of any transaction that they wish to hide from scrutiny?]<br><br>September 2003: In retaliation to my numerous reports of “poaching” activities in my accounts by Messrs. Bruno and Nuzzolo (primarily), Bruno was given instructions to participate in Gheesling and Giametta’s first attempt to contrive my termination. After attempts to use an illicit Northrop Grumman transaction (which did not appear on Legato’s books) to lure me into breaking Legato’s rules (essentially a plot to trick me into giving away product without receiving compensation) had failed to bring about a cause for my termination; Gheesling and Giametta attempted to intimidate me and coerce me telephonically, specifically regarding a transaction with Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi which Legato booked in June but did not ship until August. <br><br>To the best of my knowledge, the abovementioned (BTM) transaction is a violation in GAAP Accounting regulations yet, as the Reader will soon observe, my mentioning this taboo subject was not well received by Gheesling. ***At no time (post my validation of the “loopholes”) did I sell EmailXtender to Clients with the expectations of it being a “Fully Compliant Solution”, nor did I sell it to clients at all once I validated that it had “loopholes”. The sales I made before I gained this knowledge were paid to Paul Nuzzolo (Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi). Given this context, one may observe McCarron’s deceptively presented claim that I had “poor performance” transversed against the fact that her observation fails to mention that I was engaged in protected activity, while conscientiously objecting to defrauding clients into purchasing Legato/EMC’s less-than-compliant solution.<br><br>In parallel with the internal illicit behavior, I became aware of the fact that many of my clients were engaged not only in suspicious fiscal activity with Legato/EMC; but were in fact engaged in activities ranging from war-profiteering to the sale of young girls into an elite sex-slave black market trade. [This is covered in part in: Excerpts relevant to my 2003 “Concerns”, applicable through the evidence in my 2004 Complaint, and in depth in the next section of this document.]<br><br>October 2003: Though I was now successfully traversing the lack of resources provided to me and, as a result, gaining momentum in my revenue generation; the “apparent” illicit activities and transactions ongoing were validated by Legato internal personnel; who admitted that what I suspected was actually just a subset of what was going on. I was notified by a friend that the SEC had arrested a Legato client, who worked for Logicon; a Northrop Grumman subsidiary, (Legato and the NGC employee had signed a “side-letter”) on charges of violating GAAP regulations. <br>Simultaneous to the NGC arrest, I documented a similar (and contextual) GAAP violation I was observing at the time; I submit my October 28, 2003 email (to myself), found on p 196 of the May 24, 2004 document, taken from the Terms and Conditions of my Legato Sales Contract:<br><br> <br><br><br>This email that I sent to myself on October 28th details Legato’s own company documents regarding GAAP and Revenue Recognition guidelines. NOTE the reference to Legato’s past Account Improprieties. (<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/complr17524.htm">www.sec.gov/litigation/co...r17524.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> )<br><br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Richard Grove <br>Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 8:33 PM<br>To: Richard Grove<br>Subject: revenue recognition<br><br>Bank of Tokyo booked in June, shipped in September. BTM starts to pay HP for it next year.<br> <br>VIOLATIONS OF GAAP <br>27. As a result of its accounting improprieties during the Class Period, the Company's reported financial results also violated at least the following provisions of Generally Accepted Accounting Principals ("GAAP") for which it is necessarily responsible:<br>(a) GAAP generally provides that revenues should not be recognized until they are realized or realizable, earned and the collection of the sales price is reasonably assured. Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts ("Concepts Statement") No. 5, ¶83; Accounting Principles Board ("APB") Opinion No. 10, ¶12. The conditions for revenue and services are met when: (a) the products and services are exchanged for cash or claims to cash (i.e. when the product or merchandise is delivered or services are rendered to customers); (b) the earnings process is complete (i.e. when the entity has substantially accomplished what it must do to be entitled to the benefits represented by the revenues); and (c) the collection of the sales price is probable. Generally, a transfer of risk has to occur in order to affect an "exchange" for the purposes of revenue recognition; <br>(b) The principle that financial reporting should provide information that is useful to present and potential investors and creditors and other users in making rational investment, credit and similar decisions was violated (FASB Statement of Concepts No. 1, ¶34); and<br>(c) The principle that financial reporting should be reliable and that it represents what it purports to represent was violated. That information should be reliable as well as relevant to a notion that is central to accounting (FASB Statement of Concepts No. 2, ¶¶58-59);<br>NO SAFE HARBOR <br>28. The statutory safe harbor provided for forward looking statements under certain circumstances does not apply to any of the allegedly false statements pleaded in this complaint. The statements alleged to be false and misleading herein all relate to then-existing facts and conditions. In addition, to the extent certain of the statements alleged to be false may be characterized as forward looking, they were not identified as "forward looking" when made, there was no statement made with respect to any of those representations forming the basis of this complaint that actual results "could differ materially from those projected," and there were no meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the purportedly forward-looking statements. Alternatively, to the extent that the statutory safe harbor is intended to apply to any forward-looking statements pled herein, defendants are liable for those false forward-looking statements because at the time each of those forward-looking statements was made, the particular speaker had actual knowledge that the particular forward-looking statement was materially false or misleading, and/or the forward-looking statement was authorized and/or approved by an executive officer of Legato who knew that those statements were false when made. <br> <br>Giametta and Gheesling began setting discriminatory and ethically questionable goals; including holding Sarbanes-Oxley executive breakfasts, wherein I was mandated to inform clients as to the “risks” associated with their respective corporate environments, in order to bring about sales; contrived through fear via Telescoping Risk. No other rep on my team held such interactions (as mandated), while I successfully met and exceeded the tasks mandated to me. Not only did I accomplish these tasks, but I provided documentation to the USDOL validating the authenticity of said accomplishments.<br><br>Gheesling instructed me to contact a “close friend” of his, Oliver Landow. Giametta called me after I spoke with Landow, demanding that I cancel my appointments and meet him in EMC’s New York office; I inquired repeatedly why Giametta a) seemed upset with me and b) wanted to meet with me- alone- for a “come to Jesus” meeting (a term Gheesling had also used in his September intimidation attempt). <br><br>I entertained Giametta’s obnoxiously suspicious request, and during the meeting he stated that I was there because I was raising questions and concerns regarding what was now obviously something illegal. In fact, contrary to McCarron’s fairy tale, Giametta admits the true reason for the discrimination- I was asking questions about crimes in progress- or in Giametta’s words:<br><br>GIAMETTA: “…but you’re the only one who’s vocalizing it to the tune of a tenor on the top of the Empire State Building- let me tell you where that’s coming from, ok? You’re talking to other people- I mean, you don’t even realize what you’re doing, so think about who you’ve been talking to recently in the past, think about who you’ve been negative to, and you come to your own conclusions- some of those people are wired to other people in this company… …I can’t protect you.” Further, regarding the lack of GAAP required information in Legato’s Accounting Practices: “I’ve told you from the beginning, you cannot rely on any information from this company (Legato, regarding Order and Account information)… we don’t have it.” (p 213 May 24 2004 Document: telephonic conversation samples # 3-8 on October 30, 2003)<br><br>At the end of this “come to Jesus” meeting, which I legally recorded, I asked Giametta if he knew about the SEC arresting a Legato Client (at NGC, regarding side-letters); as Logicon was also under Giametta’s responsibility. He then asked me how I knew about that, and if I had told anybody about it… I responded “just the SEC”. Giametta then asked if I had spoken to the SEC, and I related that I had, in fact, corresponded and spoken with Kevin Gross, of the SFO office. <br><br>Within hours of this notification to Giametta that not only did I still have concerns, but now my concerns had been validated by an outside law enforcement agency; Giametta issued the infamous “30-Day-Goals” document, followed up by (legally recorded) calls wherein he admits that the “history” section of his “30-Day-Goal email” is “flowered-up” and goes on to instruct me to “just delete it”, attempting to extinguish any idea that one might have as to the possibility that this document might be used in the future to construct one’s termination. <br><br>I might add that Giametta premeditatively and surreptitiously made this call to me via a call to a colleague’s mobile phone, as a means to ensure the plausible deniability of the call even taking place; unless of course the employee in question legally recorded the transaction and has preserved it for retrospective scrutiny, as I set forth in my May 24, 2004 document. <br><br>Giametta’s own words validate, in succinct form, that he and Gheesling were carelessly constructing a contrived termination; in retaliation for my blowing the whistle to him, and for speaking to the SEC. Understanding that this scheme and retaliation was approved up through David B. Wright (who has also lied to Investors about his education, citing his “MBA” from Babson College; which Babson’s Registrar confirmed does not exist- Wright did not complete his alleged Degree- p 303-304 of the May 24, 2004 document), I engaged EMC Human Resources at the highest level, as prescribed by the guidelines set forth in my contract and EMC’s own guidelines.<br><br>[Why would Legato’s CEO, being paid millions of dollars per year, need to LIE regarding his alleged Education? The answer should be of interest to both USDOL and Investors.]<br>I thought (in retrospect naively) that EMC would be keenly interested in Legato’s ongoing ruse to defraud EMC and its investors; and in light of the recent finalization of the merger, EMC clients as well. Contrary to my expectations, I found out that EMC was verifiably complicit to (and probably in control and approving of) the numerous layers of the Legato fraud. Could it possibly be that EMC was paying almost $700 million over their first valuation as a result of knowing about this ongoing scheme, and its potential to yield tens-of-millions in illegally documented profits for EMC? As submitted, the evidence set forth begs the question: Cui Bono?<br><br>November 2003: I have established that on numerous occasions, my acts of protected activity pertaining to violations of several federal regulations were ignored, and that some retaliation had already taken place (in retaliation for my protected acts) prior to my letter to EMC’s Senior Vice President of Human Resources. EMC’s violation of § 1980.102 “Obligations and Prohibited Acts” Subsection (a) started with the non-response to my November 4, 2003 letter; as I had up until that time only alerted the Legato Management Hierarchy of my concerns of possible illicit activities ongoing in my work environment. <br><br>EMC’s behavior was not only criminal, but cowardly. If they were indeed innocent of what I had then labeled as “concerns”, would an innocent company take great risk to retaliate against an employee; who wishes only to bring said concerns of his unusual work environment forward, for purposes of internal investigation and resolution? The post-November 4 examples of retaliation, intimidation, and coercive behavior are covered in the section covering EMC’s violations of 29 C.F.R. 1980.100-104; as EMC’s slanderous statements made on behalf of their defense are in fact, violations of my Civil Rights.<br>EMC’s violations are additionally covered under The False Claims Act (also known as Qui Tam or the “Lincoln Law” of 1863) which also prohibits an employer from harassing or retaliating against an employee for attempting to uncover or report fraud on the federal government. If retaliation does occur, the Relator may be awarded "all relief necessary to make the employee whole.” I would further note that The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. Sections 3729-33) allows a private individual or "whistleblower", with knowledge of past or present fraud against the federal government, to sue on behalf of the government to recover stiff civil penalties and triple damages. In this case, I became the Relator of these activities on April 13, 2004 when I filed with the United States Department of Labor (USDOL); via this Sarbanes-Oxley Complaint.<br>To summarize, on November 4, 2003, I requested protection from retaliation via a letter addressed to Jack Mollen, SVP of EMC’s Human Resources department. (p 22<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>On November 6, 2003, Giametta and Gheesling threatened to terminate me via email, and upon my apparent non-reaction to their threat, further escalated their retaliation by terminating my email account and seizing my electronic records- possibly to prevent me from presenting this Complaint. <br>On November 10, 2003 Giametta dissolved my accounts and disseminated them among my colleagues, who were told that I had “quit”. As a consequence, by the afternoon of November 10th, I had been effectively alienated and all work that I had invested had been stripped from my responsibility. In addition, several clients had already called as a result of Giametta’s dissemination earlier in the day of said accounts; inquiring as to why I “quit” the company. <br>What’s more, there were EMC managers inquiring as to whether I would be interested in coming to work for them, but in light of the fact that I had not “quit” and I was instead involved in an “investigation process” (which EMC failed to conduct), I could not entertain such offers until I was apprised by EMC’s Human Resources department. Meanwhile, I was still performing my daily duties, and even though I was alienated from my team; I continued to help progress deals for the sake of my team, as there are numerous supporting roles whose compensation was dependent on my sales ability. I have demonstrated this via the May 24, 2004 Document Archive, which details my daily email audit transactions with clients and providing technical assistance until December.<br>Also on November 10, 2003, I received a voice mail from Dacier regarding my “allegations”. Though I had clearly stated in my November 4, 2003 correspondence that I had not made “allegations” but rather expressed “concerns” regarding activity in my work environment of a human resources nature, Dacier (EMC’s attorney) was now sternly coercing me to contact him (and him alone) regarding what he had labeled as: “allegations”. Understanding immediately that Dacier was acting to protect EMC by using the word “allegations”, I felt that I needed to communicate in writing to Dacier regarding the fact that I had human resources related concerns and that I would not present these concerns to an attorney unless I was being advised by an attorney. <br>I further stated that if I had to get an attorney I was no longer going to participate in EMC’s internal “investigatory” process, which I did not feel was in the interest of protecting and enforcing my rights as an employee. Despite EMC’s negligence and intransigence, I took numerous opportunities to share my concerns fully with EMC Human Resources personnel, as it was my desire at the time, to remain an employee of EMC Corporation. <br>Despite my appeals to many different executives at EMC, other than Dacier, no EMC Human Resources employee would discuss my concerns of a hostile, coercive, and possibly illegal, daily work environment. I hardly see my actions in this situation as a “refusal to abide by EMC policies” or a “refusal to cooperate”; as I was the one bringing the evidence to EMC and, in fact, EMC was negligent and refused to cooperate with me, and circumvented Federal Law [citing 29 C.F.R 1980.104 (b)(1), among many broken during this chronology]. <br>Later that same day, I returned Sill’s request, as it had been almost a week since I alerted EMC and I had not yet had a response from EMC’s Human Resources department; so I figured if Legato’s Human Resources was interested, I would disclose my concerns in part to them. It was my notion at the time, that Sill was responding to my November 4, 2003 letter (to Mollen) on behalf of EMC. To my chagrin, Sill had not been informed as to my request for protection from retaliation, and was primarily interested in attempting to conduct an exit interview for the purpose of terminating my employment, based on Giametta’s “30-Day-Goals” scheme. McCarron’s responses now claim that my termination and preceding retaliation were based on my “failure to report without a valid excuse” to a Legato training event in San Francisco on November 4, 2003. <br>In other words, McCarron, on behalf of EMC, has admitted that EMC terminated my employment for my actions, which took place on November 4, 2003; and the May 24, 2004 Documentation Archive (including my November 4, 2003 and subsequent letters to EMC executives) demonstrates that I sent my request for protection from retaliation on November 4, 2003. In fact, my absence from Legato’s “training” was the same day that I contacted EMC seeking asylum and protection from retaliation from Legato. In light of the nature and gravity of my then concerns (which were going unaddressed by Legato, with the exception of their retaliation against me for voicing said concerns), I deemed that it was more important to inform EMC without delay (as their own guidelines suggest) rather than attend Legato Sales Workshop “new hire training”, which was training on protocol that I had already been tested for the week prior (earning a 96% score), due to the fact that Legato had waited almost 6 months to provide me with “new hire training”. <br>As a result of the information that I disclosed during the abovementioned Sill call, the conclusion was not my termination, but rather, Sill’s conveyed “understanding” of the situation as well as his multiple assurances that “somebody from EMC HR will contact you this week” (to follow up and to investigate). Sill also indicated that he had taken notes during our call for the purpose of informing EMC’s Human Resources department. <br>As McCarron has admitted, I also provided EMC with my copy of the contextual notes that I had taken during said conversation; and McCarron’s characterization of my actions were “uncooperative, defiant, and surreptitious”, yet at no time did McCarron dispute the validity of the contents of my notes.<br>December 2003: One month had passed since I requested protection from retaliation, and EMC had successively locked me out from my electronic records, informed my co-workers that I had “quit”, assigned my accounts to my colleagues, informed my clients that I had “quit”, and attempted to conduct an exit interview (that was all before November 11th in fact). In December, I attempted to contact the Chairman of the Board of EMC’s Audit Committee, W. Paul Fitzgerald (p 273); when the link provided by EMC in their documentation (p 276) returned the mail as a “failed or nonexistent” address at EMC, and the 3rd party company in North Carolina (contracted by EMC to collect and relay concerns of fiscal misdeeds) was not a legitimate party to receive such confidential information; I contacted EMC CEO Joseph Tucci, who informed me that he was aware and that “everything is under control”. <br><br>I have reason to suspect that the “Audit Committee” may have never been given the opportunity to review my correspondence, which Mr. Tucci accepted on their behalf, considering the fact that I never received a response in any form- or perhaps they did; in any case, by December 31, 2003 I had not yet been contacted by ANYONE in EMC’s Human Resources Department in response to my November 4, 2003 request for protection from retaliation.<br><br>January 2004: EMC decided to turn up the heat, and in a bold move, it was approved that my Health Insurance be allowed to “lapse”. When I telephoned EMC Human Resources (refer to calls and emails to Wendy Canessa dated January 10-13, 2004 p 285 of the May 24, 2004 document) upon my notice of this (at the pharmacy, where my insurance was denied), my requests for response were suppressed by EMC. I would further note that EMC claims that they sent me an email regarding their termination of my benefits, and then remind the Reader that I did not have access to my Legato/EMC email after November 6, 2003. Unless EMC offers other instances wherein employee’s benefits were cut off without notification while they were engaged in protected activity; I assert that EMC’s actions taken to terminate my healthcare are discriminatory, retaliatory, and illegal in nature.<br><br>On January 15, 2004 I received a voicemail from Gheesling around 17:30 hours and returned his call shortly after 18:00. Gheesling instructed me to call him back in a few minutes, and upon my compliance; Gheesling surreptitiously forwarded his telephone to Sill’s office in Maryland. This was done unbeknownst to me, and perhaps in an effort to circumvent my legal documentation of the business transaction in self-defense. Why couldn’t Gheesling just talk to me, what was he afraid of? Sill stated that it was “not an accident”, that Gheesling had forwarded his phone to him so that I could be terminated for “cause”, which Sill further clarified as “reasons”. I informed Sill that I had entered protected activity and that EMC would have to conduct such a call; whereupon Sill assured me that this was approved by EMC’s legal department. <br><br>On January 16, 2004, I received a letter from Leanne Fitzgerald, on Legato Stationary communicating my termination. I later found out that Ms. Fitzgerald is an EMC employee (not a Legato employee); which raises the question: “If W. Paul Fitzgerald is related to Richard Egan (EMC’s Founder and recent U.S. Ambassador to Ireland), is Leanne Fitzgerald related as well?”<br><br>In any case, I was discriminated against in this instance (the January 15th call), and I would note that it is EMC policy to conduct “exit interviews”; and relate that I was denied my right to document on the (EMC) record the truth of these matters in such a way that EMC understood what it had inherited with Legato. I would note also that after I provided Sill with my (then) current address; Sill had my termination letter (a single page) sent to an address at which I did not reside. <br><br>In addition to these events, I requested my COBRA paperwork from EMC on a number of occasions; and EMC knowingly denied it to me (at a penalty of $220 /per day, as referenced on p 30<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> until May, at which time the COBRA coverage was not economically feasible (discussed in detail in this document). I would lastly note that on November 11, 2003, I was contacted on behalf of an EMC manager (in another group) who heard that I had “quit”, and was attempting to hire me- until he heard about the retaliation that had taken place- irreparably damaging my professional credibility and exponentially increasing the “risk” I now posed to prospective employers. (Referenced in the 11-11-03 call with Diane Russell, re: Andrew Martin, EMC VP)<br>Having provided this brief summary of events in the timeline in question; I will now present detailed oppositions and rebuttals to EMC Corporations responses to this Complaint.<br><br>Section I: § 1980.100 Purpose and Scope of Concerns preceding Grove’s request for Protected Activity on 4 November 2003 and consequent Complaint under Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; validation that said Complaint meets all requirements set forth therein<br><br>These next few paragraphs provide a sample of data taken from the May 24, 2004 case document. It is intended to demonstrate that there were numerous instances of negligence, as well as illicit and unprofessional behavior on the part of Legato Management, including questionable Accounting Practices, Slander, Discrimination and Retaliation endured before I blew the whistle and requested Protected Activity under Sarbanes-Oxley. Though this is specifically mentioned in my November 4, 2003 correspondence; my request was never acknowledged by EMC Human Resources, and further, EMC denies that I entered protected activity: McCarron’s June 8, 2004 response to USDOL clearly states: “Mr. Grove did not enter protected activity.” (p 9, Section III, Sub-Section B, labeled “ii” of the June 8, 2004 McCarron Correspondence)<br>EMC Claims are contradicted by two provisions in the law which directly apply to whistleblowers and protected activity, which are:<br>o Section 301 of Sarbanes-Oxley requires publicly traded corporations to establish audit committees. These committees are required, in turn, to establish procedures for accepting employee complaints (both anonymously and non-anonymously) concerning questionable accounting or auditing matters. 15 U.S.C. 78f(m)(4). Under the whistleblower provisions, internal reports to such committees constitute fully protected activity. See 18 U.S.C. 1514A(a)(1). Corporations are now mandated to establish procedures to accept internal whistleblower complaints. <br>§ My evidence demonstrates that EMC is in violation of Section 301 (p 227)<br>o Section 307 As a matter of federal law, attorneys must report evidence of a material violation of securities law or breach(s) of fiduciary dut(ies) or similar violation(s) to a corporation’s chief legal counsel or chief executive officer. If these reports do not properly resolve an attorney’s concerns, an attorney is required to further report his or her concerns to a company’s audit committee or a similar committee. 15 U.S.C. 7245. Under the whistleblower provision, all such reports should be considered protected activity. 18 U.S.C. 1514A(a)(1). <br><br>o Sections 302, 404, and 409 are also demonstrated to be in violation by definition; [according to Legato’s own “Application Brief” on “Legato & the Sarbanes Oxley Act”.]<br><br>§ My retaliatory termination was constructed so that EMC could violate Section 307, thereby “nullifying” the issue. My reports to both Legato and EMC management are considered protected activity, and regardless of EMC’s claims; my rights are inalienable and therefore cannot be taken away without consequence to whoever superciliously deems that they are worthier than those who believe in the Constitution.<br><br>To briefly recount for the Reader, as stated in detail through the first 280 pages of my Complaint documentation, for much of the time during my tenure from June 2, 2003 to January 15, 2004 I was not provided with standard resources (examples being: an office, computer, access to who owns Legato/EMC products (standard client data), or a competent management team) with which to perform my job; nonetheless I persevered through numerous instances of discrimination and was the subject of coercive behavior (as in a dictatorial or imperious manner) on a daily basis. <br>On July 2, 2003, I was instructed by Mr. Giametta to employ a deceptive formula in my revenue projections, specifically creating the perception of non-existent financial opportunities representing tens of millions of dollars. These “numbers” (sales projections) were being provided to David B. Wright, Legato CEO (at the time) and his management staff. I disputed the use of such tactics, as it was obvious from my past experience in Sales Management that the only use for such unrealistic and impossibly inflated revenue projections would be for the purpose of deceiving, and thereby defrauding, their shareholders and/or a potential buyer. <br><br>I documented these events in several different ways, though the most readily available to EMC would be my internal emails to my alias, and the notes in the properties of the documents in question. (Richard Andrew Grove v. EMC Corporation May 24, 2004 pp 50-56. All references to external documents are to the May 24, 2004 document, including the 120+ digital audio samples of conversations in question.)<br><br>[The aforementioned correspondences can be further validated and referenced by requesting the “.pst” file for my Outlook Exchange email-box from EMC Corporation. I would add that one of the products that I was tasked with selling at Legato/EMC was EmailXtender; which allegedly neatly archives and permanently preserves email correspondence (.pst files specifically), in accordance with the regulations set forth in Sarbanes-Oxley and NASD 17a-4. If EMC uses their own software for the SOX and 17a-4 Compliance, it should take only a few seconds for EMC to validate this, and provide the .pst file to USDOL for inspection/validation. If this investigation does not warrant the subpoena of such information, under what circumstances would the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations warrant such disclosure on the part of EMC Corporation?]<br><br> <br>[Note: Embedded Document, featuring Legato’s Product for SEC 17a-4 Compliance (Data sheet) describing how easy it should be for EMC (Legato’s new owner) to provide the information to USDOL. Also included on the September 11, 2005 CD-ROM, as this refers to C.F.R. 240.17 3&4]<br> <br><br>[Note: Embedded Document, featuring Legato’s Product for Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance (Data sheet) describing how easy it should be for EMC (Legato’s new owner) to provide the information to USDOL. Also included on the September 11, 2005 CD-ROM.]<br><br><br>(I have printed copies of these documents; Enclosures are located at the end of this document)<br><br>On July 8, 2003, EMC purchased Legato for approximately $1.3 Billion dollars. This merger struck me as highly unusual and poorly researched on the part of EMC Investors, who allegedly approved the transaction. I have documentation demonstrating that between January 2003 and July 8, 2003 Legato artificially inflated the valuation of their company, partially by the application of the deceptive formula aforementioned. Reports in the press also supported my documentation and concerns, and it appeared that Legato had possibly created almost $700 million in superficial assets/potential revenues out of thin air. Here’s another example of artificial inflation tactics…<br><br>Prior to the merger Legato had colluded to raise the price of their software in the United States (taking fiscal advantage of the Sarbanes-Oxley and 17a-4 regulatory purchase requirement of said software) to approximately $40 (from approximately $1<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> per user; while the same product still sells outside of the country for the $18 price per user. Legato’s aggressive marketing further attempted to coerce customers by using the phrase “Go directly to jail” in relation to the non-use of said software compliance solutions. (pp 42-46, 139; the client list also appears on the list at the end of this document.)<br><br> [A copy of Legato/EMC’s (pre-merger) Email Compliance invitation is included in the Enclosures; however said invitations were not available to me or my team at the time, and as submitted, I created my own collateral documents and mechanisms to facilitate the Email Compliance Breakfast marketing idea being coercively pushed internally- as a scare tactic to attain clients.]<br>As it was explained to me by a Legato employee, Legato then used this increase in price to pay IBM approximately 50% of the list price to sell the product via IBM Global Services; in essence jacking-up the price so that Legato could pay IBM to have access to its 4000+ salespeople to sell to Legato’s prospective clients. In other words,
