Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Claimant,
- and-
:i
1
j
I
1
!
In conformance with Rule 13309(a)(2) of the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure governing
l
Industry Disputes (hereinafter, the "Governing Code"), Claimant David James Murphy (CRD #
4799650) (hereinafter, "Mr. Murphy," or, alternatively, the "Claimant"), by his attorneys,
I1
Tila Azeem (CRD # 5857404) (hereinafter, "Azeem," or, alternatively, the "Respondent"), sets
1
;
~i
i
i
I
~
I
I
SINGER DEUTSCH LLP, as and for his Amended Statement of Claim against Respondent
I
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
Mr. Murphy
Markets Inc. (CRD # 7059); and b) Citicorp Securities Services Inc. (CRD # 15387) (hereinafter,
together, "Citigroup," or, alternatively, the "Firm" or the "Company," unless specified
otherwise)) from in or about November 2011 until September 25,2014, at which time his
employment was wrongfully, abruptly, and improperly terminated as a result of allegedly
"imprudent" conduct relating to a Citigroup employee named Tila Azeem (again, "Azeem," or,
alternatively, the "Respondent"), i.e., conduct wholly unrelated to the stellar performance of his
duties and responsibilities as Citigroup's Global Head of Prime Finance (hereinafter, "Mr.
Murphy's Wrongful Termination"). At the time of his Wrongful Termination, Mr. Murphy
Managing Director
a) was responsible for roughly two hundred (200) - three hundred (300)
individuals as Citigroup's Global Head of Prime Finance; and b) was on pace to generate in
excess of $1 Billion in revenues for the entirety of Calendar Year 2014 for Citigroup and its
Shareholders, respectively.
) From hereon in, "Citigroup" shall refer to Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citicorp
Securities Services Inc., and each oftheir respective predecessors, successors, subsidiaries,
parents, and affiliates, unless noted specifically otherwise.
2
2.
Based upon a September 19, 2014 interrogation ofMr. Murphy concerning his close
Human Resources, as to her close friendship with Mr. Murphy was replete with outright lies,
half-truths, distortions, and omissions. Put simply, Azeem had wilfully and knowingly slandered
Mr. Murphy to Citigroup. Then, upon receiving Citigroup's April 29, 2015 Answer to the
Statement of Claim in a separate action that Mr. Murphy had filed against Citigroup which is
presently pending at FINRA,2 it was clear to Mr. Murphy that Azeem, undaunted, had (and has)
I
On or about December 18,2014, Mr. Murphy commenced a FINRA Arbitration
against Citigroup. In conformance with Citigroup's internal Policies and Procedures, Mr.
Murphy did so by serving his Statement of Claim on Citigroup and, in tum, Citigroup thereafter
filed the Statement of Claim with FINRA. Said case is styled as David James Murphy vs.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Citicorp Securities Services Inc., FINRA Dispute Resolution
Arbitration Number 15-00321 (hereinafter, the "Murphy/Citigroup Action"). The
Murphy/Citigroup Action is scheduled to proceed to evidentiary hearings at FWRA on April 12,
2016, April 13, 2016, April 18, 2016, April 19, 2016, and April 20. 2016, respectively.
2
In the Murphy/Citigroup Action, on July 30, 2015, Mr. Murphy Moved to Amend his December
18,2014 Statement of Claim to name Azeem as a Respondent therein (hereinafter, "Mr.
Murphy's Motion to Amend"). By letter dated AUKust 5, 2015, Citigroup noted to FINRA that it
would not Oppose Mr. Murphy's Motion to Amend. On AUKust 10. 2015, Azeem Opposed Mr.
Murphy's Motion to Amend (hereinafter, "Azeem's Opposition") on the basis that a Panel had
already been selected in the Murphy/Citigroup action on July 6, 2015 and, accordingly, were
Azeem to be added as a Party in said action, she would have been deprived of input into
Arbitrator Selection. On AUKust 12,2015, Mr. Murphy Replied to Azeem's Opposition to his
Motion to Amend and, on September 2. 2015, the Panel in the Murphy/Citigroup Action denied
Mr. Murphy's Motion to Amend. Thus, a) the Murphy/Citigroup Action is proceeding without
Azeem as a Respondent thereto; and, consequently, b) the present, separate action is necessary.
I
t,
elected to continue with and perpetuate her outright lies, half-truths, distortions, and omissions
vis-a-vis Mr. Murphy. Put simply, Azeem has continued to wilfully and knowingly slander Mr.
Murphy to Citigroup.
3.
As a result of the overtly slanderous acts in which Azeem wilfully and maliciously
engaged, on September 4, 2015, Mr. Murphy commenced the present action herein, whereby he
is seeking, inter alia:
A.
Slander Per Se damages - i.e., damages that are separate and apart from the
damages that Mr. Murphy is seeking in the Murphy/Citigroup Action3;
B.
(
j
~
C.
,
The reimbursement of all FINRA fees that Mr. Murphy shall incur in connection
with the prosecution of this matter.
j
;1
4.
five (45) years old. Mr. Murphy resides in Sydney, Australia with his wife
Mr. Murphy was born on October 29.1969 in Sydney, Australia; he is presently fortyto whom he has
I,
Mr. Murphy graduated, with First Class Honors, from the University of Sydney, with a Bachelor
of Economics and with Majors in Econometrics and Economics, respectively. In 1993, Mr.
Murphy graduated, with First Class Honors, from the University of Sydney with a Bachelor of
1
1
I
Law.
5.
Prior to joining Citigroup in or about November 2011, Mr. Murphy was employed by,
I
I,,
,
j
A.
Macquarie Bank (May 1994 - AUl:ust 1999)4 Mr. Murphy was an Associate
Director in Macquarie Bank's Project and Structured Finance Division, wherein
his responsibilities included, inter alia:
Advising the public and private sectors on the sale, acquisition, and
financing of infrastructure assets, including toll-roads and hospitals,
respectively; and
Mr. Murphy left Macquarie Bank voluntarily in AUl:ust 1999 to join Merrill
Lynch;
B.
Merrill Lynch (Aul:ust 1999 - AUl:ust 2002)5 Mr. Murphy was a Director in
Merrill Lynch's Structured New Products Group, wherein his responsibilities
included, inter alia:
Mr. Murphy left Merrill Lynch voluntarily in AUl:ust 2002 to join Deutsche Bank;
and
AUl:ust 1999 - AUl:ust 2000 - Hong Kong; September 2000 - AUl:ust 2002
London.
C.
lI
j,
'j
i
1
1I
1!
I
!,
I
tl
,I
II
II
I
I
i
1,,
!
Managing a 300 million legacy book of over twenty (20) private and
public deals, many distressed, across a range of sectors including oil and
gas, metals and mining, power generation, and technology services,
respectively.
Mr. Murphy left Deutsche Bank voluntarily in November 2011 to join Citigroup.
6.
According to his publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, Mr. Murphy - who became
Global Markets Inc. (CRD # 7059) in June 2013; and b) Citicorp Securities Services Inc. (CRD
# 15387) in April 2014, respectively. Mr. Murphy, who holds a) a Series 7 license (obtained on
or about June 2, 2004); b) a Series 24 license (obtained on or about July 29, 2013); and c) a
Series 63 license (obtained on or about AUKust 26, 2013), respectively:
A.
B.
Has never with the exception ofthe Murphy/Citigroup Action and the present
action, respectively been a claimant in an arbitration;
c.
D.
Has never been disciplined or fined by FINRA or by any other regulatory or self
regulatory organization;
E.
Has never been disciplined or fined by any employer by whom he has been
employed;
F.
Has never been disciplined or fined by any employer with whom he has been
registered;
G.
H.
J.
K.
Had never been demoted from his position as Managing Director by Citigroup;
L.
M.
N.
o.
Aside from Citigroup, had never been terminated by any of his prior employers.
B. THE RESPONDENT
7.
According to her publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, Respondent Tila Azeem (CRD
B.
According to her publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, Azeem holds a) a Series 7 license
(obtained on or about AUl:ust 5, 2013); b) a Series 63 license (obtained on or about AUl:ust 8,
2013); c) a Series 3 license (obtained on or about September 16, 2013); and d) a Series 55
license (obtained on or about September 16, 2015), respectively.
III. JURISDICTION
8.
*
10
9.
In accordance with Rule 13200(a) ofthe Governing Code, this matter clearly "arises out
of the business activities oL:Associated Persons'" (Mf. Murphy and Azeem) and "is between or
among ... 'Associated Persons'" (Mr. Murphy and Azeem). Therefore, the present matter is
arbitrable in this forum.
10.
"The Director will decide which of FINRA's hearing locations will be the
hearing location for the arbitration. In cases involving an associated person,
the Director willlenerally select the hearinllocation closest to where the
associated person was employed at the time of the dispute" (emphasis added).
*
11.
*
was employed by, and relistered with,
Citigroup in New York City during the time when the events giving rise to this dispute occurred.
Therefore, in accordance with Rule 13213(a)(1) of the Governing Code, the United States
FINRA Hearing Location "closest to where the associated person was employed at the time of
the dispute" is New York City. To this end, in conformance with FINRA's September 11.2015
"Service Letter," "FINRA has selected New York, NY as the hearing location for this case."
11
12.
became employed by Citigroup in Hong Kong 7 as a Managing Director and Citigroup's Asian
Head of Prime Finance and Futures, respectively. Over the ensuing two (2) years, Mr. Murphyan inexhaustible worker, a highly venerated team member, and a superlative performer who had
engendered the respect and admiration from those junior, similarly-situated, and senior to him,
respectively - received two (2) significant promotions at the Company, to wit:
A.
B.
FROM CITIGROUP
l3.
Mr. Murphy's annual compensation from Citigroup during the period November 2011
Year:
Total:
2011:
$400,000.00
$1,850,000.00
$2,250,000.00 (annualizedt
2012:
$400,000.00
$1,600,000.00 10
$2,000,000.00 11
2013:
$400,000.00
$2,000,000.00 12
$2,400.000.00 13
11 In addition to his total compensation of roughly $2,000,000.00 for Calendar Year 2012,
Mr. Murphy received a housing allowance of $194.000.00.
12 Mr. Murphy was awarded $2,000,000.00 in Incentive Compensation for Calendar Year
2013; however, twenty percent (20%) thereof, or, $400,000.00, was illegally cancelled,
confiscated, and converted upon Mr. Murphy's Wrongful Termination.
Mr. Murphy did not receive a housing allowance for Calendar Year 2013 as a result of
his re-Iocation to New York concomitant with his promotion to Citigroup's Head of Prime
Finance and Futures for the Americas.
13
13
C. 2014
14.
Okan Pekin (hereinafter, "Pekin") - a Managing Director and the Global Head of
Investor Services, respectively, at Citigroup (based in London)14; and
B.
Citigroup combined its Prime Finance, Futures and OTC Clearing, Global Custody,
Global Fund Services, and Agency Securities Lending businesses into one (1) entity. This new
combined division - called Global Investor Services - is headed by Pekin.
14
-{
j
In tum, Pekin and Harford reported to Francisco Paco Femandez-De-Ybarra (CRD # 2864883)
(hereinafter, "Ybarra") 17 - a Managing Director and Citigroup's Global Head of Markets and
Securities Services, respectively (based in London)ls. Ybarra reported to James Anthony Forese
(CRD # 1406421) (hereinafter, "Forese")19
and Chief Executive Officer of the Institutional Clients Group, respectively (based in New
York)20. In tum, Forese reported to Michael Louis Corbat (CRD # 1176747) (hereinafter,
"Corbat")21
in New York)22.
20 The Institutional Clients Group encompasses the Markets and Securities Services
business, the Treasury and Trade Solutions business, Corporate and Investment Banking, and the
Citigroup Private Bank, respectively. Forese is a Member ofCitigroup's Operating Committee.
He originally joined Salomon Brothers - a Citigroup predecessor in 1985.
15
15.
In Calendar Year 2014, roughly two hundred (200) - three hundred (300) individuals
reported to Mr. Murphy, which included, amongst others, the following individuals:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
16
H.
16.
A.
As the Global Head of Prime Finance, in Calendar Year 2014, Mr. Murphy was
responsible for in excess of $1 Billion of revenues 27 for Citigroup and its
Shareholders28 , to wit:
17
B.
The revenues for Prime Finance in Calendar Year 2014 of which Mr. Murphy
was the Global Head increased by roughly 15%) from Calendar Year 2013.
D. AZEEM
17.
became:
A.
B.
Azeem initially joined Citigroup in Sales/Futures. Azeem's initial rotational team was run by
Matthew Joel Wiffen (CRD # 5837918) (hereinafter, "Wiffen,,)29, a Director and the Global
Head of Origination, Futures, and OTC Clearing at Citigroup, respectively, who, in tum, reported
to Paul Gerard Muoio (CRD # 1622931) (hereinafter, "Muoio"Yo, a Managing Director and the
former Regional Head of Futures for North America at Citigroup, respectively. Muoio had a
direct reporting line to Mr. Murphy; however, he also reported to Jerome Kemp (hereinafter,
"Kemp"), a Managing Director and the Global Head of Futures and OTC Clearing at Citigroup,
respectively. In reality, Citigroup's Futures team operated quite separately, to wit, when Kemp
18
ultimately removed Muoio from his position, he did so without apprising Mr. Murphy. Upon the
formation ofInvestor Services, wherein, as noted above, Citigroup combined its Prime Finance,
Futures and OTC Clearing, Global Custody, Global Fund Services, and Agency Securities
Lending businesses into one (1) entity - of which Pekin was the Global Head - Pekin created a
Generalist Sales team, reporting to Alan Pace (CRD # 4502143) (hereinafter, "Pace,,)3!, a
Managing Director and the Global Head ofInvestor Services Sales at Citigroup, respectively.
Accordingly, concomitant with the creation thereof, Wiffen, Azeem, etc. no longer reported in a
direct line to Mr. Murphy.
18.
Azeem's second rotation was in Securities Lending, wherein she was on the International
team. To this end, Azeem's direct, linear Supervisor reported to Jon Ottomanelli (CRD #
2186753) (hereinafter,"Ottomanelli,,)32, a Managing Director and the former Americas Head of
Securities Lending at Citigroup, respectively, who, in tum, reported to Nicholson, a Managing
Director, the Global Head of Securities Lending, and the Global Head of Financing at Citigroup,
respectively. As noted above, Nicholson reported to Mr. Murphy.
19.
Over time, Mr. Murphy and Azeem developed a strictly platonic, non-sexual, extremely
Several dinners;
b.
c.
Starbucks visits;
d.
Walks to the Path Station and conversations while at the Path Station,
respectively;
e.
f.
g.
The mutual sharing of both intimate and banal details of their respective lives.
The relationship
make any overtures towards the formation of a sexual relationship. Nor was Mr. Murphy ever
desirous of a sexual relationship with Azeem; rather, he greatly enjoyed her company and she his,
and this was simply and exclusively a matter of two (2) adult professionals who, despite a large
age gap, a) developed strong feelings for one another; b) had a significant amount in common;
and c) enjoyed spending time with one another. Plain and simple. In fact, a review of the text
messages exchanged between the two reveals no evidence of sexual banter or any type of an
inappropriate relationship; rather, the multitude of text messages exchanged between the two
reveals primarily fatuous, inane, and frivolous chatter and banter between two (2) adults - each
20
of whom was in a committed relationship. Whereas the strong and close feelings of friendship
harbored between the two were, at infrequent times, discussed via text messages, so too,
primarily, were mundane, benign, and non-salacious topics such as, inter alia:
Dessert;
Ice cream;
Frozen yogurt;
Toffee pudding;
Bread pudding;
Brownies;
Chocolate mousse;
Cookies;
Muffins;
Peanut butter;
Jam;
Donuts;
Butter;
Margarine;
Pizza;
Pasta;
Thai noodles;
21
Chili;
Bacon;
Salad;
Curry;
Rice;
Chicken;
Beef;
Lobster;
Bagels;
Celery;
Guacamole;
Eggs;
Coffee;
Tea;
Hot chocolate;
Milkshakes;
Milk;
Over-eating;
Books;
Magazines;
Newspapers;
Theater;
22
1
~.
i
,,~
Sports;
Travel;
Apartment searches;
Furniture;
Restaurants;
Weight;
Exhaustion;
Exercise;
Cooking;
Dancing;
The subway;
Justin Bieber;
Kanye West;
Kim Kardashian;
Marlon Brando;
Robert Duval;
Willem Dafoe;
Gary Busey;
Sean Connery;
Martin Sheen;
Robin Thicke;
23
Pharrell Williams;
Dentistry;
Weather;
Television;
Uber; and
NYC neighborhoods.
A review of the text messages exchanged between Mr. Murphy and Azeem does not reflect the
existence of a torrid "affair" or any other type of an "affair" for that matter (there was no
"affair"); rather, a review of the text messages exchanged between Mr. Murphy and Azeem
reveals close friends who, inter alia, liked food, liked to talk about food, and liked to discuss,
amongst other things, the panoply of other run-of-the mill and manifold topics referenced above.
24
20.
Human Resources Specialist at Citigroup - concerning his "relationship" with Azeem. 33 The
interrogation (hereinafter, the "Interrogation") took place in Sara Zobel's (hereinafter, "Zobel")
office. Zobel is a Managing Director and a Human Resources Specialist, respectively, at
Citigroup. Zobel was not present for the Interrogation. Nor was anyone else, with the exception
of Mr. Murphy and Henriquez.
21.
The Interrogation was prompted by a baseless, frivolous, and slanderous complaint that
Azeem had levied, maliciously, following drinks that Mr. Murphy and Azeem had had on or
about September 5, 2014 at Jimmy at the James Hotel in Soho (hereinafter, the "Jimmy's
Drinks"). At the Jimmy's Drinks, Azeem drank alcohol, but Mr. Murphy did not, as he has not
consumed alcohol since shortly after his daughter's birth seven (7) years ago. As Mr. Murphy
and Azeem waited for the elevator upon arriving at the James Hotel, Azeem indicated that she
could only meet briefly that evening as she needed to go furniture shopping with her fiance later
that evening; however, shortly after arriving at Jimmy, Azeem texted her fiance to apprise him
that she would not be joining him for furniture shopping that evening - a fact of which she
33
Subsequent to this interrogation on September 19, 2014, Mr. Murphy had a few
telephone conversations with Henriquez the following week - each of which was
follow~up
brief.
25
concomitantly made Mr. Murphy aware. The Jimmy's Drinks ultimately lasted for several hours,
during which Azeem, inter alia:
Boasted, without provocation, ad nauseum and gleefully about her breasts and
how they were undoubtedly larger than Mr. Murphy probably realized;
Bragged, without provocation, that her breasts were so large that she did not
require padding;
Proclaimed, without provocation, that while her breasts were exceptional, her
"butt" was even better;
Confided that she and her fiance were having sex every week, a fact that she
joyfully proclaimed, and she also, unprovoked, shared her preferred lighting
arrangements for the performance of said act;
Thanked Mr. Murphy for giving her a book of poetry by Pablo Neruda
(hereinafter, the "Poetry Book"). Mr. Murphy - prior to giving Azeem the Poetry
Book at the Jimmy's Drinks - indicated to Azeem that not only should she refuse
it ifit made her at all uncomfortable, but that he was only giving it to her because
he viewed it as a pretty book with nice drawings by Picasso in it. In fact, a great
many discussions that Mr. Murphy had had with Azeem centered around books
and writing (including poetry) and their mutual love and interest thereof. Azeem
not only readily accepted the gift and conveyed emphatically that she had no
objection whatsoever to accepting it but, moreover, later in the evening reiterated
her willing acceptance of it; and
26
Following the Jimmy's Drinks, Mr. Murphy and Azeem exchanged pleasant text messages and
the evening thus concluded without any incident whatsoever.
22.
about a funny conversation that he and his daughter Maya were having at breakfast; however,
rather than Azeem texting back with a pleasant comment - which she had invariably done in the
past - Azeem texted back that Mr. Murphy should no longer text message or speak with her.
Perhaps Azeem, with a marriage imminently looming, felt guilty that she had spent the prior
evening, inter alia:
a.
b.
Regaling another man with comments about her breasts, her butt, her lips, etc.;
c.
Trying to coerce another man into professing his non-existent amorous feelings
towards her; and
d.
Disclosing the frequency of her carnal relations with her fiance and her preferred
lighting arrangements in relation thereto.
27
after either a) learning of the Poetry Book with which Mr. Murphy
had innocuously provided her; or b) learning of the exchange of benign text messages between
the two - became perturbed and instructed her not only to cease and desist from communicating
with Mr. Murphy but to lodge a merit-less, false, and slanderous complaint with the Company.
Regardless, Mr. Murphy - who was utterly shocked by this out-of-the-blue edict - of course
respected Azeem's wishes and he did not text her again until September 19,2014, which was
just after he learned that Citigroup's Human Resources Department wanted to interrogate him
that morning. Mr. Murphy's polite text was merely seeking Azeem's insight into that about
which he would be interrogated in that the request for Mr. Murphy's appearance in Citigroup's
Human Resources offices was vague and nebulous. J4
23.
with Azeem, in response to which Mr. Murphy was 100% truthful. It was not until well into the
Interrogation when Henriquez revealed that Azeem had shared with her various of the text
messages exchanged between Mr. Murphy and Azeem which, as noted above, contained
primarily jejune, inane, and unexciting dribble between the two. During the Interrogation,
Henriquez, who took copious, albeit selective, notes, insofar as she oscillated between at times
writing furiously while at other times writing sparingly, indicated and/or queried, inter alia, as
follows:
34 Mr. Murphy presumed that the Interrogation related to Azeem given her
aforementioned September 6 th text which, again, came out-of-the-blue and was completely
incongruous with the prior evening's interactions. Moreover, Mr. Murphy had no "HR" issues at
said time or at any other time.
28
Henriquez indicated that Mr. Murphy had somehow implied to Azeem that there
was a connection or nexus between his "relationship" with Azeem and Azeem's
prospects for future advancement at the Company. In fact, whereas Mr. Murphy
had a positive view of Azeem's potential at work and took an interest in her
career, along with an interest in the careers of dozens upon dozens of others, Mr.
Murphy never once suggested or insinuated that his platonic, rum-sexual,
extremely close friendship with Azeem would correlate to any potential
advancement for Azeem at the Company. Thus, Azeem had clearly lied to the
Company. It should also be noted that when Azeem sat next to Timothy Joyce
McCooey (CRD # 2428096) (hereinafter, "McCooey"),35 a Citigroup Director
who left the Company in July 2014, Azeem and McCooey frequently went to the
staff canteen to purchase breakfast together. They would often return with food
and eat at their desk. Azeem had confided to Mr. Murphy that she disliked
McCooey but had felt compelled to engage in this frequent breakfast ritual with
him because he was her direct, linear Supervisor. In response thereto, Mr.
Murphy made it crystal clear to Azeem on a plethora of occasions that she should
~ feel compelled to spend time with Mr. Murphy in light of his seniority and
Azeem invariably responded that she chose to spend time with Mr. Murphy
because she ostensibly enjoyed his company. In sum, it was made abundantly
clear to Azeem (and to Henriquez) that any hypothetical termination of their
strictly platonic, rum-sexual, extremely close friendship would never eventuate in
any deleterious consequences whatsoever to Azeem on the "work front." Any
suggestion of a quid-pro-quo of any type was (and is) utterly and categorically
fallacious; however, Azeem had clearly lied to the Company by sUKeestinK
that a quid-oro-quo existed;
29
thereof or at whose volition (hers) that they were conducted. Azeem also clearly
failed to apprise Henriquez that after she began visiting Mr. Murphy in his office,
he referenced Azeem's previous concern about the perception of others and she
stated that this no longer bothered her and that she wanted people to know that
their friendship was mutuaL Azeem told Mr. Murphy that she wanted to indicate
to others via her conduct and actions that their friendship was mutual;
Henriquez indicated that according to Azeem, Mr. Murphy had allegedly told her
over dinner that he was harboring "feelings" towards her. Henriquez asked if this
were true. As alluded to above, Mr. Murphy did not tell Azeem that he loved her
or that he wanted to pursue a romantic relationship with her. In fact, Mr. Murphy
did not love Azeem nor did he want a romantic relationship with her. Rather, for
much of the time, he greatly enjoyed her company, he found her interesting and
funny, and he deemed said feelings unusual given their age gap. These were the
only "feelings" that he had harbored towards her. Strong feelings of close
friendship, yes, but not sexual or romantic feelings of any kind;
30
1
j
!I
It
Henriquez queried as to whether Mr. Murphy had given Azeem "gifts," to which
36 As noted above, a great many discussions that Mr. Murphy had had with Azeem
centered around books and writing (including poetry) and their mutual love and interest thereof.
37 Mr. Murphy suggested to Azeem that she could treat "A Passage to India" as a loan if
she preferred; she indicated that she would keep it.
31
Henriquez queried as to a) whether Mr. Murphy had told Azeem about his sexual
history; and b) whether Mr. Murphy had disclosed to Azeem the present state of
his sexual relations with his wife, to which Mr. Murphy conceded truthfully that
he had; however, Azeem had clearly failed to disclose to Henriquez that on a
myriad of occasions she had, on her own volition and without provocation,
shared with Mr. Murphy her own sexual history, as well as the frequency of her
sexual relations with her fiance and her preferred lighting arrangements in relation
thereto. In fact, discussions centered on sexual histories and sexual frequency
were oftentimes initiated by Azeem, who was wont to not only push the
boundaries of their more-often-than-not "G Rated," insipid conversations but to
also dismiss suggestions by Mr. Murphy that perhaps some topics should not be
discussed. It should also be noted that Azeem not only discussed, inter alia, sex,
her physique, her butt, her breasts, other Citigroup co-workers who allegedly
desired her, her alleged Willingness to give herself over to those desires, etc. with
Mr. Murphy but also with others at Citigroup as well. Some of these individuals
still work at the Company; some do not. Azeem clearly failed to disclose to
Henriquez any and all of the above;
32
33
I
~
1
I
Ii
,~
34
24.
Based upon Henriquez's September 19, 2014 interrogation of Mr. Murphy, it can be
stated, beyond peradventure, that Azeem's recitation of events to Human Resources was replete
with outright lies, half-truths, distortions, and omissions. Put simply, Azeem blatantly,
maliciously, and intentionally lied to, amon2st others. Human Resources and, in doing so,
she wilfully and incontrovertibly slandered Mr. Murphy, to wit:
Azeem claimed that she told Mr. Murphy, on multiple occasions, that:
She wished to end their friendship and that he did not accept this; and
Mr. Murphy persisted in his attentions against her expressed preferences.
35
From some of Azeem's earliest interactions with Citigroup co-workers, she went
out of her way to engage in "edgy" conversation. To this end, Azeem spoke not
just freely and unencumberedly, but also pro-actively, about, inter alia:
Her body parts, with her butt being a particular obsession;
Sex (her sex life, the sex life of others, and sex in general, respectively);
and
Drugs (her drug use, the drug use of others, and drug use in general,
respectively).
In doing so, she attracted the attention of numerous Citigroup co-workers with
whom she might otherwise have had little to do; however, by her own admission,
she basked in, and invited, the attention.
In her discussions with Citigroup, Azeem cited a small number of stories that Mr.
Murphy had shared with her about his sex life; however, these stories were shared
by Mr. Murphy against a very specific back-drop, i.e.:
Azeem often initiated discussions about such matters;
Azeem shared numerous stories regarding her body parts and her sex life,
respectively;
Azeem repeated to Mr. Murphy stories regarding sex that other Citigroup
co-workers had confided in her;
Azeem provided Mr. Murphy with regular reassurance that she was happy
discussing such matters which, of course, was not surprising insofar as it
was she who often initiated such discussions; and
Azeem routinely dismissed suggestions from Mr. Murphy that they leave
certain topics out-of-bounds.
Hence, Azeem's presentation and depiction of herself to, amongst others, Human
Resources as a supposedly obsequious, subservient, and embarrassed shrinking
violet upon whom Mr. Murphy merely capriciously and haphazardly foisted
inappropriate stories is an act of outrageous dishonesty and subterfuge on
Azeem's part and one that is unsustainable and susceptible to complete refutation.
To this end, the list ofCitigroup co-workers with whom Azeem discussed such
matters is long, and while many of these individuals are still at Citigroup, others
are not;
36
I
r
,1
!
I
I
I,
f
If
,
f
i
~:
t
l
37
,
i
I
f
noted above, when others commented to Azeem that she had supposedly become
which Mr. Murphy invariably ceased immediately speaking with her. However,
as noted in great detail above, in response to the immediate cessation of his visits
to her desk, Azeem - sua sponte and on her own volition - commenced visiting
Mr. Murphy in his office. Whereas, as noted above, Henriquez connoted a vague
awareness of Azeem's visits to Mr. Murphy's office, Azeem had clearly not
advised her of the frequency or length thereof or at whose volition (hers) that they
were conducted. As further noted above, Azeem also clearly failed to apprise
Henriquez that after she began visiting Mr. Murphy in his office, he referenced
Azeem's previous concern about the perception of others and she stated that this
no longer bothered her and that she wanted people to know that their friendship
was mutual. Azeem told Mr. Murphy that she wanted to indicate to others via her
conduct and actions that their friendship was mutual;
38
II
I
I
I
K
I
I
!,
f
\
,
~,
The initial dinner that Mr. Murphy had with Azeem was on or about May 28,
2014 at Walker's in Tribeca (hereinafter, the "Walker's Dinner"). As noted
above, whereas Mr. Murphy had originally suggested lunch or dinner, he did not
follow-up on this suggestion and it was Azeem who reminded Mr. Murphy of the
invitation and pressed him for the engagement that led to the Walker's Dinner.
Moreover, prior to the Walker's Dinner, Azeem had invited Mr. Murphy to a
risque play outside of the office. Azeem clearly failed to tell Henriquez about this
theater invite. At this Walker's Dinner, Azeem:
Disclosed to Mr. Murphy, without provocation, her sexual history;
Questioned Mr. Murphy about his own sexual history;
Expressed her platonic feelings towards Mr. Murphy and he expressed the
exact same feelings towards her; and
Exchanged text messages with Mr. Murphy after the dinner, indicating that
she had had an enjoyable, non-objectionable evening.
Clearly, Azeem willfully misrepresented the aforementioned conversations and
omitted disclosing any and all of the above facts to Henriquez or, in the event that
she, by happenstance, did disclose the above facts to Henriquez, she did so in a
distorted, selective fashion;
39
As noted above, when Henriquez mentioned during the Interrogation that Azeem
had allegedly been uncomfortable with a dinner many months prior - i. e., the
Walker's Dinner - Mr. Murphy conceded truthfully that whereas Azeem was
extraordinarily content the evening thereof, she had expressed regrets thereafter,
to which Mr. Murphy apologized both verbally and, later, via a store-purchased
card. Azeem had revealed to Mr. Murphy - but apparently not to Henriquez - that
it was only after the dinner when she began allegedly feeling uncomfortable.
Incidentally, again, as noted above, with respect to this Walker's Dinner, whereas
Mr. Murphy had originally suggested lunch or dinner, he did not follow-up on
this suggestion and it was Azeem who reminded Mr. Murphy of the invitation and
pressed him for the engagement that led to the Walker's Dinner. In any event,
perhaps having been in a relationship for roughly six (6) years that was
becoming more serious and that later resulted in a marriage38 - Azeem had felt
gUilty that she had spent the prior evening, inter alia, discussing her and another
man's sexual histories. Regardless of why she allegedly felt uncomfortable, Mr.
Murphy was resolute to not making things uncomfortable for Azeem going
forward and he immediately ceased contact with her. However, having discussed
her alleged discomfort with Mr. Murphy on or about June 2, 2014, later that same
week, Azeem approached Mr. Murphy in a flirtatious fashion and, thereafter,
exchanged enthusiastic text messages with him, thus resuscitating their platonic
friendship. Clearly, Azeem willfully omitted disclosing any and all of the above
to Henriquez or, in the event that she, by happenstance, did disclose the above to
Henriquez, she did so in a distorted, selective fashion;
38
40
On or about July 2, 2014, following a work event at Dylan Prime in Tribeca, Mr.
Murphy and Azeem ended up staying for quite some time alone (although for a
period oftime prior to being alone, there were two {2} other Citigroup colleagues
present who had occasion to observe Mr. Murphy's and Azeem's extraordinarily
amicable and genial interactions). Azeem - as she was wont to do - had a number
of drinks and, after becoming quite inebriated, she not only confided to Mr.
Murphy that she "liked him" but she also doled out a number of flattering
compliments to him. Again, as was the case on or about June 27. 2014 at Tre
SorelIe, Azeem brushed her knees up against Mr. Murphy in a libidinous manner
and, at Dylan Prime, Azeem placed her two hands on Mr. Murphy's knees while
talking to him. Furthermore, it was also at Dylan Prime wherein Azeem
exclaimed that when she gets drunk, she has a tendency to "lean in." She also
confided to Mr. Murphy that:
39
40
On or about July 17,2014, at a work event at Citi Field in Queens, Mr. Murphy
and Azeem spent a considerable amount of time talking, which engendered
comments from a few of their colleagues. Azeem was visibly annoyed as a result
of these comments, both with Mr. Murphy and with herself. Thereafter, Mr.
Murphy, while on vacation, sent Azeem a number of text messages expressing his
sadness concerning her alleged distress. Following Mr. Murphy's return from
vacation, Azeem - who conveyed that she was having difficulties with her mother
and was thus experiencing emotional turbulence and angst at home40 - suggested
that she and Mr. Murphy cease communications. Mr. Murphy, of course, dutifully
and respectfully agreed, yet again, to cease communications. To this end, Mr.
Murphy, as had been the case previously, immediately ceased contact with
Azeem; however, as was also the case previously, it was Azeem who yet again re
ignited and resuscitated their friendship on her own volition. On or about AU2ust
1,2014, Azeem, on her own volition and without provocation:
t
I
1
On or about August 28, 2014, Mr. Murphy and Azeem had dinner at a tapas
restaurant (again, the "Boqueria Dinner"); thereafter, several days later, on or
about September 2, 2014, Mr. Murphy and Azeem spent roughly four (4) hours
together talking at the Path Station. The conversation ranged from the mundane
to Azeem boasting that when she had "admirers" in their twenties, they eventually
poured their hearts out to her and allegedly professed their love for her; however,
she expressed incredulity that Mr. Murphy had never done this. She then went on
to lament the fact that Mr. Murphy had never expressed how he allegedly really
felt towards her and during this four (4) hour conversation, she was consistently
cajoling and goading him into professing his supposed true feelings towards her.
Azeem's statement to her Citigroup co-workers that Mr. Murphy had allegedly
told her that he loved her three (3) months earlier at the Walker's Dinner on May
28,2014 is pure fantasy insofar as, inter alia:
It never happened; and, moreover,
If it had happened - which it did not - then why was Azeem pressing him
on September 2,2014 in such close proximity to the cessation of their
close friendship for a confession as to how he allegedly really felt?
43
Clearly, Azeem was lyinJ: and, moreover, she willfully omitted disclosing any
and all of the above facts to Henriquez or, in the event that she, by happenstance,
did disclose the above facts to Henriquez, she did so in a distorted, selective
fashion;
44
Thanked Mr. Murphy for giving her the aforementioned Poetry Book. As
noted above, Mr. Murphy - prior to giving Azeem the Poetry Book at the
Jimmy's Drinks - indicated to Azeem that not only should she refuse it if
it made her at all uncomfortable, but that he was only giving it to her
because he viewed it as a pretty book with nice drawings by Picasso in it.
In fact, as noted above, a great many discussions that Mr. Murphy had had
with Azeem centered around books and writing (including poetry) and
their mutual love and interest thereof. Azeem not only readily accepted
the gift and conveyed emphatically that she had no objection whatsoever
to accepting it but, moreover, later in the evening reiterated her willing
acceptance of it; and
In response to Mr. Murphy querying as to whether a) she was having a
nice evening; and/or b) she was having any issues with their interactions
a practice to which Mr. Murphy had invariably adhered following the
Walker's Dinner - Azeem confirmed that:
She was having a nice evening, albeit one in which she boasted
incessantly of, as noted above, her body parts, her potential
modeling career, the frequency of intercourse with her fiance, her
preferred lighting arrangements during intercourse, etc.
Put simply, Azeem's characterization of, inter alia, a) her interactions with Mr.
Murphy; b) her attitude towards their relationship; and c) her supposed
discomfort with said relationship, is wholly inconsistent, and 100% incongruous,
with her behavior at the Jimmy's Drinks. Clearly, Azeem willfully omitted
disclosing any and all of the above to Henriquez or, in the event that she, by
happenstance, did disclose the above to Henriquez, she did so in a distorted,
selective fashion;
Azeem confided to Mr. Murphy that during her time studying medicine in
Pakistan, her driver would pass a particular spot each day and a policeman would
be there, leaning against his car, looking at her in a wanton manner that she
allegedly found offensive. One day, when the car was stuck in traffic, she jumped
out, picked up a metal bar, and proceeded to break the lights of the policeman's
car. She said that he had a look of great fear in his eyes, which she found
pleasing, that intensified with each light that she subsequently broke. Clearly,
Azeem willfully omitted disclosing any and all of the above to Henriquez or, in
the event that she, by happenstance, did disclose the above to Henriquez, she did
so in a distorted, selective fashion. Mr. Murphy does not know whether this
strange tale is true or if Azeem simply made it up out of whole cloth, which, with
45
the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that she was wont to do. Either way, this is the
story that she told him;
Azeem confided to Mr. Murphy that during a summer internship at Credit Suisse,
she had received very negative feedback from the other women at the company.
She implied that the other women at the company found her to be too forward and
flirtatious with her male colleagues in the office. Clearly, Azeem willfully
omitted disclosing any and all of the above to Henriquez or, in the event that she,
by happenstance, did disclose the above to Henriquez, she did so in a distorted,
selective fashion;
Azeem confided to Mr. Murphy that when Wiffen, her direct, linear Supervisor,
hosted a barbeque for Azeem and her fiance to celebrate their engagement, Wiffen
had sung a song for her and had told her fiance that he was extraordinarily lucky
to be marrying her - both of which had allegedly made her uncomfortable.
Azeem implied that Wiffen was signaling some sort of alleged attraction towards
her a feeling that she seemed to attribute and ascribe to a great many of her co
workers/superiors at the Company, both male and female. In fact, Azeem
remarked that a number of her co-workers/superiors at the Company allegedly
desired her and looked lecherously at her (testimony concerning the same shall be
adduced at the evidentiary hearings in this matter). Moreover, Azeem, while
perfectly sober, inter alia:
Described herself as a "skinny girl with a bubble-butt";
On one occasion, cupped her hands over her breasts and indicated to Mr.
Murphy that "these babies will not be getting any bigger"; and
Consistently spoke of her supposed "chicken legs," all the while running
her hands up and down her legs while alone with Mr. Murphy.
Clearly, Azeem willfully omitted disclosing any and all of the above to Henriquez
or, in the event that she, by happenstance, did disclose the above to Henriquez,
she did so in a distorted, selective fashion;
Azeem, on more than one occasion, told Mr. Murphy that in lieu of the
extraordinarily insignificant gifts that he had purchased for her, she should have
asked for diamonds or money. On one occasion, Azeem indicated that she knew
that Mr. Murphy had romantic feelings for her by the way that he looked at her (in
fact, he had no such feelings), and she went so far as to ask him if he would leave
his family for her (he had no intention of doing so nor any desire to do so).
Clearly, Azeem willfully omitted disclosing any and all of the above to Henriquez
or, in the event that she, by happenstance, did disclose the above to Henriquez,
she did so in a distorted, selective fashion;
46
On one occasion, Azeem spoke about a College Educator to whom she had grown
very close who was fearful that his "relationship" with her could potentially
jeopardize his employment. Clearly, Azeem willfully omitted disclosing any and
all of the above to Henriquez or, in the event that she, by happenstance, did
disclose the above to Henriquez, she did so in a distorted, selective fashion; and
25.
In light of the compelling performance (and other) factors delineated above, Mr. Murphy
47
Murphy did so by serving his Statement of Claim on Citigroup and, in tum, Citigroup thereafter
filed the Statement of Claim with FINRA. Said case is styled as David James Murphy vs.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Citicorp Securities Services Inc., FINRA Dispute Resolution
Arbitration Number 15-00321 (again, the "Murphy/Citigroup Action"). The Murphy/Citigroup
Action is scheduled to proceed to evidentiary hearings at FINRA on April 12, 2016, April 13,
2016, April 18, 2016, April 19, 2016, and April 20. 2016, respectively.
26.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
l
G.
H.
1.
The reimbursement of all FINRA fees that the Claimant shall incur in connection
with the prosecution of the Murphy/Citigroup Action.
V. SLANDER PER SE
27.
Under well-established New York precedent, the elements of a cause of action for slander
are:
A.
B.
Falsity;
C.
Publication;
D.
Fault; and
E.
Special Damages, unless Slander Per Se, wherein damages are presumed. See,
Restatement (Second) ofTorts, Section 558.
See also, Albert v. Loksen, 239 F.3d 256, 265-66 (2d Cir. 2001) ("The elements of a cause of
action for slander under New York law are (i) a defamatory statement of fact, (ii) that is false,
(iii) published to a third party, (iv) 'of and concerning' the plaintiff, (v) made with the applicable
level of fault on the part of the speaker, (vi) either causing special harm or constituting slander
per se, and (vii) not protected by privilege"); O'Diah v. Yoga Oasis, 954 F. Supp.2d 261
(S.D.N.Y. 2013); D'Lima v. Cuba Memorial Hasp., Inc., 833 F. Supp.2d 383, 390 (W.D.N.Y.
49
2011) ("To state a claim for defamation under New York law, a plaintiffnlust show: (1) that
defendants made a false defamatory statement of fact; (2) that the statement was published to a
third party; (3) that the statements concerned the plaintiff; (4) that the defendant was responsible
for making the statement; and (5) that the statement was slander per se or caused special
damages").
28.
An oral, defamatory statement that tends to injure a person in his or her "trade, business
or profession" constitutes Slander Per Se. See, Restatement (Second) o/Torts, Sections 570-73.
See also, Mosdos Chofttz Chaim, Inc. v. RES Citizens, NA., 14 F. Supp.3d 191,214 (S.D.N.Y.
2014). The following is a closer and more granular analysis of a) each of the aforementioned
elements that comprise a Slander Per Se claim; and b) how each such element applies to the
particular facts at issue herein:
50
29.
fonnerly employed by Brooklyn Hospital, commenced an action in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging, inter alia, that a) Salmen Loksen, his fonner
Co-Worker and Supervisor, respectively; and b) Karen Buono, his fonner Co-Worker and the
Chief Administrator of the Hospital's Radiology Department, respectively, defamed him in the
course of his discharge. Albert asserted that Buono told him that the basis for his discharge was
a statement by Loksen that Albert had deliberately attempted to harm a patient. Albert also
claimed that the Hospital's Director of Labor Relations told him that Loksen had accused him of
deliberately endangering a patient. Albert alleged that Loksen's slanderous utterances destroyed
his professional reputation. In Albert, 239 F.3d at 268, the Second Circuit, in applying New
York law, held that:
"No workplace, we think, can operate effectively unless the employers and
employees who work there have the ability to speak freely in evaluating the
actions of their employees and co-employees. Freedom from fear of litigation
is of particular importance when, as in the case before us, personal safety is
at stake. It would be tragic if silence induced by the inhibiting effect of
defamation lawsuits resulted in the loss of life, limb or the good health of
doctors, medical staff or their patients. Statements very much like those
Loksen is alleged to have made, that a co-employee's work is dangerous and
his employment should therefore be terminated, if articulated as an
evaluation of his performance, would likely be protected as a statement of
opinion...But Loksen did more. If Albert's assertions are true, Loksen in
effect accused Albert of failing to inform Dr. Dlugy of the change in strength
of the radioactive sources she was administering to a patient. Loksen in
effect accused Albert of leaving misplaced sources in a way that endangered
co-workers. Loksen in effect accused Albert of then lying about what he did
in an attempt to cover it up. Those accusations are more than statements of
opinion about Albert's work performance; they are specific statements of
fact-statements capable ofob;ective proof-about what Albert did and did not
do. And the statements were all made in the context of Loksen's seeking the
51
*
30.
In D'Lima, 833 F. Supp.2d at 387, the Plaintiff, a Dentist, alleged, inter alia, that his
former Co-Worker told patients/the community-at-large that he had regularly used illegal drugs
on weekends and was impaired by these drugs while on duty, thus causing a detrimental impact
on patient care. Thus, the Plaintiff commenced an action in Federal Court for, inter alia,
41 See, LaBozzo v. Brooks Bros., Inc., 2002 WL 1275155, *6 (N.Y. Sup. April 25, 2002)
("Contrary to defendants' assertions, Burdine's diatribe on June 15, 2001 was not a
non-actionable expression of opinion, nor was it harmless because Burdine recited only
conclusions based on facts whose truth or falsity was well-known to all of the other people
present...In assessing a statement's defamatory impact, the court will not 'pick out and isolate
particular phrases but will consider the publication as a whole.' Here, Burdine's statements to the
effect that the plaintiff was incompetent and unprofessional might, if taken alone, be protected as
pure opinion. However. in the context ofhis charges that plaintiffhad been billinll Brooks tor
hours during which she was either not workinll at all or was working tor other clients. they
are tantamount to an accusation that plaintiUwas stealinr from her employer... We also have
no idea how familiar Burdine's auditors were with plaintiffs work habits. Those who did not
work closely with her could reasonably have tormed a very ill opinion ofher professional
integrity from Burdine's diatribe. Indeed. in a case such as this. it is 101lical to consider as
well the manner in which the alleeed slander is published. Here. a rational onlooker could
have been moved by the very vehemence ofBurdine's delivery into believing that his charges
must be true or he could not have uttered them with such self-righteous energy") (internal
citations omitted) (emphasis added). See also, Joyce v. Thompson Wigdor & Gilly LLP, 2008
WL 2329227, *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2008) ('''The essential task' in determining whether a
statement expresses fact or opinion 'is to decide whether the words complained of, considered in
the context of the entire communication and of the circumstances in which they were spoken or
written, may be reasonably understood as implying the assertion of undisclosed facts justifying
the opinion.' Such statements 'are actionable not because they convey 'false opinions' but
rather because a reasonable listener or reader would infer that the speaker or writer knows
certain facts. unknown to the audience. which support the opinion and are detrimental to the
person toward whom the communication is directed"') (internal citations omitted) (emphasis
added).
52
Slander Per Se. In D'lima, 833 F. Supp.2d at 391, the Western District, in applying New York
law, held that:
"Next, Defendants argue they cannot be held liable for alleged statements of
Plaintiffs co-worker, Glover. (Defs.' Memo., p. 8.) Defendants contend that
nothing in the Amended Complaint indicates that Glover was acting in the
course of performance of her duties as a dental hygienist when she allegedly
told others Plaintiff used illegal drugs and committed malpractice. (Id.)
Plaintiff does not respond to this argument...The statements Glover made are
false defamatory statements of fact about Plaintiff, published to a third
party, that tend to injure PlaintiWs trade or profession."
>I<
31.
>I<
>I<
In Weldy v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 985 F.2d 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1993), the Plaintiff alleged,
inter alia, that his former Co-Worker had disclosed to another Co-Worker that he was being fired
for aggravated assault. The gravamen of the Plaintiffs Slander claim was that his former Co
Worker's statement that the Plaintiff had committed an aggravated assault constituted Slander
Per Se because it falsely imputed an indictable offense to him. In Weldy, 985 F.2d at 62, the
Second Circuit, in applying New York law, held that:
"Assault is a crime under both state and federal law. Under New York law,
most assaults are felonies. In New York, however, both felonies and
misdemeanors are 'indictable offenses', which New York's Appellate
Division tells us, may form the basis for slander per se. Under federal law,
there are at least three statutes, under which assault can be a felony, and
therefore an indictable offense... In short, since assault is a serious, indictable
crime under both state and federal law, Hathaway's charge of 'aggravated
assault' provided a sufficient basis for holding Piedmont liable under a
slander per se cause of action."
>I<
>I<
53
>I<
32.
Here, in light of all of the above, it can be stated, indubitably, that Azeem's intentionally
false recitation of events to, amongst others, Human Resources vis-a-vis her relationship with
Mr. Murphy was replete with outright lies, half-truths, distortions, and omissions. Put simply,
Azeem blatantly and maliciously lied to her co-workers about her interactions with Mr.
Murphy and, in doing so, she defamed Mr. Murphy. Azeem was not merely expressing her
"opinions" to her co-workers at Citigroup about Mr. Murphy; rather, she presented alleged
"facts" to her co-workers - albeit patently erroneous ones - concerning her interactions with
Mr. Murphy. The false accusations that Azeem made to her co-workers vis-a-vis Mr. Murphy,
which ran the gamut from, inter alia:
False accusations that her desire to terminate her friendship with Mr. Murphy was
not respected; to
54
were far more than statements of "opinion" about Mr. Murphy as a person and as a co-worker,
respectively. Rather, they were specific statements of fact - albeit patently erroneous onesmeaning, statements capable of objective proof about what Mr. Murphy did and did not do. Put
succinctly, Azeem did not merely state her "opinion" about Mr. Murphy; instead, she presented
facts which, as it turns out, were incontrovertibly false and which constituted nothing more than
a coterie of outright lies. In short, the statements that Azeem made to her co-workers at
Citigroup about Mr. Murphy were heavily laden with assertions of fact that were capable of a
defamatory meaning sufficient to sustain a defamation recovery.
B. FALSITY
33.
In Albert, 239 F.3d at 268-69, the Second Circuit, in applying New York law, held that:
"A rational juror could conclude that the statements Albert complains of
were untrue...Albert, Dlugy, and a radiation oncologist who gave deposition
testimony as an expert witness all said that Albert had not endangered the
patient or his co-workers... If a jury believes Albert's account of events, it
thus could conclude that the statements by Loksen about the January 30
incident to Buono and others were also false."
55
34.
Here, as established in great detail above, Azeem's intentionally false recitation of events
to, amongst others, Human Resources vis-a-vis her relationship with Mr. Murphy was replete
with outright lies, half-truths, distortions, and omissions. As shall be established at the
evidentiary hearings in this matter, each and every a) false utterance; and b) false statement of
supposed fact made by Azeem to her co-workers about Mr. Murphy shall be fully and
irrevocably debunked. Put differently, the trier of fact herein, specifically, the prospective
FINRA arbitration panel that shall preside over this matter, shall be left with only one reasonable
conclusion to draw
56
C. PUBLICATION
35.
In Albert, 239 F.3d at 269, the Second Circuit, in applying New York law, held that:
36.
Here, Azeem's defamatory utterances about Mr. Murphy were made to other Citigroup
co-workers. Hence, under well-established New York precedent, they were unquestionably
"published" insofar as they were made by one employee to another.
See, Pirre v. Printing Developments, Inc., 468 F. Supp. 1028, 1041-42 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)
("Publication is a simple concept. 'A defamatory writing is not published if it is read by no one
but the defamed (person). Published, it is, however, as soon as read by anyone else.' PDI
concedes that the libels here were indeed read by persons other than John Pirre. It contends,
however, that because those persons were PDI officers and employees, no publication occurred.
We disagree ... Defendant contends that diUerent considerations should apply when the
individuals involved in the communication are o{ficers ofthe defendant corporation. We see
no basis (or this distinction. While corporate o{ficers may be. as defendant contends, the
embodiment ofthe corporation. they remain individuals with distinct personalities and
opinions. which opinions may be affected just as surely as those ofother employees bv the
spread ofinjurious falsehoods. It is this evil that the law ofdefamation is desirned to remedy.
ro find no inter-personal communication when a corporate employee speaks to a corporate
o{ficer would be to ignore the distinct personalities oUhe human beings involved. We do not
believe that the courts ofNew York or Connecticut would ignore this reality in defining the
law oUhose states") (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). See also, Loughry v. Lincoln
First Bank, NA., 67 N.Y.2d 369,377,494 N.E.2d 70, 74, 502 N.Y.S.2d 965,969 (1986)
("Finally, Lincoln asserts that as a matter oflaw no publication was made... For purposes ofa
slander claim. however. it is clear that a false and malicious utterance by one employee to
another can be actionable) (emphasis added),
42
57
D. FAULT
37.
In Yesner v. Spinner, 765 F. Supp. 48, 52-53 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), the Southern District, in
58
t
f
38.
In Albert, 239 F.3d at 272, the Second Circuit, in applying New York law, held that:
39.
Here, even assuming, arguendo, that a qualified privilege were to apply to Azeem's
false utterances about Mr. Murphy, said privilege is wholly forfeited and vitiated because, as
happens to be the case, even though only one form of malice must be demonstrated to overcome
the qualified privilege, Azeem acted with both constitutional and common law malice in making
such defamatory statements of fact about Mr. Murphy.
59
40.
With regard to constitutional malice, Azeem knew that she was lying to her co-workers
Falsely accused him of, amongst other things, harassment, drug instigation,
stalking, etc.
Azeem clearly knew that she was lying when she made these fallacious accusations unless, of
I
\!
I,
I
i
course, some form of acute amnesia or grave, medically-induced memory loss had overtaken her.
41.
With respect to common law malice, Azeem not only acted with "spite" and "ill will" but,
moreover, in disseminating her egregious lies and falsehoods to her co-workers about Mr.
Murphy, she acted with the most heightened form of malice conceivable insofar as she knew that
by disseminating such lies and falsehoods to her co-workers about Mr. Murphy, Mr. Murphy's
stellar, unblemished career at Citigroup could potentially be over. She did not need to be
particularly prescient in this regard to know that deleterious consequences would flow from, inter
alia:
60
lI
False accusations that her desire to terminate her friendship with Mr. Murphy was
not respected; to
61
Could Azeem have known with certitude when she made her false utterances to her co-workers
about Mr. Murphy that:
Mr. Murphy would be denied the opportunity to present his version of events to
Citigroup - i. e., the true version? or
Henriquez would not read all of the text messages between Mr. Murphy and
Azeem with which she was furnished? or
Citigroup, with the 20-year career of a Senior Managing Director with a flawless,
laudable, and pristine record in the securities industry hanging perilously in the
balance one who presided over a Division that was poised to generate in excess
of $1 Billion in revenues for the Company and its Shareholders in Calendar Year
2014 - would do essentially nothinJ: to garner even a smidgeon of the relevant
facts?
Perhaps the answers to these queries are yes or perhaps they are no. However, in actuality, the
answers are of no moment or significance insofar as under well-settled New York precedent, Mr.
Murphy merely must demonstrate that Azeem, under the common law malice standard, acted
with "spite" and "ill will" in making her false utterances; he need not demonstrate that she knew
or could anticipate what, or the extent to which, detrimental consequences would flow therefrom.
In short, in light of all of the foregoing, Azeem acted with far more than "spite" and "ill will"
when she made her defamatory utterances and, in addition, malice - plain and simple - was the
only reason underlying her false utterances. In sum, as noted above, even assuming, arguendo,
that a qualified privilege were to apply to Azeem's false utterances about Mr. Murphy, said
privilege is wholly negated because, again, as happens to be the case, even though only one form
of malice must be demonstrated to nullify the qualified privilege, Azeem acted with both
62
constitutional and common law malice in making such defamatory statements of fact about Mr.
Murphy.
E. DAMAGES
42.
In Albert, 239 F.3d at 271, the Second Circuit, in applying New York law, held that:
"To establish a cause of action in slander, the plaintiff must show either that
the statement complained of caused him or her 'special harm' or that it
constituted slander 'per se.' Generally speaking, 'special harm' means 'the
loss of something having economic or pecuniary value.' The four categories of
statements that have historically constituted slander per se in New York are
those that (i) charge the plaintiff with a serious crime; (ii) tend to injure the
plaintiff in his or her trade, business or profession; (iii) imply that the
plaintiff has a loathsome disease; or (iv) impute unchastity to a
woman ... There is no proof of 'special harm' incurred by Albert in the record
on appeal. But we conclude that as a matter of law, the assertions allegedly
made by Loksen about Albert, a hospital physicist, that, inter alia, he handled
radioactive material in a manner that 'compromised the welfare of a patient
and [,) if [it) . continued, ... definitely could have resulted in improper
treatment and endangered the patient's life,' he 'endangered the safety of
co-workers,' and he 'had neglect for established radiation safety procedures'
would obviously tend to injure him in his profession. The statement. iljalse and
defamatory. is therefore actionable per set Pleadinr: and pro%fspecial harm is
unnecessarv" (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).43
43 See, LaBozzo, 2002 WL at *6 ("Burdine'S charges were slanderous per se because they
tended to injure plaintiff in her trade, business or profession"). See also, Liberman v. Gelstein,
80 N.Y.2d 429, 435, 605 N.E.2d 344, 347-48, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 860-61 (1992) ("Plaintiff has
not alleged special damages, and thus his slander claims are not sustainable unless they fall
within one ofthe exceptions to the rule ...The four established exceptions (collectively 'slander
per se') consist of statements (i) charging plaintiff with a serious crime; (ii) that tend to injure
another in his or her trade, business or profession; (iii) that plaintiff has a loathsome disease; or
(iv) imputing unchastity to a woman. When statements fall within one of these categories, the
law presumes that damages will result, and they need not be alleged or proven"); O'Diah, 954 F.
Supp.2d at 275 (Special damages need not be shown, however, where evidence supports a claim
for slander per se. The four categories of defamatory statements that constitute slander per se are
those that '(1) charge the plaintiff with a serious crime; (2) tend to injure the plaintiff in his or
her trade, business or profession; (3) imply that the plaintiff has a loathsome disease; or (4)
impute unchastity to a woman''') (internal citations omitted); D'Lima, 833 F. Supp.2d at 390
("Slander per se includes four categories of statements: (i) charging plaintiff with a serious crime;
63
*
43.
Here, in conformance with the above, "Special Damages" need not be alleged or
demonstrated insofar as Azeem's a) false utterances; and b) false statements of supposed fact
about Mr. Murphy to her co-workers injured Mr. Murphy in his "trade, business or profession."
Hence, under well-established New York precedent, damages are presumed and the pleading and
proof of special harm is unnecessary.
(ii) that tend to injure another in his or her trade, business or profession; (iii) that plaintiff has a
loathsome disease; or (iv) imputing unchastity to a woman").
64
44.
Slander Per Se damages - i. e., damages that are separate and apart from the
damages that Mr. Murphy is seeking in the Murphy/Citigroup Action44 ;
B.
C.
The reimbursement of all FINRA fees that Mr. Murphy shall incur in connection
with the prosecution of this matter.
65
B~Si:'ESq.
66