FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/20/2015 07:18 PM

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3

INDEX NO. 653489/2015

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/20/2015

FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY

In the Matter of the Arbitration
Between:

DAVID JAMES MURPHY (CRD # 4799650),

Claimant,

- and-

FINRA Case No. 15-02320

:i

1
j

I
1
!

TILA AZEEM (CRD # 5857404),

Respondent.

CLAIMANT'S AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM

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

forth and alleges as follows:

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

presently forty-five (45) years old - was employed by a) Citigroup Global

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

friendship with Azeem by Milagros Henriquez (hereinafter, "Henriquez") - a Human Resources

Specialist at Citigroup

it was clear that Azeem's recitation of events to, amongst others,

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.

Unspecified Punitive damages; and

In the Murphy/Citigroup Action, Mr. Murphy is seeking as follows against Citi&roup:

a) Quantum Meruit/Unjust Enrichment damages of $2,600,000.00, representing i) the amount
by which Citigroup was enriched unjustly in Calendar Year 2014 by Mr. Murphy's efforts; and
ii) the amount oflncentive Compensation to which Mr. Murphy was (and is) entitled for
Calendar Year 2014 the exact amount to be proven at the evidentiary hearings in the
Murphy/Citigroup Action, with Statutory Interest thereon; b) damages of $400,000.00 emanating
from Citigroup's improper and illegal Cancellation, Confiscation, and Conversion of deferred
cash awards provided to Mr. Murphy as part of his Incentive Compensation for Calendar Year
2013, with Statutory Interest thereon; c) Libel Per Se damages in an amount to be ascertained at
the evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup Action, with Statutory Interest thereon; d)
Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations damages in an amount to be
ascertained at the evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup Action, with Statutory Interest
thereon; e) an Expuneement of the false, defamatory language contained on Mr. Murphy's U-5;
f) Unspecified damages emanating from Citigroup's myriad of labor law violations -the exact
amount to be ascertained at the evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup Action, with
Statutory Interest thereon; g) Severance in connection with Mr. Murphy's Wrongful Termination
- the exact amount to be ascertained at the evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup Action,
with Statutory Interest thereon; h) PunitivelTreble damages of, at a minimum, $9,000,000.00
resulting from Citigroup's deplorable misconduct the exact amount to be ascertained at the
evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup Action; and i) the reimbursement of all FINRA
fees that the Claimant shall incur in connection with the prosecution of the Murphy/Citigroup
Action.
3

(
j
~

C.
,

The reimbursement of all FINRA fees that Mr. Murphy shall incur in connection
with the prosecution of this matter.

j
;1

II. THE PARTIES

A. THE CLAIMANT

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.

been married for nearly fifteen (15) years

and their daughter, Maya, aged seven (7). In 1991,

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,

and/or re&istered with, the following financial institutions:

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:

Undertaking private equity investments, including acquiring the passenger

rail services of Australian National;

Advising numerous Asian corporations on leveraged and project finance

transactions, across a range of sectors, including telecommunications,
transport, and power, respectively;

Advising the public and private sectors on the sale, acquisition, and
financing of infrastructure assets, including toll-roads and hospitals,
respectively; and

Arranging cross-border leases for a number of Asian lessees, including

Cathay Pacific.

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:

The originating and structuring of hybrid capital issuance by banks and

insurance companies, respectively;

Debt underwriting to support private equity transactions; and

The structuring of merger, acquisition, and financing transactions to

optimize the tax, accounting, and regulatory consequences thereof.

Mr. Murphy left Merrill Lynch voluntarily in AUl:ust 2002 to join Deutsche Bank;
and

May 1994 - AUl:ust 1998

Sydney; AUl:ust 1998 - AUl:ust 1999 - Hong Kong.

AUl:ust 1999 - AUl:ust 2000 - Hong Kong; September 2000 - AUl:ust 2002

London.

C.

Deutsche Bank (August 2002 - November 2011)6 In or about August 2002,

Mr. Murphy joined Deutsche Bank in London in its Structured Credit Products
Group for Europe/Middle East!Africa (hereinafter, "EMEN') and, thereafter, he
received a litany of significant promotions from the company, to wit:

lI

j,

'j

i
1

1I

1!
I

In or about January 2004, Mr. Murphy was promoted to Deutsche Bank's

Structured Capital Markets Group for North America, wherein he re

located to New York;

In or about June 2006, Mr. Murphy was promoted to the Head of

Deutsche Bank's Structured Capital Markets Group for North America;

In or about October 2008, Mr. Murphy was promoted to the Head of

Deutsche Bank's Strategic Equities Transactions Group for North
America; and

In or about July 2009, Mr. Murphy was promoted to Deutsche Bank's:

Asian Head of Prime Finance; and
Asian Head of Equity Special Situations, respectively, wherein he

re-Iocated to Hong Kong.

!,
I

tl
,I

II

II

I
I
i

6 According to Mr. Murphy's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he was employed

by a) Deutsche Bank AG from March 2004 until August 2009; b) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
from April 2004 until August 2009; and c) Deutsche Bank from September 2009 until
November 2011. According to Mr. Murphy's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he was
registered with Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. from June 2004 until September 2009.

1,,
!

As a Managing Director and Deutsche Bank's i) Asian Head of Prime Finance;

and ii) Asian Head of Equity Special Situations, respectively, Mr. Murphy's duties
and responsibilities included, inter alia:

Managing prime finance in Asia, including prime brokerage, delta one

swaps (index and single stock), risk and financing functions, stock loan,
client service, and client on-boarding, respectively. The business
generated 150 million in revenues in 2010, a doubling of revenues from
2009; and

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

employed by Citigroup in or about November 2011

became reKistered with a) Citigroup

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.

Has never been the subject of a customer complaint;

B.

Has never with the exception ofthe Murphy/Citigroup Action and the present
action, respectively been a claimant in an arbitration;

c.

Has never been a respondent in an arbitration;

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.

Has never sued anyone;

H.

Has never been sued;

Has never been arrested;

J.

Had never been fined by Citigroup;

K.

Had never been demoted from his position as Managing Director by Citigroup;

L.

Had never received a letter of caution from Citigroup;

M.

Had never received a letter of warning from Citigroup;

N.

Had never received a letter of admonishment from Citigroup; and

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

# 5857404) (again, "Azeem") became:

Employed by Citigroup in June 2013; and

B.

Rel:istered with Citigroup on AUl:ust 5, 2013.

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.

Rule 13200(a) of the Governing Code provides as follows:

"Except as otherwise provided in the Code, a dispute must be arbitrated
under the Code if the dispute arises out of the business activities of a member
or an associated person and is between or among:
Members;
Members and Associated Persons; or
Associated Persons" (emphasis added).

*
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.

In accordance with Rule 13213(a)(1) of the Governing Code:

"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.

Here, Mr. Murphy - an "Associated Person"

*
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

IV. THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CLAIMANT'S SLANDER PER SE CLAIM

A. NOVEMBER 2011 - CITIGROUP HIRES THE CLAIMANT

12.

In or about November 2011, as a result of an aggressive recruitment effort, Mr. Murphy

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.

On March 1.2013, Mr. Murphy was promoted to Citigroup's Head of Prime

Finance and Futures for the Americas, wherein he re-Iocated to New YorkS; and

B.

On January 1.2014, Mr. Murphy was promoted to Citigroup's Global Head of

Prime Finance.

Citibank Tower, Citibank Plaza, 3 Garden Road, Central Hong Kong.

8388 Greenwich Street, New York, New York 10013.

12

B. NOVEMBER 2011 - DECEMBER 31,2013: THE CLAIMANT'S COMPENSATION

FROM CITIGROUP

l3.

Mr. Murphy's annual compensation from Citigroup during the period November 2011

December 31, 2013 was as follows:

Year:

Base Salary: Incentive Compensation:

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

In addition to his annualized total compensation of $2,250,000.00 for Calendar Year

2011, Mr. Murphy received a housing allowance of $194,000.00.
9

10 Mr. Murphy was awarded roughly $1,600,000.00 in Incentive Compensation for

Calendar Year 2012. The term roughly is utilized because Mr. Murphy does not have his
Compensation Statement for said year.

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.

In Calendar Year 2014, Mr. Murphy

a) a Managing Director; and b) Citigroup's

Global Head of Prime Finance, respectively - reported directly to:

A.

Okan Pekin (hereinafter, "Pekin") - a Managing Director and the Global Head of
Investor Services, respectively, at Citigroup (based in London)14; and

B.

Suni Pedersen Harford (CRD # 1879134) (hereinafter, "Harford,,)15 - a Managing

Director and Citigroup's Regional Head of Markets for North America,
respectively (based in New York)16.

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

15 According to Harford's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, she has been

employed by Citigroup from September 1998 until the present and she has been re&istered
with Citigroup from September 1. 1998 until the present.
16 In her capacity as Citigroup's Regional Head of Markets for North America, Harford
oversees the North American sales, trading, and origination businesses of Citigroup's securities
and banking franchise. She is also a Member of Citigroup's Pension Plan Investment Committee
and a Director on the Board of Citibank Canada, respectively. Harford originally joined Salomon
Brothers a Citigroup predecessor - in 1993. In Calendar Year 2013, prior to his promotion to
Citigroup's Global Head of Prime Finance, Mr. Murphy reported to a) Harford; and b) Nicholas
Roe (hereinafter, "Roe"), based in London, who was i) a Managing Director; and ii) Citigroup's
Global Head of Prime Finance, Futures, and Listed Derivatives, respectively. Roe was
Citigroup's Global Head of Prime Finance, Futures, and Listed Derivatives from in or about
2008 until in or about late 2013, at which time he became Head ofInvestor Services EMEA.
Roe left Citigroup in or about the Summer of 2014.
14

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

a Managing Director and Citigroup's Co-President

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

a Managing Director and Citigroup's Chief Executive Officer, respectively (based

in New York)22.

According to Ybarra's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he has been employed

by Citigroup from January 2002 until the present and he has been re~istered with Citigroup
from December 18,1998 until the present.
17

Ybarra is a Member of Citigroup's Operating Committee and he was the Chairman of

the Institutional Clients Group's Risk Management Committee, respectively. He originally
joined the Company in 1987 in Spain.
18

According to Forese's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he has been employed

by Citigroup from May 1999 until the present and he has been re~istered with Citigroup from
December 11, 1997 until the present.
19

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.

According to Corbat's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he has been employed

by Citigroup from November 1997 until the present and he has been re~istered with Citigroup
from November 28,1997 until the present.
21

22 Corbat originally joined Salomon Brothers a Citigroup predecessor - in 1983. Corbat

is a Member of Citigroup's Operating Committee and its Board of Directors, respectively.

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.

John Cullen Nicholson (CRD # 1305888) (hereinafter, "Nicholson")23

Managing Director, Global Head of Securities Lending, and Global Head of
Financing at Citigroup, respectively:

B.

Joseph Chang (hereinafter, "Chang") Managing Director and Asian Head of

Prime Finance at Citigroup, respectively;

C.

Anthony Francis LaPorta (CRD # 1406421) (hereinafter, "LaPorta,,)24 Managing

Director and Global Head of Risk for Prime Finance and Futures at Citigroup,
respectively;

D.

John Dewey (hereinafter, "Dewey") - Managing Director and Global Head of

Business Management for Prime Finance at Citigroup, respectively;

E.

Richard North (hereinafter, "North") - Managing Director and EMEA Head of

Securities Loan and Financing at Citigroup, respectively;

F.

David Martocci (hereinafter, "Martocci") - Managing Director and Global Head

of Agency Lending at Citigroup, respectively;

G.

Sanjay Madgavkar (CRD # 1406421) (hereinafter, "Madgavkar,,)25 - Managing

Director and Global Head of Foreign Exchange Prime Brokerage at Citigroup,
respectively; and

23 According to Nicholson's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he has been

employed by Citigroup from June 2010 until the present and he has been rel:istered with
Citigroup from June 29, 2010 until the present.
24 According to LaPorta's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he has been employed
by Citigroup from September 2008 until the present and he has been re&,istered with Citigroup
from October 9,2012 until the present.
According to Madgavkar's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he has been
employed by Citigroup from May 2001 until the present and he has been rel:istered with
Citigroup from December 10, 2004 until the present.
25

16

H.

16.

Michael Clement Bitton (eRD # 4550898) (hereinafter, "Bitton,,)26 - Managing

Director and Global Head of Delta One at Citigroup, respectively.

Mr. Murphy had a stellar year in Calendar Year 2014, to wit:

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:

$380 million in Core Prime/Prime Brokerage;

$440 million in Delta One;

$92 million in Agency Securities Lending; and

$110 million in Foreign Exchange Prime Brokerage; and

26 According to Bitton's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he has been employed

by Citigroup from May 2012 until the present and he has been re&istered with Citigroup from
July 26, 2012 until the present.
27 The Net P&L for Core Prime/Prime Brokerage, Delta One, and Agency Securities
Lending was roughly $352 million - exclusive of the Foreign Exchange Prime Brokerage
business - given that the expenses within Core Prime/Prime Brokerage, Delta One, and Agency
Securities Lending were running at around $560 million, thus, roughly $912 million in revenues
(Core Prime/Prime Brokerage {$380 million} + Delta One {$440 million} + Agency Securities
Lending {$92 million} $912 million) minus roughly $560 million in expenses in Core
PrimelPrime Brokerage, Delta One, and Agency Securities Lending, exclusive of the Foreign
Exchange Prime Brokerage business, which had $110 million in revenues but also expenses.
Hence, the Net P&L for Core Prime/Prime Brokerage, Delta One, Agency Securities Lending,
and Foreign Exchange Prime Brokerage was roughly $462 million ($352 million {Net P&L for
Core Prime/Prime Brokerage, Delta One, and Agency Securities Lending} + $110 million
{revenues for the Foreign Exchange Prime Brokerage business}) minus the to-be-determined
expenses for the Foreign Exchange Prime Brokerage business.
28 Annualized, given that Mr. Murphy's Wrongful Termination occurred after roughly
seventy-five percent (75%) of the year was complete.

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.

As noted above, according to her publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, Azeem

became:

A.

Employed by Citigroup in June 2013; and

B.

Ref:istered with Citigroup on AUf:ust 5, 2013.

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

According to Wiffen's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he has been employed

by Citigroup from February 2002 until the present and he has been ref:istered with Citigroup
from September 14, 2010 until the present.
29

30 According to Muoio's publicly-available FThTRA CRD Report, he is presently

employed by Citigroup, which is erroneous, and he was ref:istered with Citigroup from
October 1989 until June 2014.

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.

31 According to Pace's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he has been employed by

Citigroup from April 2008 until the present and he has been registered with Citigroup from
June 25. 2008 until the present.
32According to Ottomanelli's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he is presently
employed by Citigroup, which is erroneous, and he was registered with Citigroup from April
1995 until July 2015.
19

i. THE CLAIMANT AND AZEEM DEVELOP A STRICTLY PLATONIC, NON

SEXUAL, EXTREMELY CLOSE FRIENDSHIP

19.

Over time, Mr. Murphy and Azeem developed a strictly platonic, non-sexual, extremely

close friendship that entailed, inter alia:

a.

Several dinners;

b.

Several meetings for drinks;

c.

Starbucks visits;

d.

Walks to the Path Station and conversations while at the Path Station,
respectively;

e.

The provision of extraordinarily inexpensive gifts;

f.

The mutual exchange of text messages; and

g.

The mutual sharing of both intimate and banal details of their respective lives.

The relationship

while an extremely close one

was never sexual, nor did Mr. Murphy ever

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;

Pie (apple, lemon meringue);

Toffee pudding;

Bread pudding;

Brownies;

Chocolate mousse;

Cookies;

Muffins;

Cereal (Fruit Loops, Cheerios, Lucky Charms);

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;

Benicio Del Toro;

Willem Dafoe;

Gary Busey;

Sean Connery;

Martin Sheen;

Robin Thicke;

23

Pharrell Williams;

Dentistry;

Weather;

Television;

An employment opportunity for Azeem at Ralph Lauren;

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

ii. SEPTEMBER 19,2014 - THE CLAIMANT IS INTERROGATED ABOUT AZEEM

BY CITIGROUP'S HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

20.

On the morning of September 19,2014, Mr. Murphy was interrogated by Henriquez - a

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:

Attempted, without provocation, on a myriad of occasions, to induce and coerce

Mr. Murphy into revealing his true "feelings" for her which, in actuality, were
feelings of extremely close friendship only. In fact, as discussed in great detail
below, on a litany of prior occasions, Azeem would try, unsuccessfully, to
provoke "confessions" of romantic proclivities from Mr. Murphy towards her;

Consumed, without provocation, an interminable amount of time discussing how

attempts were made to recruit her as a swimsuit model and as a lip model,
respectively;

Consumed, without provocation, an interminable amount of time discussing her

efforts to get work as a fit model and the feedback that she had received regarding
this ultimately failed effort;

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

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 their first dinner together
(see, below) - Azeem confinned that:
She was having no issues with their interactions;
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.; and
There was nothin~ about the evening not to like, insofar as she was able
to, as she put it to Mr. Murphy, speak vainly about herself and have him
listen.

Following the Jimmy's Drinks, Mr. Murphy and Azeem exchanged pleasant text messages and
the evening thus concluded without any incident whatsoever.

22.

On the morning of September 6,2014, Mr. Murphy innocuously texted Azeem

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.

Cancelling a scheduled shopping appointment with her fiance in order to spend

more time with Mr. Murphy;

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

Or, perhaps, Azeem's fiance

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.

Henriquez commenced the Interrogation by querying about Mr. Murphy's "relationship"

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;

Henriquez queried as to whether Mr. Murphy had developed a propensity for

communicating with Azeem at her desk, to which Mr. Murphy conceded
truthfully that at one point he and Azeem had spoken with some degree of
frequency at her desk. Mr. Murphy continued by noting that when others
commented to Azeem that she had ostensibly become "popular" with Mr.
Murphy, she expressed discomfort, in response to which Mr. Murphy
immediately ceased speaking with Azeem at her desk. Mr. Murphy also noted
that 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 Henriquez connoted a vague awareness of Azeem' s visits to Mr.
Murphy's office, Azeem had clearly not advised her of the frequency m: length

35 According to McCooey's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he was employed by

Citigroup from May 2013 until July 2014 and he was re&istered with Citigroup from June
2013 until July 2014. According to McCooey's publicly-available FINRA CRD Report, he has
been employed by, and re&istered with, SenaHill Securities Inc. (CRD # 166477) (hereinafter,
"SenaHill") from July 2014 until the present.

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 queried as to whether Mr. Murphy had invited Azeem to dinners, to

which Mr. Murphy conceded truthfully that he had. Mr. Murphy also stated that
he had had lunches and dinners with other Citigroup colleagues as well. When
Henriquez mentioned that Azeem had allegedly been uncomfortable with a dinner
many months prior, 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. Incidentally, with respect to this particular 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 their first meal together. Clearly, Azeem failed to apprise
Henriquez of this. Azeem also undoubtedly failed to apprise Henriquez that
many subsequent dinners and/or drinks were typically impromptu and that,
obviously, whatever alleged "discomfort" Azeem felt after this initial dinner in
question, her alleged "discomfort" was sufficiently vitiated and mollified;

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

Mr. Murphy conceded truthfully that he had given her:

A grand total of three (3) paperback books 36 :

The aforementioned Poetry Book;

"How Fiction Works"; and

A Passage to India"37; and

One $3 lip balm.

Henriquez focused specifically upon the Poetry Book, in response to which Mr.
Murphy indicated that as set forth above - prior to giving Azeem said book at
the Jimmy's Drinks - he told 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. Mr. Murphy further
conveyed to Henriquez that 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. In addition,
Mr. Murphy told Henriquez that he had given other colleagues (males) books
during his tenure at the Company and that he had also generously, with his own
money, purchased two (2) suits for two (2) junior male analysts at his previous
employer, Deutsche Bank, during his tenure there gifts that were exponentially
more expensive (roughly $500 per suit) than the three (3) books and $3 lip balm
that he had purchased for Azeem. Mr. Murphy purchased these suits for these
male analysts because he had grown up quite poor and had been on the receiving
end of a number of vituperative remarks about his shoddy dress when he first
entered the securities industry. He never wanted anyone else to endure and suffer
similar humiliation;

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;

Henriquez indicated that according to Azeem, Mr. Murphy had allegedly

encouraged her not only to take drugs but, moreover, to allegedly take drugs with
him. In actuality, as Mr. Murphy explained to Henriquez, Azeem confided to Mr.
Murphy that she had taken some drugs, but not others, because her fiance
allegedly told her that she should not try cocaine, for example, because she was
apparently ill-suited to it temperamentally. Mr. Murphy's innocuous retort to
Azeem was that she should make her own decisions in life. By way of example,
as alluded to above, Mr. Murphy did not at that time (and does not at present)
much to Azeem' s chagrin and constant complaints drink alcohol, and he
explained to Azeem on numerous occasions that everyone must make their own
decisions in life, just as he had vis-a-vis alcohol. In sum, Mr. Murphy - who did
not at that time (and does not at present) use drugs - never encouraged Azeem to
take drugs, much less with him, and for her to have alleged otherwise was an
egregiously delusive and slanderous misrepresentation. 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 and others at Citigroup
but, moreover, she also undoubtedly discussed illicit dru&: use with others at
Citigroup as well. Testimony from Azeem and others concerning the same shall
be adduced at the evidentiary hearings in this matter and shall go a long way
towards establishing the utter falsity of Azeem's allegations against Mr. Murphy
in respect of supposed drug instigation and otherwise. Azeem clearly failed to
disclose to Henriquez any and all of the above and her malicious utterances to the
Company about Mr. Murphy's alleged drug instigation and inducement were
bold-faced, outright lies;

32

Henriquez placed significant emphasis on the alleged sharing of "confidential

business information" with Azeem. In particular, Henriquez referenced three (3)
items during the Interrogation: a) She indicated that Mr. Murphy had allegedly
shared details of other analysts' ratings with Azeem and that he allegedly
intervened to secure a higher rating for her; b) she indicated that Mr. Murphy had
allegedly shared details of a "redundancy list" with Azeem; and c) she indicated
that Mr. Murphy had allegedly shared proprietary compensation information, as
well as his own compensation information, with Azeem.
With respect to "ratings,"Azeem raised the topic of analyst ratings with Mr.
Murphy. At the time of said invocation, she was already well informed
of, inter alia, a) the state of affairs; b) the ratings being considered for the
various analysts; and c) the contentious debate between her direct, linear
Supervisor and at least one other regarding her rating vis-a-vis that of the
other analysts. Mr. Murphy had not been involved in those discussions up
to that time, and it was Azeem who was informing Mr. Murphy of the
situation - not the reverse. Whether (and how) Azeem was able to cajole
this information from her direct, linear Supervisor or from others is
something of which Mr. Murphy has no knowledge whatsoever; however,
suffice it to say that whatever information that Azeem may have received
or garnered concerning other analysts' ratings did not emanate from Mr.
Murphy. Moreover, Mr. Murphy simply leant his support to Azeem
receiving the very same rating that her direct, linear Supervisor had
strongly recommended and for which her direct, linear Supervisor was
already fighting and advocating;
With respect to the "redundancy list," on or about Au&ust 1,2014, during
a walk to the subway, Azeem revealed to Mr. Murphy that someone at
Citigroup in Chicago had allegedly lost their job and she then queried Mr.
Murphy as to whether anyone on Citigroup's Sales/Futures team in New
York was on the "redundancy list." To this end, while on the subway,
under repetitive (and emotional) questioning from Azeem about, inter alia,
a succession of individuals on the team, Mr. Murphy's overt discomfort
concerning one (1) particular individual later gave rise to his truthful, yet
regrettable, disclosure to Azeem that said individual was not on the final
"redundancy list". For Azeem to have alleged, suggested, or implied that
Mr. Murphy had shared extensive details with her about the "redundancy
list" is patently false and utterly chimerical. Moreover, Azeem clearly
failed to mention to Henriquez that it was she who had probed Mr.
Murphy on this topic, instead giving Henriquez the fallacious impression
that Mr. Murphy had simply "offered-up" details sua sponte; and

33

I
~
1
I

Ii

,~

With respect to "compensation information," on or about August 28,

2014, Mr. Murphy and Azeem had dinner at Boqueria in Soho
(hereinafter, the "Boqueria Dinner"). For some time prior, Azeem had
been commenting that she was likely to leave the securities industry and
she seemed (or feigned) to have little insight into what she would be
"foregoing" were she to leave the industry. Based primarily upon
publicly-available information gleaned from headhunters - which was
(and is) available to anyone querying - Mr. Murphy was able to a) provide
compensation ranges to Azeem at this dinner for those above Azeem in
the hierarchical, titular chain of command, i. e., compensation ranges for
Vice-Presidents, Directors, and Managing Directors, respectively; and, at a
later date, b) provide an exceedingly wide range, based upon the then
prevailing market rate, for the vacant EMEA Prime role. For Azeem to
have alleged, suggested, or implied that Mr. Murphy was somehow
disclosing proprietary or confidential information is absurd; rather, as
noted above, said information was (and is) easily obtainable from any
number of headhunters concentrating in the securities industry. In fact,
Azeem specifically confirmed that the ranges that Mr. Murphy - based
primarily upon publicly-available information gleaned from headhunters
- had shared with her were entirely consistent and in line with what she
had already gleaned from others. It should also be noted that whereas Mr.
Murphy did disclose to Azeem his own compensation, such was hardly
sinister, furtive, or aberrational vis-a-vis common industry practice.
Whereas Mr. Murphy was not in the habit of disclosing his compensation
details to others, discussions regarding compensation were (and are)
commonplace at Citigroup and in the securities industry in generaL

34

iii. AZEEM'S SLANDEROUS RECITATION OF EVENTS IS REPLETE WITH

OUTRIGHT LIES, HALF-TRUTHS. DISTORTIONS, AND OMISSIONS

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.

These are outri2ht lies. On the paucity of occasions whereupon Azeem

expressly stated a desire to end her close friendship with Mr. Murphy - the
impetus for which was normally prompted by Citigroup colleagues commenting
about said burgeoning friendship - Mr. Murphy dutifully and unfailingly
respected Azeem's wishes. However, on multiple occasions after having
suggested that they end their close friendship, Azeem would then invariably re
initiate contact. Moreover, while sitting with Mr. Murphy at the Path Station one
evening towards the later stages oftheir close friendship, Azeem expressly
recognized that it was always she that had resuscitated their friendship after each
such hiatus. Azeem's assertion to her co-workers that Mr. Murphy allegedly
failed to honor her expressed desire to end their friendship, inter alia:
Was (and is) immensely damaging to Mr. Murphy;
Has contributed significantly to the wreckage of Mr. Murphy's previously
stellar career and reputation, respectively; and
Was (and is) a false statement of fact which Azeem knowingly and
maliciously made;

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

Azeem's assertion or suggestion that Mr. Murphy was somehow harboring

romantic "feelings" towards her was downright false. As noted 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. Azeem oftentimes remarked to Mr. Murphy that
male friends in their twenties (20's) invariably expressed their romantic interest in
her and she complained that Mr. Murphy had never done so, a topic she returned
to at length on or about September 2. 2014 (see, below) and, again, a few days
thereafter at the Jimmy's Drinks. In fact, as time wore on, Azeem continually
prodded Mr. Murphy into disclosing how he really felt towards her, in response to
which Mr. Murphy consistently tried, oftentimes unsuccessfully, to divert and re
orient the conversation. In fact, in the later stages of their close friendship, Mr.
Murphy explicitly told Azeem on several occasions that he did not want to
discuss "feelings" further, and he suggested to Azeem on numerous occasions that
they would be better off speaking about feelings less often or not at all. Over
time, Azeem became obsessed with the perceived, from her perspective,
eventuality and fait accompli' that Mr. Murphy's "feelings" towards her - albeit
non-romantic feelings of extremely close friendship - would ultimately fade, and
Azeem perpetually reverted to this topic in her continued interactions with Mr.
Murphy. Clearly, Azeem falsely attributed statements to Mr. Murphy that he
never made and 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;

!
I
I

I,
f

If
,

f
i

~:

t
l

37

Azeem's assertion or suggestion that the strictly platonic, non-sexual, extremely

close friendship that she had with Mr. Murphy was somehow one-sided was
downright false; in fact, not only did Azeem consistently compliment Mr. Murphy
and tell him, inter alia:
How much she liked him;
How intelligent and quick witted that she perceived him to be;

,
i

I
f

How well-read she thought that he was;

How funny she viewed him to be; and

How seamless and fluid their conversations seemed to be (at least in the
inception, before she began repetitively cajoling him into revealing his
supposedly true feelings for her),
but she was, of course, a willing and enthusiastic participant in, and attendee at,
their various friendly dinners and drinks outside of the office. To this end, as

noted above, when others commented to Azeem that she had supposedly become

"popular" with Mr. Murphy, she at times expressed discomfort, in response to

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
\

,
~,

On a paucity of occasions prior to the aforementioned Jimmy's Drinks, Azeem

expressed to Mr. Murphy her alleged discomfort and/or unhappiness with her
interactions with him as a result of comments that colleagues at the Company had
made to her. As alluded to above, at times, Azeem expressed discomfort with
these comments; however, at other times, she oscillated and indicated that she did
not care what others thought. Leaving these vacillations aside, Azeem clearly
failed to tell Henriquez that whenever she expressed a desire for a change in her
interactions with Mr. Murphy as a result of the comments that others were
making, he invariably, immediately, and respectfully adhered to her wishes and
curtailed all contact. As further alluded to above, Azeem also clearly failed to tell
Henriquez that the re-establishment of communications would always come at her
behest and was therefore inevitable because Azeem unfailingly re-engaged with
Mr. Murphy;

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;

On or about June 20, 2014, following the recommendation by Azeem of a sexy,

racy video to Mr. Murphy, the two had dinner on the Upper West Side at Bocca di
Bacco (hereinafter, the "Bocca di Bacco Dinner"). In the aftermath thereof, Mr.
Murphy and Azeem shared thoughts on, inter alia, a) a book that they were
contemporaneously reading; and b) a play that they had each seen separately.
Throughout the next few weeks, Azeem seemed obsessed with ensuring that Mr.
Murphy's platonic "feelings" towards her would not fade, and the friendship
between the two strengthened and intensified. 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

Azeem was married subsequent to Mr. Murphy's Wrongful Termination.

40

On or about June 27, 2014, following some lighthearted conversation at a

Starbucks 39 in Tribeca, Mr. Murphy and Azeem went to Tre Sorelle on Reade
Street in Tribeca. At Starbucks, Azeem had cancelled her dinner plans with a
friend so that she could spend the evening with Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy and
Azeem then spent the next several hours at Tre SoreIle, wherein Azeem became
increasingly more and more inebriated (as noted above, Mr. Murphy did not at
that time, and does not at present, drink alcohol). As Azeem became increasingly
drunk, she brushed her knees up against Mr. Murphy (her self-proclaimed
"signature move") in a lascivious manner on several occasions during this evening
(and on subsequent occasions at later dinners/outings), exclaiming at a later outing
that when she gets drunk, she has a tendency to "lean in." In response, Mr.
Murphy moved backwards and remarked that Azeem was becoming a bit
unwieldy. Upon the closing ofTre Sorelle, Mr. Murphy and Azeem went to
another bar - Barrow's Pub in the West Village - wherein they stayed for roughly
one (1) hour. En route to Barrow's Pub, Azeem exclaimed that she had "big
hands" and suggested that Mr. Murphy put the palm of his hand against hers (she
made this suggestion a number of times subsequently as well). Upon leaving
Barrow's Pub, Azeem remarked that it was unusual that Mr. Murphy had never
kissed her good-bye at the end of an evening, whereupon they proceeded to
innocently kiss one another on the cheek good-bye. Clearly, Azeem wiIIfully
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;

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

On the comer of Reade Street and Broadway.

41

She was oftentimes hung-over at work after evenings with

friends/colleagues; and
On one unfortunate occasion, she had vomited at work after consuming
too many drinks with a Citigroup client, a happenstance that she had also
shared with other Citigroup colleagues as well.
At Dylan Prime, Azeem drunkenly bragged to Mr. Murphy that a number of men
had allegedly professed their love for her in the past, exclaiming that she even had
two (2) men, at that very time, allegedly tell her that they loved her. She also
confided to Mr. Murphy that a bevy of men would oftentimes ask her out to
dinner, not seeming to care that she had a significant other. She even expressed
trepidation that her looks would fade in time and, if that were to hypothetically
occur, she bemoaned the fact that she would lose the ability to sway and
manipulate men in the manner to which she had clearly grown adroitly
accustomed. After leaving Dylan Prime, Azeem, who appeared unsteady as a
result of overindulging in alcohol, asked Mr. Murphy if she could hold his arm.
He acquiesced, but prudishly placed his hand in his pocket so as to avert any
accusations of impropriety (a gesture which seems ironic now). 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;

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:

Azeem resided with her parents.

42

t
I
1

Came to Mr. Murphy's office;

Was all smiles;
Chatted with Mr. Murphy enthusiastically; and
Then walked with Mr. Murphy to the subway.
On the ensuing walk, Mr. Murphy made it crystal clear that if Azeem ever wanted
to chat, she could come to his office and that way she could regulate the time they
spent together in the work environment to an amount which she deemed
acceptable. This was followed-up by a dinner at Les HaIles in the Financial
District on or about August 11.2014 (hereinafter, the "Les HaIles Dinner"),
wherein Mr. Murphy, in light of Azeem's alleged discomfort in the aftermath of
the Walker's Dinner, asked Azeem if she were comfortable with the Les HaIles
Dinner conversation. She responded emphatically that she was. Clearly, Azeem
gave a patently false account of many of these events, suggesting, for example,
that it was Mr. Murphy that had re-initiated their communications when, in fact,
Azeem knew full well that she was always the one to re-institute communications.
And, 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;

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;

As noted above, at the Jimmy's Drinks on or about September 5, 2014, Azeem,

inter alia:
Attempted, without provocation, on a myriad of occasions, to induce and
coerce Mr. Murphy into revealing his true feelings for her which, in
actuality, were feelings of extremely close friendship only. In fact, on a
litany of prior occasions, Azeem would try, unsuccessfully, to provoke
confessions of romantic proclivities from Mr. Murphy towards her. These
exhortations at the time appeared to be the innocuous acts of a self
centered, insecure person yet, after the events that have since transpired,
Azeem clearly had different intentions;
Consumed, without provocation, an interminable amount of time
discussing how attempts were made to recruit her as a swimsuit model and
as a lip model, respectively;
Consumed, without provocation, an interminable amount of time
discussing her efforts to get work as a fit model and the feedback that she
had received regarding this ultimately failed effort;
Boasted, without provocation, ad nauseum and gleefully about her
breasts and how they were undoubtedly larger than Mr. Murphy probably
realized;
Boasted, 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;

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 no issues with their interactions; and

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

Azeem also oftentimes spoken about:

The growing divergence between her views and those of her fiance on
topics ranging from religion to sex;
Her conflicting feelings and trepidation about her then-impending
marriage; and
Breast implants.
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.

E. SEPTEMBER 25,2014 - THE CLAIMANT'S WRONGFUL TERMINATION

25.

In light of the compelling performance (and other) factors delineated above, Mr. Murphy

anticipated receiving approximately $2,600.000.00 in Incentive Compensation for Calendar Year

2014 for the stellar work that he performed on behalf of the Company. However, instead of
receiving the $2,600.000.00 in Incentive Compensation to which he was (and is) entitled, on
September 25,2014, Mr. Murphy was Terminated and not provided with any Incentive
Compensation at all. To add insult to injury and to further exacerbate his plight, respectively,
Citigroup also, in connection with this Wrongful Termination, cancelled, confiscated, and
converted $400.000.00 of deferred cash awards. As noted above, as a result of the
aforementioned, on or about December 18.2014, Mr. Murphy commenced a FINRA Arbitration
against Citigroup. In conformance with Citigroup's internal Policies and Procedures, Mr.

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.

As further noted above, in the Murphy/Citigroup Action, Mr. Murphy is seeking as

follows against Citi&roup:

A.

Quantum Meruit/Unjust Enrichment damages of $2,600,000.00, representing i)

the amount by which Citigroup was enriched unjustly in Calendar Year 2014 by
Mr. Murphy's efforts; and ii) the amount ofIncentive Compensation to which Mr.
Murphy was (and is) entitled for Calendar Year 2014 - the exact amount to be
proven at the evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup Action, with Statutory
Interest thereon;

B.

Damages of $400,000.00 emanating from Citigroup's improper and illegal

Cancellation, Confiscation, and Conversion of deferred cash awards provided to
Mr. Murphy as part of his Incentive Compensation for Calendar Year 2013, with
Statutory Interest thereon;

C.

Libel Per Se damages in an amount to be ascertained at the evidentiary hearings

in the Murphy/Citigroup Action, with Statutory Interest thereon;

D.

Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations damages in an

amount to be ascertained at the evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup
Action, with Statutory Interest thereon;

E.

An Expun&ement of the false, defamatory language contained on Mr. Murphy's

U-5;

F.

Unspecified damages emanating from Citigroup's myriad oflabor law violations

- the exact amount to be ascertained at the evidentiary hearings in the
Murphy/Citigroup Action, with Statutory Interest thereon;
48

l
G.

Severance in connection with Mr. Murphy's Wrongful Termination - the exact

amount to be ascertained at the evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup
Action, with Statutory Interest thereon;

H.

Punitiverrreble damages of, at a minimum, $9,000,000.00 resulting from

Citigroup's deplorable misconduct - the exact amount to be ascertained at the
evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup Action; and

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.

A defamatory statement of fact (oral) concerning the Plaintiff;

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

A. DEFAMATORY STATEMENT OF FACT CONCERNING THE CLAIMANT

29.

In Albert, 239 F.3d at 260-61; 263, Plaintiff-Appellant, Samuel Albert, a Physicist

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

summary termination of Albert, which virtually eliminates the possibility

that they were meant as rhetorical hyperbole. The statements thus heavily
laden with assertions offact were capable o/a defamatory meaning sumcient to
sustain a defamation recovery,,41 (emphasis added).

*
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

False accusations that she was unwillingly subjected to descriptions by Mr.

Murphy of his sex life; to

False accusations concerning the circumstances underlying the re-initiation of

contact between the two; to

False accusations concerning romantic advancements; to

False accusations concerning the pursuit of a romantic relationship; to

False accusations concerning proclamations of love; to

False accusations concerning stalking; to

False accusations concerning drug instigation; to

False accusations concerning harassment; to

False accusations concerning comments that were supposedly made to her; to

False accusations concerning a multitude of other topics,

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

i. e., Azeem intentionally and maliciously lied to her co-workers about

her interactions with Mr. Murphy.

56

C. PUBLICATION

35.

In Albert, 239 F.3d at 269, the Second Circuit, in applying New York law, held that:

"Under New York defamation law, 'publication is a term of art... A

defamatory writing is not published if it is read by no one but the one
defamed. Published it is, however. as soon as read bv anyone else. In New
York. this rule applies even to statements made by one employee to another.
Other jurisdictions have held that communications made by one employee of
a corporation to another have not been published within the law of
defamation's meaning ofthe term. New York, however. does not adhere to
that view,,42 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).

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

applying New York law, held that:

"This action clearly falls within the Dun & Bradstreet category of cases, in
that it involves a private-fif:ure plaintiff concerninf: matters not of public
concern. The question now becomes whether in light of Dun & Bradstreet the
New York courts nonetheless permit the recovery of presumed damages
under such circumstances as they did pre-Gertz (see Davis v. Ross, 107 F.R.D.
326,330 n. 3 [S.D.N.Y.1985] [court predicting New York courts will re-adopt
the pre-Gertz rule in private-figure plaintiff/matters of private concern
cases]). As was predicted in Davis v. Ross, supra, the New York courts
post-Dun & Bradstreet have in fact returned to the pre-Gertz state of the law
by permitting presumed damages in cases involving private plaintiffs on
matters of private concern (see, e.g., 60 Minute Man, Ltd. v. Kossman, supra,
555 N.Y.S.2d at p. 154 ['Indeed, where the defamatory speech has no 'public
concern' content. the rule af:ainst presumed damaf:es does not apply' in an
action by a non-public fif:ure plaintiff]; King v. Tanner, 142 Misc.2d 1004,
539 N.Y.S.2d 617, 621 [Sup.Ct. Westchester County 1989] [rejectine Times
'actual malice' standard post-Dun & Bradstreet, and imposine only burden of
showine 'common-law malice', i.e.. 'ill-will or spite']" (emphasis added).

58

t
f
38.

In Albert, 239 F.3d at 272, the Second Circuit, in applying New York law, held that:

"New York affords qualified protection to defamatory 'communication[s]

made by one person to another upon a subject in which both have an
interest.' Communications by supervisors or co-workers made in connection
with the evaluation of an employee's performance, including allegations of
employee misconduct and communications regarding the reasons for an
employee's discharge, fall within the privilege... A defendant forfeits this
qualified privileKe by makinK a false. defamatory statement with 'malice' of
either the common-law or constitutional variety. Common-law malice
'mean[s] spite or ill will,' and defeats the privilege only if it is 'the one and
only cause for the publication.' Constitutional or 'actual' malice means
publication with 'knowledge that [the statement] was false or ... reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not.' 'Reckless disregard' as to falsity
means that the statement is 'made with [a] high degree of awareness of [the
publication's] probable falsity' or while 'the defendant in fact entertained
serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication'" (internal citations omitted)
(emphasis added).

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

when she, inter alia:

Attributed statements/comments to Mr. Murphy that he never made; and

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

False accusations that she was unwillingly subjected to descriptions by Mr.

Murphy of his sex life; to

False accusations concerning the circumstances underlying the re-initiation of

contact between the two; to

False accusations concerning romantic advancements; to

False accusations concerning the pursuit of a romantic relationship; to

False accusations concerning proclamations of love; to

False accusations concerning stalking; to

False accusations concerning drug instigation; to

False accusations concerning harassment; to

False accusations concerning comments that were supposedly made to her; to

False accusations concerning a multitude of other topics.

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

Citigroup had no intention whatsoever of conducting a fair, impartial, or even

handed investigation? 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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

44.

Claimant demands judgment against the Respondent as follows:

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 Action44 ;

B.

Unspecified Punitive damages; and

C.

The reimbursement of all FINRA fees that Mr. Murphy shall incur in connection
with the prosecution of this matter.

As noted above, in the Murphy/Citigroup Action, Mr. Murphy is seeking as follows

against Citigroup: a) Ouantum Meruit/Unjust Enrichment damages of $2,600,000.00,
representing i) the amount by which Citigroup was enriched unjustly in Calendar Year 2014 by
Mr. Murphy's efforts; and ii) the amount oflncentive Compensation to which Mr. Murphy was
(and is) entitled for Calendar Year 2014 - the exact amount to be proven at the evidentiary
hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup Action, with Statutory Interest thereon; b) damages of
$400,000.00 emanating from Citigroup's improper and illegal Cancellation, Confiscation, and
Conversion of deferred cash awards provided to Mr. Murphy as part of his Incentive
Compensation for Calendar Year 2013, with Statutory Interest thereon; c) Libel Per Se damages
in an amount to be ascertained at the evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup Action, with
Statutory Interest thereon; d) Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations
damages in an amount to be ascertained at the evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup
Action, with Statutory Interest thereon; e) an Expungement of the false, defamatory language
contained on Mr. Murphy's U-5; f) Unspecified damages emanating from Citigroup's myriad of
labor law violations - the exact amount to be ascertained at the evidentiary hearings in the
Murphy/Citigroup Action, with Statutory Interest thereon; g) Severance in connection with Mr.
Murphy's Wrongful Termination - the exact amount to be ascertained at the evidentiary hearings
in the Murphy/Citigroup Action, with Statutory Interest thereon; h) Punitiverrreble damages of,
at a minimum, $9,000,000.00 resulting from Citigroup's deplorable misconduct - the exact
amount to be ascertained at the evidentiary hearings in the Murphy/Citigroup Action; and i) the
reimbursement of all FINRA fees that the Claimant shall incur in connection with the
prosecution of the Murphy/Citigroup Action.
44

65

Dated: October 7, 2015

New York, New York

SINGER DEUTSCH LLP

B~Si:'ESq.

Michael C. Deutsch, Esq.

Attorneys for Claimant

555 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10017
212.682.4224
190 1 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
310.461.1390
580 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
415.568.2222

66