You can help us put a stop to online scams before they grow too big and end up ruining thousands of lives. A scam is a scam, doesn’t matter if it’s big or small. Now that this is out of the way, let’s get started with the review.
A profound dig into the life and professional endeavors of Giridhar Akkineni reveals a convoluted and intriguing narrative. An entrepreneur with a shady past, Giridhar Akkineni’s attempts to whitewash his image have caught the attention of investigative eyes. His methods of rebranding have raised eyebrows, primarily due to the unethical practices involved in hiding the truth from the public.
We look at 34 different data points when analyzing and rating online money-earning opportunities. Once the research on these data points is submitted, expert contributors reach out to the company’s customers and associates to get more insight into their operation. Finally, all the collected information is presented in the form of this expert review.
All the data is extracted from publicly available information and the sources are given in the transparency section at the bottom of every report.
These reports are made possible by the collective efforts of contributors like you. If you would like to become a contributor then contact us here.
Fuchs v. Giridhar Akkineni (In re Akkineni)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND ORDER SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE
INTRODUCTION
In re Akkineni, Case No. 02-20214(ASD), 2 (Bankr. D. Conn. Dec. 12, 2013), Fuchs v. Giridhar Akkineni “On November 1, 2013, Charles D. O’Hara Jr., the attorney for Mary Fuchs, one of the two plaintiffs in this consolidated non-dischargeability proceedings, filed a Motion to Withdraw Appearance (hereafter, the “Motion”), ECF No. 129, requesting to resign as counsel. The Debtor-Defendant, Giridhar Akkineni (hereinafter, the “Debtor”), was represented at the hearing on the Motion to Withdraw on November 21, 2013 (hereinafter, the “Hearing on the Motion to Withdraw”). Attorneys O’Hara and Peter L. Ressler were present. The Motion shall be refused for the following reasons.
An order (i) requiring the Plaintiffs to show cause as to why these proceedings should not be dismissed, and (ii) requiring all parties through counsel to attend a status conference shall enter. This is because, as will be discussed further below, it appears that the “law of these proceedings” may prevent the Plaintiffs from obtaining relief. 105(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.
BACKGROUND
The Underlying Debt
This summary of the relevant debt’s facts is virtually verbatim derived from Bankruptcy Judge Robert L. Krechevsky’s Summary Judgment. It is assumed that the ruling detailed hereafter is familiar to you. The settlement agreement (hereafter the “Settlement”) between the Debtor and the claimants, which includes the Plaintiff who was hurt in an auafterd by the Debtor, was signed on May 30, 2000. This settlement agreement is the source of the debt at issue in these proceedings. In pertinent part, the Settlement states:”
In an accident on November 8, 1998, Giridhar Akkineni struck Mary Fuchs’ vehicle. [The plaintiff and other passengers in her car] sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision, and [one] died as a result. . .. Giridhar Akkineni acknowledges that he was the one behind the wheel of the cart more than Fuchs’ vehicle and that he drove it carelessly.
The Debtor was required to pay the Plaintiff a total of $125,000 as per the Settlement. With a balloon payment due at the conclusion of ten years, the debtor was required to pay 25% of his net salary, which was to be divided proportionately among the claimants.
“Giridhar Akkineni hereby stipulates and agrees that the claims of the following individuals [including the Plaintiff] who were injured in a car accident on November 8, 1998, at about 2:00 a.m. were the result of injuries sustained in this accident caused by him and which was the result of his wanton and willful speeding far in excess of the posted speed limit and that he knew or should have known that such excessive speed could cause death and injury to ot
“As an additional result of the crash, the Debtor entered a plea of guilty to four counts of third-degree assault and negligent homicide with a motor vehicle in state court. The latter is described as follows in Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-61(a):
(a) When a person intentionally causes significant physical harm to another person or to a third party, or when they negligently cause serious physical harm to another person, they have committed assault in the third degree or (b) He negligently employs a lethal weapon, a harmful instrument, or an electronic defense weapon to inflict physical harm on another person.
The Debtor was given a three-year suspended sentence and three years of probation, and his driving privileges were suspended.
The Bankruptcy Case and Adversary Proceedings
“On January 24, 2002, the Debtor filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code to start the bankruptcy proceeding mentioned above. Mary Fuchs (hereafter referred to as “Fuchs”) filed a complaint against the Debtor on March 26, 2002, to start Adversary Proceeding No. 02-2175, asking for a ruling that her claim is not dischargeable as a debt for willful and malicious injury following Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(6). On October 7, 2005, Fuchs filed a revised complaint, including the grounds for an exception to discharge under 523(a)(7) (debt for fine or penalty) and (2) equitable estoppel.
“On April 15, 2002, Irma Fernandez, in her capacity as the administrator of Katherine Audifire’s estate (hereinafter, “Fernandez”), filed a complaint against the debtor asking for a ruling that her claim is not dischargeable as a debt for willful and malicious injury under Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(6). On October 7, 2005, Fernandez filed an additional complaint (hereinafter, collectively with the amended complaint in Adversary Proceeding No. 02-2175, the “Complaints”) that added two new grounds for an exception to discharge: (1) 523(a)(7) (debt for fine or penalty), and (2) equitable estoppel.
According to Approval of Stipulation for Reference to Mediation, ECF No. 11, a mediation attempt that started on October 29, 2002 (hence the “First Mediation”) was declared failed on August 5, 2005. Consult the Mediator’s Certificate (ECF No.12).
The Status Conference for the Motion for Summary Judgment
Case No. 02-20214(ASD), Fuchs v. Giridhar Akkineni (In re Akkineni), 5 (“On April 3, 2006, Fuchs submitted a Motion for Summary Judgment, together with her memorandum of law and accompanying material. ECF No. 35. United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert L. Krechevsky issued a decision on May 22, 2006, rejecting the uncontested Motion for Summary Judgment. Summary Judgment Ruling (hereafter referred to as the “Summary Judgment Ruling”), ECF No. 37. Judge Krechevsky denied the Plaintiff’s request for summary judgment in a manner that appears fatal to the successful prosecution of two of the three claims in the Complaints, as noted by the undersigned judge in an Order Scheduling Status Conference, pp. 3-4, ECF No. 69.
The Bankruptcy Code’s Section 523(a)(7) does not apply to the debt at issue, which is fatal to the claim for relief under that section. Additionally, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is inapplicable, which is fatal to the petition for relief based on equitable estoppel. Id.
“About the third and final claim, the claim for relief under Bankruptcy Code 523(a)(6), the undersigned judge noted that the Summary Judgment Ruling served as the law of the proceedings and was “possibly fatal to [that claim]” in the Order Scheduling Status Conference. Conference on Order Scheduling Status, at 3–4 (emphasis added) The undersigned judge noted in more detail:
The plaintiff Fuchs (and it appears the plaintiff Fernandez as well) cannot succeed on their claims under Section 523(a)(6) unless additional facts are offered and admitted at trial consistent with the necessary intent of Kawaauhau v. Geiger. “the plaintiff’s [Fuchs] statement of facts and supporting documentation are not sufficient to establish that the debtor drove as he did on the night of the collision to cause injury to others. (Quoting Summary Judgment Ruling at 5 in Order Scheduling Status Conference at 4).
“Notwithstanding the Summary Judgment of May 22, 2006” The Debtor has not filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, a motion for summary judgment, a motion for dismissal, or take any other action to effect a dismissal of the proceedings or any of the claims therein, ruling fatal to two of the Plaintiff’s claims and possibly, actually, likely, fatal to the Plaintiffs’ third claim. In light of the foregoing, the Court granted a request for a status conference under Section 105(d) of the Bankruptcy Code and set a hearing for January 28 of 2010 (hereafter, the “Show Cause Hearing,” with counsel for the Plaintiffs being directed to:”).
(i) make a proffer as to what evidence, if any, will be offered at trial to satisfy the necessary level of intent regarding a claim under Section 523(a)(6) as outlined in Kawaauhau v. Fuch, and (ii) show cause as to why this Court should not dismiss their claims under Section 523(a)(7) and based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
“The Show Cause Hearing was postponed until February 11, 2010, at which point a motion to depose the debtor orally was granted, the Show Cause Hearing was closed, and a trial date of October 4 was set. The Court subsequently approved three motions made by the Plaintiffs to change Pretrial Orders in order to, among other things, “allow for the completion of discovery”, “move to amend Pre-Trial Order(s),” ECF Nos. 75, 78, and 83, and “so that the parties may mediate the matter”. ECF No.83. A trial date of March 12, 2012, was set in an Amended Pretrial Order that was entered, among other things, on September 8, 2011. ECF No. 86.”)
At the request of the parties, these consolidated adversary proceedings were again stopped as of September 16, 2011, see Approval of Stipulation for Reference to Mediation (hereafter, the “Second Mediation Order”), ECF No. 90, to allow for a Second Mediation. Counsel for Plaintiff Fuchs and counsel for the Debtor stated during the hearing on the motion to withdraw that a “continuation” of the Second Mediation would be futile.
Following that Hearing and in response to a question from the Court, the designated mediator orally reported that not only had there been no progress, but also that she had not even set a date for the parties to meet with her because they had been unable to agree on a time for an initial meeting. The Court shall terminate the stay of proceedings outlined in the Second Mediation Order because all attempts at mediation were manifestly unsuccessful from the onset and the Second Mediation has been “pending” for more than two years.
The Request for Withdrawal of Counsel
The reason for the withdrawal is not stated in the Motion specifically. The counsel for Fuchs, however, referred to the “evolution of the law of the case” at the Hearing on the Motion for Withdrawal, specifically citing Judge Krechevsky’s Summary Judgment Ruling and the undersigned judge’s recognition of the Summary Judgment Ruling as the law of the case in the Status Conference Order.
The Court notes that by D. Conn. L.Civ. R. 7(e), counsel attached a “Notice to Mary Fuchs” to the Motion as Exhibit A, advising her, among other things, to retain another attorney or file a pro se appearance, and that if she fails to do so, a “dismissal, nonsuit, or default judgment may be rendered against you.” Exhibit A, 5. At the Hearing, counsel admitted that it was “not probable” that fresh counsel would be appointed given the nature of the proceedings.
SUMMARY, ORDER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION
This case has dragged on long enough through discovery, pretrial hearings, and two lengthy but fruitless mediation attempts. These actions were collectively absorbed and postponed by the mediation sessions, which were ineffective and lasted more than five years. If Fuchs’ attorney is allowed to resign under the circumstances outlined in this document, Fuchs will almost certainly find it impossible to get new legal representation and will be left with a heavy responsibility.
While it is now very likely that the Plaintiffs will be unable to show cause as to why this Court should not dismiss their claims under Section 523(a)(7), under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, and/or to proffer “additional evidence” to satisfy the necessary level of intent regarding their claims under Section 523(a)(6) as outlined in Kawaauhau v. Geiger, neither Plaintiff has had that opportunity as provided for in the original Status Conference Order. The Court is not in a position to reach that determination based on the current record, even though, as already mentioned, a “failure to proffer additional evidence” will very certainly be the case.
“Moreover, fairness, equity, as well as considerations for the integrity and confidence in the judicial process, demand that the conclusion of these proceedings not be unfavorable to Plaintiff Fuchs as a result of her being prejudiced and left stranded by the departure of counsel with more than ten years invested in the case. Because of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw is DENIED, AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay of proceedings outlined in the Second Mediation Order is TERMINATED.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the status conference, following Section 105(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, and a hearing to address, the fair, expeditious, and economical resolution of the Complaint(s), as previously scheduled in the Order Scheduling Status Conference, is RESCHEDULED as modified herein and will be held on Thursday, January 9, 2014, at 11:30 a.m. at the United States Bankruptcy Court, 450 Main Street,
Further, it is ordered that the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Fuchs and Fernandez, be ready to present evidence during the hearing on January 9
Show cause as to why this Court should not dismiss their claims under Section 523(a)(7) and based on the equitable estoppel doctrine, and (ii) make a proposal as to what evidence, if any, will be offered at trial in addition to that presented in the Plaintiff Fuchs motion for summary judgment, related statement of facts, and supporting documentation, to satisfy the necessary level of intent about their claims under Section 523(a)(6) as per Kawaauhau.
and(iii) show cause as to why this Court should not dismiss their claims under Section 523(a)(6) in the absence of a proffer of “additional evidence” beyond that offered in the Summary Judgment Motion as set for in subparagraph (ii), above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Memorandum of Decision and Order on and that failure to show cause and/or proffer additional evidence as required in the immediately preceding decretal paragraph may result in the dismissal of any or all claims in these proceedings or other action as determined appropriate by the Court.
“Furthermore, it is ordered that this Memorandum of Decision and Order in Adversary Proceeding Nos. 02-2175 and 02-2192 be entered by the Clerk. BY THE COURT Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge Albert S. Dabrowski”)
Fake PR of Giridhar Akkineni
One of Giridhar Akkineni’s PR articles is given below-
Giridhar Akkineni‘s Entrepreneurial Journey
A. Early Ventures and the Drive for Problem-solving
Giridhar Akkineni‘s entrepreneurial journey kicked off during his college days, with his first venture. His innate drive for problem-solving was the catalyst that set his entrepreneurial spirit aflame. In the face of challenges and obstacles, he strived to conceive innovative solutions, often venturing into realms others deemed impossible.
B. Founding of interWorldnet and AkkenCloud
The trailblazing entrepreneur’s journey from owning businesses in diverse sectors to establishing his own IT staffing firm, interWorldnet, is a testament to his tenacity. However, it was a pivotal moment in 2002 that inspired him to create AkkenCloud, an all-in-one enterprise SaaS system specifically tailored for staffing and recruiting.
The Birth of AkkenCloud
The inception of AkkenCloud was a direct consequence of an urgent need. Giridhar Akkineni’s IT staffing company took a financial hit during the dot-com era when several of their clients went out of business. This unfortunate incident sparked the realization that an all-in-one system connecting sales and accounting could have prevented these losses. When his search for such a platform yielded no results, he saw it as an opportunity, thus, AkkenCloud was born.
Uniqueness of AkkenCloud
A. All-in-One Enterprise SaaS System
AkkenCloud, the industry’s first and only all-in-one platform for staffing and recruiting, stands out from other staffing and recruiting platforms for its integrated approach. It seamlessly combines all business functions, from front office, back office, to intra-office. The platform is also mobile-ready, providing a significant advantage to users who are always on the go.
B. Boosting Efficiency and Profitability
The standout feature of AkkenCloud is its integrated approach. It provides a solution where sales, recruiting, operations, and management teams can all collaborate on one platform. This streamlines the workflow, drastically improving efficiency and profitability within the staffing and recruiting industry.
AkkenCloud Mobile App: A Game-changer
AkkenCloud’s latest mobile app is designed with the needs of busy salespeople and recruiters in mind. It offers full access to all records, including contacts, companies, candidates, job orders, opportunities, submissions, and shortlists. Users can search, update, and add any record or activity on the go. The mobile app’s event creation, task tracking, note-taking features, and the ability to view shortlisted jobs and candidates make it a game-changer.
Reception of AkkenCloud in Industry
The staffing and recruiting industry has lauded AkkenCloud for its efficiency and cost-saving benefits. The platform’s mobility and accessibility features have also been praised. The industry has acknowledged the difference AkkenCloud is making by combining all functions into one system.
The CaseText Lawsuit: A Shrouded Past
Giridhar Akkineni‘s entrepreneurial ventures, however, have not been without controversy. The CaseText lawsuit, a significant event in his past, has raised questions about his business ethics. This lawsuit, coupled with Akkineni’s attempts to hide it from the public eye, has cast a shadow over his professional image.
The Fake PR Tactics: A Questionable Approach
Giridhar Akkineni‘s attempts at rebranding have employed questionable methods. He has utilized websites like Crunchbase, AccessWire, and About. Me to create a positive image. Interestingly, he has also started appearing in interviews published by relatively unknown websites. This pattern indicates a significant attempt to bury the truth about the CaseText lawsuit instead of addressing and apologizing for the issues raised.
What is fake PR?
The term “fake PR” refers to the unethical practice of intentionally spreading false or misleading information to manipulate public perception or gain a competitive advantage. This can encompass a wide range of deceptive tactics, such as creating entirely fabricated stories or testimonials or disseminating misinformation through various media channels. The consequences of fake PR can be severe, damaging a person or organization’s reputation and eroding trust with the public. In extreme cases, it can even lead to legal consequences, such as charges of fraud or defamation. To maintain transparency and credibility in public relations, it is essential to adhere to ethical standards and avoid engaging in deceptive practices. By building and preserving a positive reputation, individuals and organizations can foster trust and confidence with the public.
The Unethical Facade of Rebranding
While rebranding is not a crime, hiding the truth is certainly unethical. The lack of transparency and the use of fake PR tactics have tainted Giridhar Akkineni‘s attempts at image rehabilitation. These tactics have effectively manipulated public perception, creating a facade that conceals the truth about the CaseText lawsuit.
Conclusion
As a final note, it’s essential to remember that rebranding should not involve the concealment of the truth. Giridhar Akkineni‘s journey serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of transparency and ethical behavior in business. The insightful narrative of Giridhar Akkineni‘s entrepreneurial ventures, the CaseText lawsuit, and the subsequent use of fake PR tactics underscore the need for due diligence and ethical standards in the entrepreneurial world.
