Xamance - Xambox: Automatic paper document management solution

The Preservation of Official Documents: Legal Obligations and Strategic Imperatives

For individuals and companies alike, the preservation of most documents is a legal obligation : accounts files, contracts, posted mail and e-mail make up the documents that companies must store to be able to duplicate if the need arises.

Beyond the juridical aspects, accumulated information is above all a fundamental standard for companies. This information demands strategic measures: to relocate it quickly and easily.

Today, the alternative developed by Xamance allows you to simultaneously: - preserve your documents perennially and securely
free yourself of costly, fastidious filing that runs the risk of misplacing your documents,
relocate all your paper documents in no time at all.

Using only the best technology, the Xambox makes up the most innovative alternative on the market. It consists of a revolutionary principle: "Chaotic Filing," or how not filing allows you to relocate everything.

One missing document can incur serious costs!

Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg, 2003

In a discrimination case, UBS Warburg destroyed an email and its backup copies. The judge informed the members of the jury that "they could deduce from the missing proof that the case would be unfavorable to USB." The jury charged the bank with $9 million in damages and a fine of $20 million. USB Warburg appealed the decision before agreeing to a settlement whose amount was not publicly disclosed.

United States v. Philip Morris USA, 2004

In the United States, the cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA was sentenced to pay a fine totaling $2.75 million for having erased two years of electronic archives of e-mails exchanged by eleven of the leading managers, and for "not having kept a paper trail as the company’s policy dictated."

Coleman Holdings v. Morgan Stanley, 2005

In a fraud case, the judge sanctioned Morgan Stanley bank with a fine amounting to $800 million due to its "repeated inability to present e-mails." The judgment claimed that "the deployed efforts to dissimulate e-mails" was "evidence" of the bank’s "culpability" in the affair.