State of Indiana v. International Business Machines Corporation - 11/25/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Monday  November 25, 2013 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 49A02-1211-PL-875. Indiana Supreme Court courtroom. In December 2006, the State of Indiana, on behalf of its agency the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, entered into a ten-year, $1.3 billion contract with International Business Machines Corporation.  The contract sought to modernize and improve the State’s failing welfare system in part by reducing the need for face-to-face meetings with caseworkers.  However, less than three years into the ten-year contract, the State terminated the contract citing IBM performance issues and transitioned to a hybrid system.  The parties then sued each other for breach of contract in Marion Superior Court.

The trial court granted IBM summary judgment for $40,000,000 in Assignment Fees.  And after a six-week bench trial in 2012 involving 96 witnesses and 7500 exhibits, the court found that the State did not terminate the contract for cause and awarded IBM an additional $9,510,795 for equipment costs, $2,570,621 in other contract claims, and $10,632,333 in prejudgment interest, bringing the total to $62,713,749.  The State now appeals raising four issues, including whether the trial court erred in concluding that it did not terminate the contract for cause, whether the Assignment Fees are an unenforceable penalty, whether it is liable to IBM for the equipment that it kept after termination of the contract, and whether IBM is entitled to prejudgment interest against the State, a sovereign entity.  IBM cross-appeals arguing that it is entitled to an additional $43,416,738 in Deferred Fees and $931,928 in Change Order fees. 

Back to Events
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT