ILNews

Ruling for IBM likely first act in legal epic

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A ruling that ordered the state to pay more than $52 million to IBM due to cancellation of its contract to privatize social service claims processing certainly will have a second, and most likely a third, act.

The first act closed with unusually superlative language in a judge’s order and a harsh critique of the ruling from a key attorney representing the state.

Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer released his final order July 18, and Gov. Mitch Daniels quickly vowed the state would appeal. Dreyer awarded IBM $12 million for early termination closeout payments and equipment, an amount that was added to the judge’s earlier order awarding the company $40 million in subcontractor assignment fees. The state was granted nothing on its claim that IBM was in breach of contract.
 

page Page

The case is “almost certainly” bound for appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court regardless of how the Indiana Court of Appeals rules when an appeal is filed, said contract law expert Antony Page, vice dean and professor of law at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

“I would be surprised if either party would let the appellate court decision stand,” Page said.

“Normally with contract disputes the parties are able to reach an approximate valuation among themselves and are able to settle,” he said. But in State of Indiana v. IBM, 49D10-1005-PL-021451, “both parties are relatively entrenched.”

Dreyer-DAvid-mug Dreyer

IBM argued it was entitled to $100 million in early-termination fees; the state claimed IBM was in breach and owed $125 million. The state originally wanted more than $437 million, but Dreyer previously ruled $125 million was the max the state could recover in damages.

Dreyer wrote in his order, “Neither party deserves to win this case. This story represents a ‘perfect storm’ of misguided government policy and overzealous corporate ambition. Overall, both parties are to blame and Indiana’s taxpayers are left as apparent losers.”


rusthoven Rusthoven

Barnes & Thornburg LLP attorney Peter Rusthoven, who represents the state, seized on the tone of Dreyer’s order. “The ruling contains regrettable, unnecessary political commentary that is neither accurate nor relevant,” Rusthoven said in a statement when the order was issued.

Later, Rusthoven said, “It is beyond unusual for commentary like that to be in an opinion. This is a contract case. It has nothing to do with whether the state made a good decision.”

In a media availability in his courtroom after issuing his order, Dreyer declined to explain why he used the ‘perfect storm’ language. He later said in an email that he had no comment on Rusthoven’s criticism, and that no political commentary had been intended in the order.

Rusthoven, whose firm has collected more than $9 million in fees litigating the IBM case, said Dreyer didn’t seriously consider state claims that IBM was in breach of contract for repeated failure to meet performance indicators. “There was a staggering amount of evidence that was not even discussed.”

IBM representatives did not respond to requests for interviews and stood by a statement issued the day of Dreyer’s order.

“This case was all about whether the state would fulfill its clear and explicit contractual promises,” said Robert Weber, IBM senior vice president and general counsel. “The Court’s decision is an important one for all companies who do business with the state because it makes clear that the state is not above the law.”

IBM said the order “confirms the essential role IBM played in reducing fraud and laying the framework for the welfare eligibility system that is currently serving Indiana’s neediest citizens.”

The order awarded IBM $42.5 million in contract termination payments; about $9.5 million in compensation for equipment; and interest that IBM estimates at about $10 million, plus costs, for the period of time that the state withheld payment to IBM.

The state and IBM agreed that Family and Social Services Administration claims processing and accuracy had improved, but Daniels, in a statement, said IBM had little to do with that.

“The state’s case backlog has dropped 81 percent since the IBM contract was terminated,” according to Daniels’ statement.

“Here’s what matters: Indiana, which eight years ago had the nation’s worst welfare system, now has its most timely, most accurate, most cost effective and fraud-free system ever,” the statement said. “That was always the goal, and changing vendors was essential to achieving it.”

Page called Dreyer’s ruling a “pretty impressive piece of work” and read the order as critique of the performance of duties taxpayers entrust to the government.

“It is unusual in a case like this to see language like that,” Page said of the “perfect storm” reference. “I think this just reflects the judge’s frustration with both parties. … He wants to make it clear on the record that both parties are at fault here.

“For the typical taxpayer in Indiana, it’s useful to know this is what the impartial judge thinks of both parties,” he said.

The state failed to demonstrate that IBM was in breach, Page explained, which is the burden of proof in contractual cases. He added that Dreyer in his order clearly defined what material breach is.

“The real problem lies in the initial contract that they signed,” Page said of the state.

Rusthoven, meanwhile, said “We are quite confident of our chances of success on appeal … much, much higher than the average case.” He said the basis of appeal will include assertions that Dreyer misread the contract.

But Page predicted the ruling will be upheld in the Court of Appeals.

“It seems pretty well-reasoned,” he said. “It’s hard to see this being overturned on appeal.” With the standard for reversal on appeal being that a judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous, Page said, “he seems to have plenty of support in the record for his conclusions of fact.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT