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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT