ILNews

State will appeal IBM ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state is going to appeal Wednesday’s decision in Marion Superior Court that it pay IBM $52 million for ending early its billion-dollar contract with the company to update the state’s welfare system.

Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer ordered the state pay IBM $12 million in early termination closeout payments and for equipment it retained after canceling the contract in October 2009. The judge ruled in January that the state owed IBM $40 million in subcontractor assignment fees for terminating the contract.

IBM and the state filed lawsuits against the other over the cancellation of the 10-year contract the state entered into with IBM to update Indiana’s welfare system. The $1.3 billion contract was signed in December 2006, but the state terminated it in October 2009, dissatisfied with IBM’s results.

The state sought more than $437 million from IBM, but Dreyer ruled earlier this year the most the state could recover is $125 million in damages. IBM wanted the state to pay it $100 million for terminating the contract early.

“The largely undisputed evidence shows that the Governor, the Family and Social Services Administration and various State of Indiana officials set out to fix Indiana’s poorly-performing welfare system by inserting an untested theoretical experiment, and substitute personal caseworkers with computers and phone calls,” the order says. “This is now admitted to be an error, and there is nothing in this case, or the Court’s power, that can be done to correct it, or remedy the lost taxpayer money or personal suffering of needy Hoosiers. All that can be done in this case is to take the first step at setting the final numbers among so many millions already spent.”

In a statement released by the governor’s office, the state focused on the improvements to Indiana’s welfare system performed by another vendor, which Gov. Mitch Daniels described as being the state’s most timely, accurate, cost-effective and fraud-free system ever.

Adam Horst, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said even if the ruling stands, it will not impact the state surplus. The state sets aside money for lawsuits.

The state’s attorneys, John Maley and Peter Rusthoven of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, released a statement saying, “Fortunately, the court’s ruling, while mistaken on some issues, has now rejected the great majority of IBM’s claims for additional money. This was another step in the right direction; and we are confident Indiana’s appellate courts will now set aside most if not all of the IBM claims that still remain.”

Wednesday’s ruling awards IBM $52,081,416, plus prejudgment interest and costs. The company is not entitled to damages for deferred fees or mandatory changes. The state got nothing out of its complaint.

 

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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT