Software Project Failure Cases
DisputeSoft was engaged by Waste Management, Inc. in the matter of Waste Management, Inc. v. SAP. Waste Management alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract by SAP, a major vendor of enterprise resource planning (ERP) software. DisputeSoft analyzed documents and deposition testimony related to Waste Management’s claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract. Prior to depositions and trial, Waste Management and SAP settled the case for an undisclosed amount.
In the matter of BearingPoint, Inc. v. United States Department of the Interior, DisputeSoft was retained to provide consulting services and testimony on behalf of BearingPoint, Inc. At issue was whether BearingPoint’s contract was terminated by the government for convenience or for breach of contract. DisputeSoft’s Jeff Parmet prepared both an expert report and rebuttal report on behalf of BearingPoint, and the case was ultimately settled in BearingPoint’s favor in the amount of $5 approximately million.
DisputeSoft was engaged by Blue Line Media, Inc. to consult and testify in the matter of Blue Line Media, Inc. v. Redmon Group, Inc. Blue Line Media engaged Redmon Group to develop a law enforcement job posting website and brought suit in the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria, Virginia over Redmon’s failure to complete the project. This landmark case was the first application of the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA) and resulted in a $1.1 million verdict for Blue Line Media.
In the case MedCorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Technologies, Inc. and Zoll Data Systems, Inc., DisputeSoft was engaged by Zoll Data Systems, the owner of Pinpoint Technologies, to perform an independent analysis of its dispatch-billing software. MedCorp alleged that Zoll’s software suffered from performance issues as a result of defective database design. DisputeSoft determined that Zoll was not at fault for MedCorp’s system performance problems, with Jeff Parmet serving as a testifying expert for Zoll.
DisputeSoft was engaged by the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) in the matter of TCHC v. ISSI Systems, a software project failure case. TCHC alleged that ISSI Systems misrepresented the capabilities of its product during the proposal process, then delivered a software solution that was late and defective. DisputeSoft’s Todd Trivett testified on behalf of TCHC in the arbitration hearing.
DisputeSoft was engaged by plaintiff Mary Rutan Hospital in November 2014 in the matter of Mary Rutan Hospital v. NextGen HealthCare in the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus), Case No. 2:13-cv-1069. DisputeSoft’s experts analyzed software defect data, interviewed fact witnesses, and examined the software in the production environment. DisputeSoft Managing Partner Jeff Parmet proffered an expert report on behalf of Plaintiff. The case settled in mid-2015.
DisputeSoft was engaged as a testifying expert in February 2015 by BP West Coast Products in the matter of Hogan v. BP West Coast Products, LLC in the Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County. DisputeSoft analyzed Help Desk trouble tickets to determine whether the BP West Coast Products Point of Sale system was effectively usable or not.
DisputeSoft was engaged as a consulting and testifying expert in March 2013 by the California State Controller’s Office (SCO) in the matter of California State Controller’s Office v. SAP Public Services, Inc. Just prior to trial, the State Controller’s Office entered into a Settlement Agreement with SAP on June 6, 2016, under which SAP agreed to pay $59 million to the State and drop its $23 million breach of contract claim against the State. Neither party has admitted fault with respect to any claim.
DisputeSoft was engaged in September 2014 by the County of Orange, California in the matter of County of Orange v. Tata Consultancy Services LTD., et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case involved a failed effort by Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) to develop a new property tax management system for the County as part of a multiyear system modernization effort. The County alleged that TCS breached its software implementation contract and fraudulently misrepresented the extent to which work was completed in order to extend the term and cost of the project.