Posts Tagged ‘lawsuit’

JDA Software settles lawsuit with Dillard’s

December 2nd, 2011

JDA Software Group Inc said it agreed to settle a lawsuit related to its i2 Technologies unit with Dillard’s Inc for $57 million in cash.

The lawsuit, initiated by Dillard’s in 2000, alleged that i2 failed to meet certain terms and conditions under a software license and services agreement it had inked with the department store chain.

In June last year, the litigation was adjudicated in Dillard’s favor by a U.S. court and JDA was ordered to pay $246 million in damages.

i2 subsequently appealed the judgment and the matter had been pending in the Court of Appeals. JDA had posted a bond in 2010, backed by $25 million, which is now to be released back to the company. That, as well as about $3 million in expected insurance proceeds and cash on hand will be used to pay the settlement, the company said in a statement.

JDA, which makes supply chain management software, expects to take a related pre-tax charge of $35 million in the fourth quarter.

The Scottsdale, Arizona-based company’s shares fell 2 percent to $31.03 in after-hours trading. They had closed at $31.52 on Wednesday on Nasdaq.

Source:http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/30/jdasoftware-idUSL4E7MU2VI20111130

Lawson Software, Customer Embroiled in ERP Project Lawsuit

September 8th, 2011

Lawson Software is embroiled in the latest instance of an allegedly failed ERP (enterprise resource planning) software project to become public.CareSource Management Group, a Dayton, Ohio, health care plan administrator, signed a contract with Lawson in August 2010 for an ERP system, but after 10 months it has not moved beyond the testing phase and the project has experienced numerous problems, according to a lawsuit CareSource filed in July in US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Lawson also led CareSource to believe that it was getting a fully-integrated product suite “seamless to the end-user,” but the organization later discovered that the system was composed of two modules, one of which was Lawson Talent Management, a new product, according to the suit. CareSource was to be one of the first companies to implement the LTM application, it adds.
As the project proceeded, a series of problems cropped up with data transfers between the LTM module and a financials component, S3, according to the suit. The problems were so severe that at one point, CareSource had 20 open cases with Lawson technical support, it adds.
In June, Lawson revealed to CareSource that some 37 customers “were experiencing the same or similar” problems with the integration, the suit states.
Lawson also failed to provide CareSource with a workable time-and-attendance application after proposing two products that proved unsuitable, it adds.
In addition, Lawson assigned inexperienced staff to the job, which ended up serving as a “trial and error,” on-the-job training program for the LTM module, according to the suit.
During a June conference call, Lawson used Infor’s purchase of Lawson this year as an excuse for the problems, saying it was “distracted” by the merger.
CareSource is demanding at least US$1.5 million in damages, a sum representing the cost of licensing the software, purchasing hardware, consulting fees and other costs.
In a counterclaim filed Sept. 2, Lawson denied CareSource’s breach of contract claim and other alleged wrongdoing, while stating that “certain issues arose” with regard to the LTM-S3 integration. However, those matters were resolved, according to the filing.
Also, while the software remained in testing mode and did not go live, the project was “halted” by CareSource before it filed suit, Lawson added.
Lawson also denied citing the merger as an excuse for problems with the project, and that it told CareSource 37 other customers had problems with the LTM-S3 integration.
The vendor is seeking $335,000 it says it is still owed by CareSource.
Overall, the legal flap appears to be a case of “mismatched expectations” between the software vendor and its customer, a dynamic that has marked other disputed projects of late, said Michael Krigsman, CEO of Asuret, a consulting firm that helps companies run successful IT projects. “”We have to ask the question of why the expectations are so far apart. Where was the adult supervision early in the project?”
“No vendor wants to be in this situation any more than the customer does, and therefore the likelihood of pure misrepresentation seems lower than the possibility of substantial misunderstandings between the parties,” he added.
Customers should also be sure to determine whether they are considered early adopters of a software product, according to analyst Ray Wang, CEO of Constellation Research.
“This case demonstrates why it’s important for vendors to set expectations up-front with clients as to what it means to be an early customer, and why it’s important for customers to be clear about their requirements,” he said.
“The challenge is that the customer’s expectations and requirements may continue to change in the middle of implementation and sometimes those requirements may not be met,” Wang added. “The bottom line is if you go in early on a new product, get signed assurances that the use cases and business processes you seek to support will be delivered.”
A spokesman for Lawson declined comment beyond the company’s court filing.
Lawson is far from the only ERP vendor to end up in court with customers over problems with a project, with Oracle and , Epicor both facing recent actions.
ERP projects in general are complex affairs fraught with the potential for cost overruns and missed goals, given the crucial roles vendors, systems integrators and customers must each play for them to be successful.
Chris Kanaracus covers enterprise software and general technology breaking news for The IDG News Service. Chris’s e-mail address is Chris_Kanaracus@idg.com

Source:http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/239641/lawson_software_customer_embroiled_in_erp_project_lawsuit.html

Lawsuit claims NYC stole 9/11 DNA software secrets

October 31st, 2010

A software company that helped identify the remains of 9/11 victims is accusing the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office of improperly handing its programing secrets over to the FBI.

The New York Times reported Saturday that a federal judge in Manhattan has been asked to decide if the lawsuit can go forward.

The claim was filed in March by Gene Codes, based in Ann Arbor, Mich.

The company’s software helped the city analyze and organize the DNA of attack victims.

But Gene Codes claims New York refused to pay to maintain the software, then gave the FBI proprietary information once the system crashed.

New York City has filed a $10 million countersuit claiming the company didn’t meet its contractual obligations.

Source:-http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9J67V6G0.htm

Izard nobel LLP announces class action lawsuit against FalconStor software, inc.

October 5th, 2010

The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of FalconStor Software, Inc. (“FalconStor” or the “Company”) between February 5, 2009 and September 29, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

The Complaint charges FalconStor and certain of its officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing weak demand for its products and services; (ii) that FalconStor was making improper payments to secure a contract with at least one of the Company’s customers; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about FalconStor and its prospects.

Then, on September 29, 2010, FalconStor announced that ReiJane Huai “resigned from all of his positions with the Company, effective immediately.” The press release stated that Mr. Huai “tendered his resignation following his disclosure that certain improper payments were allegedly made in connection with the Company’s contract with one customer.” On this news, shares of the Company’s stock fell $0.91 per share, or 22%, to close at $3.15 per share.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than November 30, 2010, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.

Source:http://www.marketwatch.com/story/izard-nobel-llp-announces-class-action-lawsuit-against-falconstor-software-inc-2010-10-04?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Lawsuit Pits Oracle, Google Against Each Other

August 15th, 2010

The lawsuit has pitted the two Silicon Valley giants against each other, especially after the two strive to explore new market opportunities.

A Google spokesperson dismissed the suit as baseless. However, he declined to comment on the ongoing debate involving Sun or Oracle, reports Economic Times. Oracle purchased Java after taking over Sun Microsystems in January early this year, getting access to ever growing the mobile phone industry, which is presently dominated by Android mobile software. On the other hand, Google headed by former Sun chief techno officer Eric Schmidt, is slowly gaining place in enterprise computing market, which is dominated by Oracle.

Economic Times further has got some opinions from some industry watchers. “There is a battle emerging,” said ITIC analyst Laura DiDio. “If this were a hockey game, the lawsuit would be the face off to determine who will control the puck.” “Google is entering the enterprise market in a very subtle way,” said Global Equities Research analyst Trip Chowdhry. “You cannot underestimate Google, though, because they are a new generation company and their cost structure is a lot more efficient than Oracle’s.”

Source:http://www.usanewsweek.com/news/Lawsuit-Pits-Oracle–Google-Against-Each-Other-1281897856/

SAP accepts liability in Oracle theft lawsuit

August 5th, 2010

SAP ( said in a statement that in pre-trial court filings, it has proposed that it will “accept financial responsibility for any judgment awarded against TomorrowNow,” the U.S.-based SAP subsidiary at the center of the alleged corporate theft.

However, SAP added that it “will continue to present arguments and evidence demonstrating that Oracle’s damages claims in this matter are vastly overstated.”

An Oracle spokeswoman declined to comment.

Oracle (ORCL 24.29, -0.20, -0.82%) filed suit against SAP and TomorrowNow in early 2007, alleging massive theft by TomorrowNow employees of Oracle’s customer-support documentation.

Both Oracle and SAP rely heavily on software maintenance and support contracts with customers that pay a significant percentage of license fees on an annual basis.

Oracle alleged that SAP, through TomorrowNow, sought to use the stolen documentation to undercut Oracle’s support business with a cheaper alternative. Oracle suggested that it might seek at least $1 billion in damages as a result.3

Source:-http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sap-accepts-liability-in-oracle-theft-lawsuit-2010-08-05-181200

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes