Seasoned Litigators in Failed ERP Implementations
Kasowitz has established the country’s foremost practice devoted to representing companies and public entities in the recovery of damages arising out of failed and problematic implementations of enterprise resource planning (ERP) business software. Few corporate initiatives are as fraught with risk as these high-priced projects, which often deliver a new software platform that is scarcely better than the legacy system it replaced. Even worse are ERP catastrophes – mission-critical projects that fail upon go-live, decimating customer relationships, financial results, growth and acquisition plans, investors’ and lenders’ confidence and employee morale. Many companies that have faced the business disruption and chaos stemming from an oversold and improperly designed and implemented ERP rollout have turned to our attorneys to obtain compensation from the responsible consulting or software firms.
For over 15 years, Kasowitz’s team, led by partner Mark P. Ressler, a former federal prosecutor and seasoned trial lawyer, has obtained substantial recoveries for clients whose ERP projects have been plagued by delayed or disastrous go-lives, skyrocketing costs, deficient project management, missing functionality, excessive customization and an endless series of false assurances by the integrator or developer. Harnessing our aggressive litigation skills to our deep understanding of the technical problems that lead to failed projects (including in the areas of design, configuration, coding, testing and project management), we successfully pursue actions against leading ERP providers and more specialized software vendors.
Our role in ERP disputes typically begins when clients contact us either (1) in mid-project, as deliverable deadlines are missed, budgets are blown and integrators or developers demand costly change orders to fix their own mistakes, or (2) after go-live, as coding and interface defects disrupt ordering, shipping, accounting, procurement, inventory, payroll or other core business processes.
We also frequently counsel our clients across an array of industries, including public entities, in connection with negotiating and drafting software licensing and implementation contracts.
The State of Hawaii in an action alleging fraud, False Claims Act violations and other claims against Ciber stemming from an implementation of Oracle software for the State’s Department of Transportation.
Copart, a global provider of online vehicle auctions, in a four-week jury trial resulting in a $20 million verdict against Sparta Consulting and its parent, KPIT Infosystems, for fraud and professional negligence stemming from an implementation of SAP software. The verdict was the first instance in which a jury has found a consulting firm liable for professional negligence for botching a software implementation.
National Grid in an action against a software vendor stemming from a $1 billion implementation of SAP software.
Levi Strauss & Co. in an action against Deloitte Consulting stemming from an implementation of SAP’s apparel and footwear software.
ScanSource, a provider of technology products and solutions, in an action against Avanade stemming from an implementation of Microsoft Dynamics AX software.
W.C. Bradley, a provider of home and leisure lifestyle consumer goods, in an action alleging fraud and breach of contract stemming from an implementation of SAP software.
Avantor Performance Materials, a provider of chemical products for the life sciences and advanced technology markets, in an action against IBM stemming from an implementation of SAP software and an IBM software product.
County of Marin, California in an action against Deloitte Consulting stemming from an implementation of SAP’s public sector software.
Waste Management, the leading waste and environmental sciences company, in an action alleging fraud and other claims against SAP stemming from an implementation of SAP’s waste and recycling software.
Bart A. Brown, Jr., the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee of FoxMeyer, a drug distribution company, in actions against SAP, Accenture and logistics software vendors stemming from implementations of SAP and warehouse management software.
First Pacific Advisors, a leading investment manager, in an action against Citisoft stemming from an implementation of Charles River Development software.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in an action alleging fraud and other claims against a leading software developer stemming from a failed CRM software implementation.
A leading toy company in a dispute with a major consulting firm stemming from a defective e-commerce platform that led to “Cyber Monday” shipping and billing issues.
A public university system in a dispute with a leading software developer stemming from an implementation of ERP software.
A leading health care provider in a dispute with a software developer stemming from an implementation of insurance claims processing software.
A leading distribution company in a dispute with a leading consulting firm stemming from an implementation of ERP software.
A leading logistics company in a dispute with a software provider stemming from an implementation of ERP software.
One of the country’s largest religious charities in a dispute with a software provider stemming from an implementation of ERP software for fundraising entities.
An oil refining company in a dispute with a leading consulting firm stemming from an implementation of ERP software.
Various clients in disputes with NetSuite stemming from failed or problematic NetSuite implementations.
Hedge funds, mutual funds and private equity firms in disputes with financial-services software providers.