WSRcg - Litigation Credentials, Cases and Testimony

On this webpage we present:

WSRcg Litigation

Breadth of Litigation Experience

In the IT litigation specialty areas, including (1) computer, software and system failure of IT assets in production, (2) computer, software, ERP, and Internet software project failure, (3) software IP infringement and misappropriation, and (4), High-Technology asset valuations, we provide independent, expert consulting guidance and credible expert reports and testimony in litigation matters involving, among others:

  • Breach of contract,
  • Breach of express and implied warranties,
  • Negligence and gross negligence,
  • Breach of fiduciary duty
  • Negligent misrepresentation,
  • Fraud, gross mismanagement
  • Breach of good faith and fair dealing,
  • Compliance with industry standards and government regulations,
  • Lanham Act matters,
  • RICO issues,
  • IP theft,
  • Class Action lawsuits.

Back to Top

 

Venues

WSRcg’s litigation teams have been engaged as IT expert witnesses in approximately 100 litigation cases in many venues including:

  • U.S. Superior Court,
  • U.S. Federal Court,
  • The U.S. Court of Federal Claims,
  • Arbitrations,
  • Mediation,
  • Special hearings in North America, Europe and Asia.

Back to Top

 

Litigation Clients

Our litigation clients have included counsel representing the following, among others:

  • Heads of State (including President of the U.S.A.; Her Royal Majesty the Queen of England, in Right of Canada),
  • Fortune 500 companies,
  • Malaysian Stock Exchange,
  • Large e-commerce businesses
  • Government entities,
  • Manufacturing, distribution and warehousing,
  • Gaming (lotteries, casinos and ticketing systems),
  • Software & high-technology businesses,
  • World wide restaurant chains,
  • Big box retailer,
  • Big 4 consulting firms,
  • ERP customers,
  • ERP vendors,
  • ERP system integrators,
  • Healthcare institutions,
  • Military (embedded systems, robotics, and smart buildings),
  • Stock exchanges and financial services institutions.

Back to Top

 

Selected Testimony Given by WSRcg Expert Witnesses

We have produced expert reports and given our expert evaluations, assessments, and opinion testimony in the following areas:

  • Internet, software & ERP systems failures including SAP, Oracle, Peoplesoft, J.D. Edwards, Cerner, Retek ERP Systems,
  • Software contract interpretation including contracts/licenses for software/equipment: maintenance, development, install, staff augmentation, consulting, hosting, systems integration, performance/SLAs, outsourcing,
  • Explanation & proper use of software development methodology (SDLC) and project management (PM) best practices, and when and how to deviate from them,
  • Appropriateness of a selected particular SDLC for a given project,
  • Creation of proper project plans, including:
    • work breakdown structures (WBS),
    • prioritized tasks and dependencies,
    • project staffing and skills required,
  • Quality and reliability of:
    • project estimates, estimates to complete
    • time reporting processes, status reports,
    • project management concepts/tools use,
  • Suitability of system architecture & database schema to meet performance goals,
  • Ability to support customers and update large systems & ERP systems remotely,
  • Quality of the maintenance group and its ability to support new products,
  • Ability of quality control staff & processes to id deficiencies early and improve overall product, project, decision making quality,
  • Quality, integrity , completeness of functional & performance requirements, & RFP, vendor selection, contract processes,
  • Scope creep issues, forces & impact
  • Selected approach & execution of the following processes:
    • software requirements definition,
    • software architecture, systems design,
    • programming standards used,
    • testing, documentation,
    • go-live readiness and results
    • handoff to maintenance,
    • appropriate use of automated tools.
  • Software testing/acceptance including development/execution of test: strategy; cases; error id/correction/management; progress reporting; issues resolution.
  • Project deliverables vs. industry standards, contracts, project success requirements,
  • Execution of party/staff roles & responsibilities vs. contracts, best industry standards/practice, correct SDLC,
  • Evaluation of project risk planning, management, reporting, mitigation,
  • Who/what caused system/project to fail; root causes of delays, cost overruns, poor quality, unsuitable software,
  • Quality and usefulness of contingency plans,
  • Software IP: trade secret misappropriation,
  • Software IP: copyright & patent infringement, idea theft,
  • Software company & asset valuations.

Back to Top

 

WSRcg Industry Expertise

WSRcg expert witnesses and staff have deep experience and expertise in the following industries, among others:

Industry Areas of High Experience & Expertise Expertise
Level

 

Distribution

Wholesale & distribution: warehousing; transportation Expert
Retail: Big box stores; regional department stores & grocery chains Expert
Restaurant & fast food service including sophisticated POS systems Expert
e-Business: new economy; internet; web 2.0; e-commerce
Expert
Gaming: casinos; hotels & hospitality High
Lotteries Expert
Ticketing: legitimate & movie theaters; sporting events; on-line ticketing Expert

Financial Services

Insurance; banks/e-banks; real estate investment; mortgage lending High
Stock exchanges Expert

Industrial

Manufacturing
Expert
Energy & petroleum High
Automotive; Aerospace High/Expert

Public

Hospital/health care systems/HIPAA/3rd party administrators
Expert
Government: federal, state, local High/Expert
Law enforcement Expert
Higher-education Expert
Military: embedded systems; robotics & smart buildings Expert
Utilities High

Other

Software and high-technology
Expert
Professional service firms High/Expert
Advertising Expert
Not-for-profit organizations High/Expert

Back to Top

 

WSRcg Senior Manager/Expert Witness Employment Levels & IT Experience

Our senior managers, IT expert witnesses & CIO expert witnesses have had served in one or more of the following roles among others over the past 20-45 yrs:

Role
Titles Achieved

 

Executive

Big 6 consulting managers or partners
Vice-President of corporate information technology
CXOs of their own IT consulting practices
Member on Boards of Directors of high-tech companies
Executive Committee Member of the Board of the CalTech/MIT Enterprise Forum

Management

Chief Information Officers (CIOs)
IT department heads
ERP project directors/managers
Software project partner, project manager, project director
Software project staffing & estimating consultants
Quality management consultants & auditors
Project Management Office (PMO) staff
IT Steering Committee member

Leaders

Creators of industry standard system development life cycle methodologies (SDLC)

Business

Long range systems and software planners
Software project test directors/managers
Business information systems, business intelligence systems consultants (bi)

Consulting

Data center consolidators; data center recovery consultants
Business/systems alignment planners, business/it restructuring consultants

Technical

High tech litigation counsel
Software analysts and designers
Database designers
Software engineers and system performance improvement engineers

Legal

Software developers and software configurators

Back to Top

 

WSRcg Certifications & Degrees

Our senior managers, IT expert witnesses & CIO expert witnesses have earned the following professional designations, among others:

  • Certified Software Quality Analyst (CSQA)
  • Certified Software Test Engineer (CSTE)
  • Certified Management Consultant (CMC)
  • Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE)
  • Professional Project Manager (PMP)
  • IT Infrastructure Library Foundation Certification (ITIL)
  • Member of the Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario Bar)
  • CPA (California License)
  • Several of our Senior Managers and Expert Witnesses have advanced degrees including: MS, MBA, LLB, LLM and/or PhD degrees

Back to Top

 

WSRcg Platform & Application Domain Expertise

Our senior managers, IT expert witnesses & CIO expert witnesses have had extensive experience in the following hardware and application domains:

  • Enterprise Resource Planning/ERP Systems – SAP, Oracle, PeopleSoft, Lawson, JDEdwards, Seibel Systems, Cerner, Retek, Microsoft, IBM, among others
  • New economy, internet, web-based & e-commerce(B2C, B2B, ISPs, SaaS, SEO, social nets, websites, e-commerce)
  • Legacy mainframe systems; Three-tiered host-client-server architectures
  • Distributed systems/databases; Relational databases (RDMS); Data warehousing; Data archiving
  • Networked PCs (including mobile, wide-area, local-area, broadband, and satellite networks)
  • Robot-controlled manufacturing, warehouse, and distribution facilities; army bases; automated guided vehicles; robotic conveyor systems
  • Specialized hi-tech hardware, software, operating systems, platforms/configurations, CASE & Project Management tools
  • Customer relationship management (CRM) & Supply chain management (SCM) systems
  • Full-functionality POS systems; COWs (Computers on Wheels)
  • Ticketing Systems : lottery; legitimate theatre subscriptions; movie theatre; internet ticketing systems for sports teams and events including secondary market
  • Healthcare and hospital management systems including Electronic Medical Records management systems (ERM)

Back to Top

 

Sampling of Litigation Cases

Format: Case Reference – Case Type
Engaging counsel’s client (Plaintiff or Defendant) – Party’s role in matter

Dispute Between Two Large Concert & Theater Ticketing Services Companies;
Software development and implementation breach of contract
PLAINTIFF – INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPER & MANAGED SERVICES PROVIDER

Dispute: Did the delivered system, services, training, documentation, and implementation meet the requirements of the contract. Did the defendant terminate the contract for cause or convenience?

Our Role: Warren S. Reid testified as an expert witness in London, at the International Arbitration Center in this complex software contract dispute.

Testimony included :

  1. What makes software “world class”?
  2. What are “industry best practices” re Software Development Life Cycles (SDLC)?
  3. What makes training and systems documentation “best in class”?
  4. What were the underlying root causes of alleged system and software functional and performance deficiencies?;What and who caused them in the instant case?
  5. IT industry practices a trier-of-fact needs to be informed about, including:
    • customer responsibility for knowing its requirements and customers
    • vendor responsibility to accurately represent its software and capabilities
    • challenges, techniques, lessons learned re: estimating; tracking progress; applying the “Mythical Man Month”
    • managing “scope creep” in tight timeframe and unmovable delivery date projects
    • system and software speed, performance and non-functional capabilities (e.g., maintainability; flexibility; software architecture; hardware architecture; network architecture; usability; auditability; testability; interoperability; scalability; upgradability; fault tolerance; etc.)
    • properly determining,categorizing and addressing the root causes of alleged bugs
      • the effectiveness of various defect prevention techniques
      • presenting scientific models to estimate the number of latent defects, by severity level, that will likely be delivered into production as a key metric for measuring and understanding software development excellence, mediocrity, or failure

Result: Awaiting Arbitrator’s final judgment.

US Department of Justice v. Large Government Contractor; Violation of Federal Laws
PLAINTIFF – CUSTOMER

Dispute: Did the Systems Integrator on several huge Department of Defense contracts meet its promises? Did the Systems Integrator violate the “Anti-Kickback” and “False Claims” Acts?Did the Systems Integrator’s services, recommendations, training, documentation, and implementation meet the requirements of the contract. Did the defendant terminate the contract for cause or convenience?

Our Role: Testimony included:WSR Consulting Group, LLC produced an expert report which documented experts’ Warren S. Reid’s and Lubomyr Chabursky’s opinions on:

  1. the roles played by systems integrators in large-scale software development and implementation projects
  2. the roles the defendant integrator contractor played in five large US Government Agency contracts/projects
  3. the project events, decision points and resulting contractoractions/ advice influencing specific vendor component recommendations with which the integrator maintained alliance agreements
  4. the extent the integratorwas influenced (consciously or unconsciously) to purchase more, different, and/or unproven state-of-the-art components/resources; shorten the delivery schedule for such hardware/software/netware components; recommend/alter system components not warranted by the merits of the project/circumstances
  5. the extent to which the integrator created, planned, and executed policies, procedures and organizational structures to manage and collect "vendor influence payments" from alliance vendors.

In addition, we reported/opined on the proper creation, setting up, and migration of IT operations to large, outsourced data centers with required: security; recovery and restart; failsafe & failover mechanisms; power and safety capabilities; scalability/room for expansion; storage management systems; intranet, internet, and web portals; staffing, organization structure, training, budgeting and escalating dispute resolution policies, procedures and practices; documented operational routines and maintenance; database integrity; error reporting and management system(s); use of appropriate industry and Department of Defense IT standards, methodology and tools; EDI; and e-commerce

Result: Judgment for Department of Justice and US Department of Defense for over $63,000,000.00.

Major International Casino-Hotel Chain v. Software Developer; Breach of Contact
PLAINTIFF – CUSTOMER

Dispute: Major Casino-Hotel that was a sophisticated user of revenue management practices engaged a developer of revenue management software to create entirely new functionality, and to adapt its software geared for accommodations and travel industry to the more intricate requirements of gaming resorts. After many months of delay and an inability to deliver error-free software, the customer terminated the contract for default and sued the developer for breach of contract and damages.

Our Role: We explained the project management and software engineering failings of the developer, and its unwillingness and inability to deliver working software. Our analysis demonstrated that the developer failed to properly understand and document the requirements, andfailed to materially follow any acceptable/promised software development methodology (including any of the planned/disciplined methodologies or the agile family of methodologiesand practices). Our analysis also demonstrated that the developer’s management of the project and software development was severely disorganized and in disarray, and was incapable of making the required fixes, changes and modifications to its core software. We opined that on the basis of the amount and types of errors that were still prevalent in the software after many months of delay and attempted remediation, the customer had a reasonable basis to lose confidence in the developer’s ability and willingness to ever deliver a system that would work and meet the requirements of the customer.

Result: The case settled favorably for the plaintiff customer.

Scientist, M.D., Thought Leader and Inventor vs. Medium Size Software Developer/Vendor -- Trade secrets theft; Software development contract breach
PLAINTIFF – TRADE SECRETS DEVELOPER

Dispute: The Plaintiff is suing defendant for infringing on his trade secrets -- including unique and intelligent codes, formatting, file organization, computer logic and algorithms, and technology -- supporting a federally mandated law developed for decoding and efficiently/effectively processing doctor and hospital bills and insurance reimbursements.

Our Role: Both Warren S. Reid and Randy Brown (of WSR Consulting Group, LLC) were deposed in this matter.

Result: Pending.

Death Row Defense Case
PLAINTIFF (working with Federal Defender’s Office)

Dispute: Plaintiff, prisoner (who has been on death row for 6 years and in prison 4 years before that for murder) is appealing his trial and verdict

Our Role: We have uncovered evidence and are using our experience and expertise regarding 12 year old cash register, electronic Point-of-Sale (POS), and credit/debit card processing switches/machines, related bank processing rules and technologies to prove that the only eye witness, whose critical testimony was the basis for conviction, could not have been at or near the scene of the crime to see the Plaintiff as she testified.

Result: Pending

Class Action Bond Investors v. Owners & Underwriters of a $.5 billion bond (for multi-billion dollar regional retail chain) – IT/MIS capability/scalability was failing and undisclosed
PLAINTIFF – Class Action Bond Investors

Dispute: Plaintiffs’ claimed the Defendants did not properly disclose in its issued Prospectus the failing state of and risks associated with the retail chain’s lack of effort, progress, and investment in its IT systems – and the chain’s inability to make informed decisions, compete, and achieve sustainable performance and profitability against the likes of the increasingly competitive Walmart’s and others.

Our Opinion: Defendants did not disclose that the chain needed a massive IT overhaul, and a rebirth of its problematic, legacy, and unreliable MIS to dig itself out of the hole of obsolete technology, systems, information and stagnant technology culture to compete and stay solvent.

Testified over three days of deposition that Defendants’:

  • Applications were of poor quality, error-prone, limited in functionality/performance. They provided little actionable information, analysis, trends, or insights to help management for increase sales, improve profits, increase gross margins, improve inventory turns, lower working capital requirements, and/or react quickly or plan in their ever-changing industry.
  • MIS organization was under-resourced, followed no reasonable IT Plan, was not permitted to implement modern IT to achieve operational efficiencies and improved financial performance to compete.
  • Business organization held-on to old, manually intensive, paper-based processes, and not incentivized to make changes in operating processes to adapt to new technology.
  • Infrastructure was out-of-date, obsolete, expensive to maintain, and had no room for growth or ability to handle improved functionality

Result: Case settled in favor of the Plaintiffs

Very Large e-Commerce Retailer v ERP Vendor – ERP systems project and unsuitable software failure
PLAINTIFF – CUSTOMER

Dispute: A customer licenses e-commerce software from an ERP vendor only to find that the vendor’s Platinum Implementation Partner is unable to configure, customize and install the system per agreement. Additionally the system has insurmountable scalability problems and is unable to meet the required volumes of the customer. Plaintiff sues for fraud.

Our Role: WSRcg’s Expert Witness was deposed and testified at trial about: the failure of the vendor to properly estimate the project and the special customization requirements of the customer; the unsuitability of the software for the job; serious strategic software design and architecture decisions made by the vendor regarding the software and the suite that would prevent a “successful” implementation without much more investment and cost – information that the vendor allegedly withheld from the customer.

Result: Pending.

Major Health Care Provider and its ERP Vendor
JOINT DEFENDANTS - CUSTOMER & VENDOR

Dispute: An integrator/outsourcer sues hospital defendant for $10,000,000 claiming that it was ready to go-live with the system several months earlier, but for delays caused by the vendor and customer.

Our Role: Both Warren Reid and Randy Brown (of WSR Consulting Group, LLC) were deposed and testified in arbitration that the Integrator: had poorly staffed this mission critical project; had discarded all reasonable project management principles, practices, standards, and tools for a project of this size and nature; had abandoned all rational, industry standard and contractually promised systems life-cycle methodologies; had failed to implement and execute a reliable and sound test strategy and plan; had never stabilized the system's underlying technical infrastructure; and contributed to concurrent delays through its own critical, ongoing systems defects.

Result: Pending.

US Manufacturer/ Distributor of Custom Products
PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER

Dispute: Involving a failed Oracle Enterprise Resource Panning (ERP) system and its Big 5 consulting systems integrator.

Our Role: Our report and testimony showed project was poorly managed, did not follow promised or industry standard methodologies, was never completely tested, and used unacceptable data conversion and systems implementation methods.

Integrator of Microsoft Solutions
PLAINTIFF – INTEGRATOR

Dispute: Legislature hired integrator to build a legislation tracking system based on Microsoft’s Sharepoint platform. New administration refused to honor the bargain struck in the development contract.

Our Role: We explained the unique business bargain created by the contract, and demonstrated that the integrator applied an appropriate methodology for that unique circumstance. We also demonstrated that the customer introduced an unreasonable amount of change during acceptance testing.

Result: Our expert analyses was instrumental in conduct of depositions. The Defendant settled on terms that paid the Developer all of the contract price, interest and legal costs.

Internet Service and Content Provider
DEFENDANT – DEVELOPER

Dispute: Stockholders claiming failure to adequately disclose major changes in its technology strategy in its Prospectus.

Our Role: We demonstrated changes were evolutionary, concurrent and compatible with the development of the Internet, and were disclosed consistent with industry common practices.

Result: Arbitrators awarded most favorable result to defendant.

Specialized Banking Software Firm
DEFENDANT - DEVELOPER

Dispute: Defendant accused of IP infringement and misappropriation. Defendant was seeking to sell an integrated software system containing some residual content of the originally licensed programs.

Our Role: Issues were to determine how much residual content of the original software existed after several years of development by client. We analyzed extensive development history and source code for the software system acquired under exclusive license for defendant firm.

Result: Client was awarded a favorable ruling after deposition and testimony before arbitrator established that the residual content was effectively nil.

Large State Government
PLAINTIFF – CUSTOMER

Dispute: Customer paid over $100,000,000 to a large government contractor to develop a child support enforcement system. Beyond costs, non-compliance penalties and denial of Federal funding impacted the state financially -- approaching a billion dollars.

Our Role: We inspected program source code and rendered expert opinions on system performance issues, software configuration management, testing and validation methodologies, and program complexity metrics.

Result: The state’s attorneys successfully stressed the importance of a pervasive defect that we discovered standing apart from certain contractual ambiguities, entirely outside of the responsibility, knowledge, or control of the state.

Utility Asset Management System
DEFENDANT – DEVELOPER

Dispute: Developer built database, geographic reference maps and application to manage assets and outage events for a large utility operator. However, operator prolonged the site acceptance test with multiple changes and then terminated project on the cusp of completion.

Our Role: We analyzed the error and modification data from the acceptance test and advised the client on the chances of success at trial.

Result: The Developer and Customer settled.

Commercial Software Development Firm
DEFENDANT - DEVELOPER

Dispute: Allegations of copyright and trade secret infringement by a large competitor – with projected damages far exceeding the client’s financial base.

Our Role: We enumerated answers to detailed allegations, one by one, to the effect that most, if not all, described commonplace programming techniques of longstanding usage in the computer industry -- not protected innovations in any ordinary or legal sense.

Result: Losing a succession of MSJs, plaintiffs narrowed the scope of their complaint and pared their settlement position well below the client’s cost projections for continuing the case to a defense verdict, resolving the matter in settlement.

U.S. Government and President of the United States
DEFENDANTS – CUSTOMER

Dispute: The President, as head of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission agreed to close down a computerized robotics army base that failed to meet contractual performance requirements during Desert Storm. The government refused to pay the $150 million owed to plaintiff software, robot and smart building developer.

Our Role: With secret clearance, our team visited the base site, reviewed and analyzed performance history and stats of the base during the war, and developed a 3-D simulation model which proved that there were fundamental and pervasive design and implementation flaws and decisions unilaterally made by the plaintiff developer that caused the system (and the robots) to crash.

Result: Overwhelming and complete exoneration for defendants

Commercial Airline
PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER

Dispute: Airline sought damages from a commercial software development firm for failure to implement an automated timekeeping system, as a consequence of excessive demand for server resources, unacceptable system response time, and other persistent functional defects.

Our Role: Assisted attorneys in preparing to depose percipient witnesses and clarifying the essential technical significance of their testimony and analyzed controversial performance measurements to deliver candid assessment of case.

Result: Client negotiated an acceptable settlement.

Web Application Developer
PLAINTIFF – DEVELOPER

Dispute: Large industrial/consumer retailer stole ideas for web-based applications developed by Plaintiff in an idea submission.

Our Role: We provided a definitive analysis that demonstrated that the retailer copied the ideas for the web-based application directly from the prototypes that the developer provided.

Result: Developer received payment in a settlement.

Web Browser Developer/Portal
DEFENDANT - DEVELOPER

Dispute: Developer sued by shareholders after their IPO value dropped considerably, for allegedly releasing poor and untested Internet service product(s).

Our Role: Our expert reports and testimony demonstrated that the systems were well architected and designed, tested, and released following better than industry accepted practices in: quality assurance; project organization and management; acceptance, alpha and beta test release criteria; and post production help desk and defect correction/control.

Result: Defendant exonerated by arbitration panel.

Big 5 Consulting Firm
DEFENDANT - INTEGRATOR

Dispute: The Fortune 500 customer alleged that for the $50 million fee, the integrator failed to properly develop and implement a large ERP project.

Our Role: Areas in our expert report covered: the role of the System Integration Project Manager; control over sub-contractors; the stability, performance, functionality of the system; issues of scope creep; the design/use of the Oracle data base; and readiness to go live.

Result: Settlement favorable to Integrator.

Multiple Insurance Companies
DEFENDANT - INSURERS

Dispute: Plaintiff’s claimed “sue and labor” in Y2K matter. One case alone was for $74 million.

Our Role: To determine to what extent the remedial costs expended by insureds; were reasonable; were paid for “fortuitous” events; really saved the insurers money. We also defined and applied new technology and meaning to the terms “destruction, distortion and corruption of data” in time-honored insurance coverage policy interpretation.

Result: All cases were settled or won with no insurer liability or payout.

International Medical Company
PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER

Dispute: Involved a system developed by a major outsourcer which failed to perform.

Our Role: Our research, report, and testimony helped show that the system developed was not of workmanlike quality, was not built using the outsourcer’s “System Life Cycle Methodology” or any industry standards, and did not work.

Result: Judgment of fraud against defendant.

Commercial Software Development Firm
DEFENDANT - DEVELOPER

Dispute: Allegations of negligent failure to deploy a Time and Attendance software system and effectively integrate multiple predecessor systems for a major commercial airline.

Our Role: We demonstrated that after an extensive turnover in the customer’s IT management, the customer effectively abandoned its commitment to the project for several months, making it impossible for the defendant vendor to progress.

Result: Successfully negotiating a drastic reduction of plaintiff’s demand, defendant’s insurance carrier elected to settle.

International Fast Food Company
DEFENDANT - CUSTOMER

Dispute: Developer sued over the refusal of the customer to install and pay for an integrated POS system.

Our Role: We testified and demonstrated that the system was fundamentally flawed, would never have worked, was not fault tolerant, couldn’t handle peak performance, and was inappropriate for intended environment.

Result: Defendant exonerated – no damages.

Major Utility Company
PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER

Dispute: integrator failed to design and implement on schedule a Human Resources system based on highly customized software developed by a celebrated international systems developer.

Our Role: We reviewed the project management processes promised versus those used. Our findings and conclusions were a major element in settlement discussions.

Result: Very favorable settlement to our client, the customer.

Malaysian Stock Exchange
PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER

Dispute: Issues resolved including as-promised design vs. as-produced design, project management and budgeting/estimation issues, poor quality of system, readiness to go live, and contract interpretation.

Our Role: Engagement to determine whether or not said exchange had a viable claim against its computer systems vendors, developers and integrators.

Result: Case settled in favor of Plaintiff

Large Magazine Subscription Company
PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER

Dispute: Integrator/Developer failed to properly install a new system involving very complicated data base requirements.

Our Role: Involved source code issues, quality of design and implementation, year 2000 issue, recovery and restart failure, performance, and other issues.

Result: Case settled at very favorable terms to plaintiff.

Fortune 500 Company
PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER

Dispute: A large Time and Attendance software package failed causing nearly incalculable liabilities of numerous union contract violations from failure to manage basic payroll functions for 150,000 employees.

Our Role: Expert report described a persistent pattern of knowing, intentional misrepresentation by defendants of the performance characteristics of the proposed system, costs of required hardware, and benchmark studies conducted by defendants, and experience with customers of comparable size.

Result: A few days after expert deposition testimony severely attacked a central defense theory, the case settled for what the lead attorney characterized as “… 50% more than my most optimistic projection.”

Canadian Government
DEFENDANT – CUSTOMER

Dispute: Government terminated a contract with a Big 5 consulting firm in project to build a fully automated, state-of-the-art federal employee payroll system.

Our Role: Our expert reports showed failings in project management, risk management, quality management, configuration management, estimation, design and staffing – all of which caused delays that triggered the termination for cause.

Result: Consulting Firm plaintiff settled on terms favorable to the government.

Provincial Government
DEFENDANT - CUSTOMER

Dispute: Massive delays in a large-scale province-wide healthcare reimbursement and information system.

Our Role: Engaged by defense attorneys as a strategist and expert to address cause of delays, poor quality in testing, unsuitability for intended purpose, not ready to go live, and cause of cost overruns.

Result: Change in government brought about settlement.

Large Systems Integrator
DEFENDANT - INTEGRATOR

Dispute: Breach of contract in development of special statewide computer system involving over $100 million.

Our Role: Established that, in fact, plaintiff vendor "with knowledge": severely underestimated project; assigned inadequate staff; didn't understand requirements; designed/developed poor quality system; didn't adequately test system; and that system wouldn't have worked.

Result: Change in government resulted in settlement.

Manufacturer of Hi-Tech Products
PLAINTIFF – DEVELOPER

Dispute: Right to import into U.S. hi-tech products that permit the unlocking of certain security devices (hardware locks) on PCs.

Our Role: Delivered written testimony and proofs that there exists a "substantial legitimate commercial purpose" for the product.

Result: Products allowed for import.

Developer of Complex POS System
DEFENDANT – DEVELOPER

Dispute: Financing consortium sought to prove that developed complex POS (Point of Sale) system was not fit for purpose after pilot installations in a large multi-state fast-food retail chain.

Our Role: Developed standards/models for proving delivered systems met contract and industry standards; and that the software worked; the hardware worked; the users “liked it" despite existence of "acceptable" defect levels.

Result: After testimony, co-Plaintiff switched sides. Defendant exonerated.

Integrator/Vendor of Financial Systems
DEFENDANT - INTEGRATOR

Dispute: Case involved failed Savings and Loan company suing systems integrator/vendor for alleged faulty systems solution.

Our Role: Established damage ceiling and that solution would have worked had plaintiff allowed defendant to properly install/test system, and train users.

Result: Defendant exonerated.

Software Developer
PLAINTIFF - DEVELOPER

Dispute: Insurance bad faith matter re loss of intellectual properties, business and technical records, and eventual business failure after vandalism.

Our Role: Established long term business viability of plaintiff by developing creative model for successful government sub-contracting entities. Also, developed alternative damage strategies.

Result: Favorable settlement for Plaintiff.

Software Developer
PLAINTIFF - DEVELOPER

Dispute: Competitor hired former employees and infringed on technology patent.

Our Role: Engaged as consultant to discover if new technology patent was infringed by competitor hiring former employees.

Result: Sealed agreement.

Intellectual Property Matter
APPOINTED BY COURT

Our Role: Appointed Special Master to the Court in determining/opining on whether proprietary software had been stolen (illegally copied) and was being illegally used by a competitor. Solution involved high-tech sleuthing, code comparison, and computer, software and operating system forensics.

Result: We reported our conclusion of infringement to the judge. Settlement sealed.

State Government with Large Dispatch System
DEFENDANT - CUSTOMER

Dispute: State Government hired a large integrator to install a complex computer-aided dispatch system – but cancelled the contract after many delays and poor testing results. Integrator sued for $100 million.

Our Role: Our expert analysis and report revealed that integrator grossly underestimated the project due to its inexperience with these types of systems – compounded by poor project management tools, poor collection of user requirements, insufficiently qualified staff, and inadequate testing approaches.

Result: Jury rejected lawsuit, and awarded Defendant $1 million for legal costs.

Developer of Wholesale Distribution Software
PLAINTIFF - DEVELOPER

Dispute: Misappropriation of trade secrets and bad faith as large company pretends to perform due diligence – but in the end rejects purchase of Plaintiff company in bad faith for alleged poor performance, and instead very quickly develops and releases a competing system with a totally different GUI.

Our Role: We demonstrated that the Defendant’s system used a virtually identical suite of functionality and underlying algorithms – and opined that the Defendant stole these trade secrets. Also we proved that the Defendant stacked the due diligence testing to purposefully fail by applying unrealistic volumes of data and criteria.

Result: The Defendant settled in favor of the Plaintiff the day before the trial.

Back to Top

 

Other Litigation Matters

  • Provided consulting insight for a matter involving unclear contract between service bureau and multi-state agency. Clarified contract's meaning, and identified software modules to be turned over to agency at contract's end.
  • Engaged in multiple cases by both plaintiff and defense attorneys as a strategist and expert in matters involving fitness and production readiness of allegedly failed: smart buildings (clothing and machine manufacturing); robots; automated storage/retrieval systems; automated guided vehicles; complex logistics algorithms; RF devices; simulations, etc.
  • Engaged in matters involving launches of new hi-tech products (both with and without competition). Established and opined on "best efforts vs. actual efforts", market size/share potential, and royalty and damage calculations.
  • Engaged as expert to assist in liability and damages aspects in contract matter re calculation method, accrual, and royalty payments due to the software developer from a major software developer/distributor. Opined on contract clauses; developed basis for identifying royalty triggering mechanism and calculating damages. Favorable settlement.
  • Engaged in multiple international matters involving the manufacture and quality of PCs and large client/server hardware and components. Prepared written testimony on: testing; ISO 9000 compliance; manufacturing standards and assembly practices; Quality Assurance; industry standards; and readiness and fitness of the products.
  • Engaged in an anti-trust matter where a dominant retail distributor of microcomputer software client was forbidden from distributing certain products. We researched and documented available distribution alternatives to show that no other "viable" opportunities existed at the time. This resulted in allowing the distributor and developer to proceed with the desired, beneficial distribution arrangement.
  • Engaged as consultant in RICO, malpractice, and fraud matter against management and auditors in large, bankrupt national retail chain. Established key standards of reasonable behavior for officers/directors/auditors in extant case.
  • Developed Damages in matters involving: Contract Breach; Patent/Intellectual Property Misappropriation; Bad Faith; Best Efforts; Lost Profits; Reasonable Royalties; D&O Liability; Market Potential/Size; Bankruptcy.

Back to Top

 

Sampling of Lawyer References

  • Don Conwell, Esquire
    Conwell,Sukhia & Kirkpatrick, P.A
    2701 North Rocky Point Drive
    Suite 1200
    Tampa, FL 33607
    813-282-8000

  • Michael Silverman, Esquire
    Duane Morris and Heckscher
    227 West Monroe Street, Suite 3400
    Chicago, IL 60606
    312-499-6707

  • Jay Levin, Esquire
    Reed Smith LLP
    2500 One Liberty Place
    1650 Market Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
    215-851-8100

  • Frances Goins, Esquire
    Ulmer & Berne
    Penton Media Building
    1300 East Ninth Street, Suite 900
    Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1583
    216-931-6202

  • Stephen J. Davidson, Esquire
    Leonard Street & Deinard
    150 South Fifth Street
    Suite 2300
    Minneapolis, MN 55402
    612-335-1554

Back to Top

 

Call Warren S. Reid at (818) 986-8842 to discuss your case.

WSRcg

Home | Founder: Warren S. Reid | Firm Introduction & Philosophy | References & Testimonials | Firm News | Credentials, Cases, Testimony | Approach to Cases & Discovery | Expert Reports | ERP Expert Witnesses | Software Expert Witnesses | Computer Expert Witnesses | Internet Expert Witnesses | IP Expert Witnesses | IT Consulting Expertise | Firm Resume | Consultant & Expert Witness Resumes | Publications | Presentations | Firm Blog | Contact Us

WSR Consulting Group LLC · Los Angeles · (818) 986-8842 · www.wsrcg.com · wsreid@wsrcg.com
Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006 WSR Consulting Group, LLC. All rights reserved