Log in
E-mail
Password
Remember
Forgot password ?
Become a member for free
Sign up
Sign up
New member
Sign up for FREE
New customer
Discover our services
Settings
Settings
Dynamic quotes 
OFFON

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

(IBM)
  Report
SummaryQuotesChartsNewsRatingsCalendarCompanyFinancialsConsensusRevisions 
SummaryMost relevantAll NewsAnalyst Reco.Other languagesPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener Strategies

International Business Machines : Wrongful Termination And Failed Wasted Costs Claim

05/06/2021 | 06:11am EDT

CIS General Insurance Ltd v. IBM United Kingdom Ltd

The Technology and Construction Court has recently handed down authoritative guidance on wasted costs and the characterization of damages arising out of termination of a contract. The court was asked to determine whether the claimant was entitled to recover Ł128 million in damages for wasted costs arising from the alleged wrongful termination of a contract.

Mrs. Justice O'Farrell ruled that IBM (the defendant in the case) was not entitled to exercise any right of termination because CISGIL (the claimant in the case) disputed a particular invoice within the time prescribed in the contract, and nonpayment of the invoice in those circumstances did not entitle IBM to terminate. Accordingly, IBM's purported termination amounted to a repudiatory breach, which CISGIL was entitled to accept. Nonetheless, the court decided that IBM was ultimately entitled to payment of the invoice, set off against the damages awarded to CISGIL.

This case is another stark reminder of the inherent risks involved with terminating a contract and why termination should always be regarded as a measure of last resort. It is advisable to take legal advice when considering termination.

Background

CISGIL (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Co-operative Group Limited), a company involved in the underwriting and distribution of general insurance products, engaged IBM to supply a new information technology (IT) system and manage the system for a term of 10 years. The services agreement between the parties provided for payment against certain milestones.

In early 2017, an issue arose as to whether or not the requirements of a particular milestone had been met. IBM submitted an invoice in the sum of c. Ł2.8 million on the basis that it considered the applicable milestone events and requirements to have been met.

CISGIL's position was that the milestone had not been met (nor payment authorized), and it refused to accept or pay IBM's invoice for the milestone payment. Following setoff notices (by CISGIL) and final payment notices (by IBM), IBM purported to exercise a contractual right of termination based on CISGIL's failure to pay the invoice. CISGIL disputed IBM's right to terminate and treated the purported termination as a repudiatory breach, which it accepted.

CISGIL brought a claim before the High Court seeking damages of Ł128 million, which it characterized as expenditure incurred in relation to the alleged wrongful termination by IBM, along with a number of alternative claims regarding breach of contractual warranty and delay claims. The characterization of CISGIL's claim was significant, as the limitation of liability provision in the services agreement excluded claims for loss of profit, revenue, or savings.

IBM counterclaimed in the sum of c. Ł2.8 million for the unpaid invoice.

Judgment

A key issue considered by the court was whether IBM exercised a valid right of termination by reason of CISGIL's failure to pay the invoice or whether its purported termination amounted to a repudiatory breach, which repudiation CISGIL was entitled to, and did, accept.

CISGIL's position was not simply that the milestone had not been achieved. It also argued that it had not approved achievement of the milestone, which it said was a prerequisite to payment. CISGIL also argued that the invoice was not payable because (i) IBM failed to meet prior milestones, and (ii) the invoice was not correctly prepared or properly submitted. CISGIL also argued that (i) it was entitled to setoff against the invoice, (ii) IBM lost any right of termination by its delay, and (iii) IBM was in willful default as defined in the services agreement.

IBM's position was that the milestone was not dependent on the achievement of any other milestones and that the invoice was correctly prepared and properly submitted. IBM argued that CISGIL did not dispute the invoice within the time frame prescribed by the services agreement and had failed to assert any rights of setoff against the invoice until the time for doing so had expired. IBM rejected CISGIL's allegations of delay and willful default, arguing that notice of termination was served by IBM within a reasonable time of CISGIL's purported default. Consequently, IBM maintained that it was entitled to payment of the invoice in the sum of Ł2,889,600.

The court concluded that:

  1. CISGIL was obliged to approve the achievement of the milestone and was in breach of this obligation. CISGIL was not entitled to benefit from its own default in seeking to avoid payment by asserting the invalidity of the invoice based on the absence of approval.
  2. CISGIL's complaints that the invoice was defective and/or not properly submitted had no merit.
  3. CISGIL did, however, validly dispute the invoice in accordance with the contractual mechanisms, entitling it to withhold payment against the invoice.
  4. The provisions of the services agreement, read together, were clear and unambiguous: they introduced a "pay now, argue later" principle, but they did not exclude any right of setoff; CISGIL would retain its right of setoff against future payments due and would retain its right to counterclaim for damages. However, there was a provision that restricted the exercise of such setoff rights against invoices to those in respect of which a valid notice of dispute had been given within seven days.
  5. IBM was not entitled to exercise any right of termination under the services agreement because CISGIL disputed the invoice within seven days of its receipt. In those circumstances, the purported termination amounted to a repudiatory breach, which CISGIL was entitled to accept. There was, however, no willful default.
  6. The court considered "A high-risk strategy was adopted on both sides; the AG5 milestone payment, a modest sum in relation to the high value of the overall project, was the vehicle used to bring the project to an end."

Regarding the quantum of the claim, CISGIL's position was that its claim for wasted expenditure was not a claim for loss of profit (which would be excluded by the limitation of liability provision in the services agreement). CISGIL argued that compensation for wasted expenditure puts it into "a break-even position" and that its benefits from IBM's performance would have been worth at least as much to CISGIL as the amounts expended in reliance on the contract.

Applying principles from relevant authorities, Mrs. Justice O'Farrell said, "The starting point is to identify the contractual benefit lost as a result of IBM's repudiatory breach of contract." The contractual benefit CISGIL anticipated was "substantial savings, increased revenues and increased profits" from the new IT solution, which IBM promised to supply. The loss of bargain suffered by CISGIL comprised the savings, revenues, and profits that would have been achieved had the IT solution been successfully implemented. Mrs. Justice O'Farrell said, "CISGIL is entitled to frame its claim as one for wasted expenditure, but that simply represents a different method of quantifying the loss of the bargain; it does not change the characteristics of the losses for which compensation is sought" and concluded that CISGIL's claim was excluded "whether it is quantified as the value of the lost profit, revenue and savings, or as wasted expenditure."

As a result of the court's findings, CISGIL was awarded damages of Ł15.9m in respect of additional costs incurred arising out of IBM's wrongful termination instead of the Ł128 million in damages that CISGIL's had claimed for wasted costs. The court also concluded that IBM was entitled to payment of the unpaid invoice in the sum of Ł2,889,600 and that IBM was entitled to setoff this sum against CISGIL's claims.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Ms Nita Mistry
K&L Gates
One New Change
London
EC4M 9AF
UK

© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

All news about INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
06/10INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINESá : Call for Code App Uses AI to Make Homes Safer..
PU
06/09INSIDER TRENDS : International Business Machines Insider Exercises Option/Deriva..
MT
06/09INSIDER TRENDS : International Business Machines Insider Converts Option/Derivat..
MT
06/09INSIDER TRENDS : Insider at International Business Machines Acquires Stock Via O..
MT
06/09INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINESá : Reinforcing IBM's commitment to open source H..
PU
06/09INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINESá : Greening the Blue Economy
PU
06/08INSIDER TRENDS : International Business Machines Insider Exercises Option/Deriva..
MT
06/08INSIDER TRENDS : Insider Acquires International Business Machines Stock Via Opti..
MT
06/08INSIDER TRENDS : Insider at International Business Machines Acquires Stock Via O..
MT
06/08HONEYWELL INTERNATIONALá : Quantum Solutions, Cambridge Quantum Computing Mergin..
MT
More news
Financials (USD)
Sales 2021 74 392 M - -
Net income 2021 7 505 M - -
Net Debt 2021 48 935 M - -
P/E ratio 2021 18,0x
Yield 2021 4,43%
Capitalization 135 B 135 B -
EV / Sales 2021 2,47x
EV / Sales 2022 2,38x
Nbr of Employees 345 900
Free-Float 39,8%
Chart INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Duration : Period :
International Business Machines Corporation Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
Full-screen chart
Technical analysis trends INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
TrendsBullishBullishBullish
Income Statement Evolution
Consensus
Sell
Buy
Mean consensus HOLD
Number of Analysts 17
Average target price 143,32 $
Last Close Price 151,28 $
Spread / Highest target 15,7%
Spread / Average Target -5,26%
Spread / Lowest Target -20,0%
EPS Revisions
Managers and Directors
NameTitle
Arvind Krishna Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
James M. Whitehurst President, Head-Strategy, Cloud & Cognitive
James J. Kavanaugh Chief Financial Officer & Senior VP-Operations
Juan Antonio Zufiria Senior VP-Global Technology Services
Kathryn W. Guarini Chief Information Officer
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capitalization (M$)
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION20.18%135 172
ACCENTURE PLC9.21%181 337
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD.14.36%165 367
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC.13.54%84 955
INFOSYS LIMITED15.22%83 888
SNOWFLAKE INC.-14.50%71 248