IBJNews

Brightpoint settles lawsuit with vendor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based Brightpoint Inc. has settled a lawsuit it filed in February against a Massachusetts software provider that Brightpoint accused of failing to deliver on contractual promises.

The distributor of wireless phones agreed on Tuesday to drop its complaint against Emptoris Inc., according to Marion Superior Court documents, which provided no details about the settlement.

Attorneys for both companies did not return phone calls seeking comment.
 
Brightpoint accused Emptoris of committing fraud and negligence as well as breaching its agreement and warranty. It sought reimbursement of roughly $3 million it paid Emptoris, in addition to damages related to the $2 million it spent to fix the software that “for the most part was a complete failure,” according to the Feb. 18 suit.

“Simply put, over the past two years, Emptoris has consistently over-promised and under-delivered in every aspect of its software and its services,” Brightpoint said in the court filing. “The software was such a failure and such an impediment to Brightpoint’s business that Brightpoint had no alternative except to stop using the software.”

Emptoris denied the allegations and was surprised to learn that a complaint had been filed, a company spokesman said early this month via e-mail.

Brightpoint’s formal relationship with Emptoris began in October 2008, when the two entered into a contract that called for Emptoris to provide Brightpoint with "spend management" and "spend analysis" software.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Perspective
    The dispute between Brightpoint and Emptoris, Inc. has been resolved. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and Brightpoint, Inc. has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit.

    Emptoris has more than three hundred global companies as customers, and their success and results are a testament to the service and value Emptoris provides.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT