There was an extensive fact finding phase by way of review of documents and interviews with witnesses. There was a one-day formal presentation by each side of its view of the matter. The presentation was taken down by a stenographic reporter and witnesses were questioned in direct testimony and also questioned by way of cross-examination.
Mr. Tigerman as Mediator prepared a multi-page “Findings and Opinions.” Claims for breach of contract, by each side, were $4,100,000 by one party and $2,300,000 by another party.
The end result of the mediation was that Bbb City Council accepted the recommendation of the Mediator, as did the computer vendor, and the matter settled without a full Court trial.
2. Ccc vs. DddConcerning a software installation project, the vendor sought arbitration of a dispute claiming that the user had improperly terminated the contract prior to completion and sought damages of $190,000. The user alleged nonperformance or faulty performance of the contract and counterclaimed for the return of its $39,000 deposit.
The matter was heard in a formal arbitration. Mr. Tigerman acting as Arbitrator decided the matter in favor of the vendor and awarded damages.
3. Eee vs. FffThis was an arbitration matter heard before a three-person panel, all attorneys, of which the Mr. Tigerman was one. Company No. 1 had sold its assets to Company No. 2. This was an asset aquisition and not a stock aquisition; the assets included a partially developed software project. Both companies were in the business of developing software for the medical community. Company No. 1 had continuing obligations under the sale contract concerning the completion of certain software. Company No. 2 had the obligation to pay royalties. Company No. 2 was a publicly traded company.
A dispute arose based on Company No. 2′s allegation that Company No. 1 and its officers had failed to perform pursuant to the contract. Company No. 2 withheld royalties. Company No. 2 also disregarded (based on a claim of contract right) certain exclusive distribution arrangements which were retained by Company No. 1.
In a very complicated and fact-intensive hearing taking place over several days, each party presented its case. The “Award of Arbitrators” was itself a very detailed document making findings of breach and non-breach, awarding certain damages, and restricting one party from certain acts in the future.
4. Ggg vs. HhhThis was an arbitration matter heard before a three-person panel, all of whom were attorneys. Along with the Mr. Tigerman, the arbitrators were a former Deputy Attorney General of the United States and a retired Justice of the California Court of Appeals. The matter involved a computer software developer which had contracted to provide a restaurant “point of sale” system to a restaurant chain. The restaurant chain alleged that the computer vendor had failed in the performance of the contract. The computer vendor alleged that the contract had been unfairly and prematurely terminated. There were multi-million dollar claims by each party.
Testimony was taken over a period of several days, at various locations including the American Arbitration Association and corporate facilities of the parties. Fact witnesses and expert witnesses appeared before the tribunal. Mr. Tigerman was the only panel member that had computer and systems implementation experience both as a computer professional and as an attorney for vendors and for users.
5. Iii vs. JjjThis was an arbitration matter. Mr. Tigerman sat as sole arbitrator. Iii sold computer hardware, warehouse mangement equipment and a warehouse management information system to Jjj. As was often the case, the user claimed that the system was defective and did not perform properly whereas the vendor claims an unpaid balance on its contract.
Insurance coverage was potentially available to the computer vendor. The computer vendor was represented by three attorneys or law firms: its own attorney, its attorney as appointed by the insurance carrier, and a separate law firm attended to represent only the interests of the insurance company. The computer user had only one law firm attending the proceedings with it.
Fact witnesses and expert witnesses were heard over the course of approximately six days. A judgement was rendered, for claimant on certain causes and claims, and also for respondent on certain clauses and claims.