$30 Million Arbitration Award for Achieve Software

Breach of Contract Dismissal and $30 Million Award on Counterclaims

Anthony Ostlund litigated a lengthy arbitration resulting in a breach of contract dismissal and an award of $30 million

"Achieve was in the software business.  It understood as well as anyone that these projects do not come with a guarantee – and it was willing to walk away from a failed project and a very significant investment.  When Garg Data refused to see the wisdom in that approach, Anthony Ostlund got permission to take the gloves off and recover what Achieve had lost.  It was gratifying to succeed for our client." --Norman J. Baer

Client Issue

Our client, Achieve, had a claim made against it for breach of contract when it stopped funding a software development project because the developer, Garg Data, had demonstrated it could not complete the project.  Achieve was willing to walk away from all the money it had already paid to Garg Data, but it was not going to pay anything more.

The Anthony Ostlund Approach

The first thing we did was warn Garg Data that if it insisted on going to arbitration, Achieve would bring its own claims for the failed software development project.  That warning was ignored, so Achieve asserted its own claims.  Proving that the software project had failed was not the hard part; rather, the challenges were to find the way around some contract language that was unfavorable to Achieve and to find a way to prove Achieve’s very substantial damages.

Results Achieved

After a lengthy arbitration with sessions in Long Beach, California and Minneapolis, the arbitrator dismissed the breach of contract claim brought by Garg Data and awarded Achieve $30 million on its counterclaims.  Garg Data then fought the arbitration award in the federal district court and the court of appeals.  Both courts rejected the arguments of Garg Data and upheld the award in favor of Achieve.


Garg Data International, Inc. v. Achieve Software Corporation

JAMS Arbitration

Award confirmed by the United States District Court, Central District of California and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit