Queens Library Sues SirsiDynix, Charges Bait-and-Switch on ILS
Library seeks $5 million-plus; SirsiDynix denies all allegations
Josh Hadro -- Library Journal, 10/06/2009
- Breach of contract, fraud charged
- Court hearing November 2
- Suit claims other libraries damaged
The Queens Library (QL) has sued the Dynix Corporation, the Sirsi Corporation, and Sirsi Holdings Corp., (now operating as SirsiDynix), charging a bait-and-switch during QL's effort to seek a new integrated library system (ILS).
In response, SirsiDynix said "[w]e deny the allegations in the complaint and we intend to defend the matter vigorously. We have no further comment." When contacted for this story, QL also said it had no further comment at this time.
As the suit involves one of the largest ILS vendors and the highest circulating library in the country, with charges that the vendor's behavior damaged other libraries, the case likely will draw avid attention from the entire library industry as it moves forward. QL this year won the LJ/Gale Library of the Year award.
The library charges breach of contract, breach of guaranty, and fraud, among others and seeks at least $5 million in damages. The defendants have until October 15 to file a formal response to the complaint. A hearing is currently scheduled for November 2 in federal court in Brooklyn, NY.
(See below for the full document filed to the Eastern District of New York District Court. The news was first reported on Marshall Breeding's Library Technology Guides GuidePosts blog.).
Bitter battle
Though only one side of the conflict is represented in the documents currently available, the first sentence of the library's complaint (which uses the library's more formal name) is fierce: "This case involves a fraudulent bait and switch scheme by [Dynix et al.] against not only the Queens Borough Public Library, the highest circulating library in the nation, but other libraries as well."
The crux of the complaint concerns the timeline of events surrounding Sirsi's merger with Dynix (described as an acquisition in the court documents) in the summer of 2005, and whether the companies were aware that a license agreement with the library was unlikely to be fulfilled as specified.
The library claims that, during its ILS procurement process in 2005, it rejected a proposal from Sirsi regarding its Unicorn ILS and eventually accepted one from Dynix to migrate to Horizon, based in large part on features for version 8.0 of that system.
The library then claims that, following the announced merger of the two companies during its deliberation period, the new company's assurances that it would "aggressively develop the Horizon platform for the foreseeable future" proved false, thus posing significant costs to the library in terms of hardware and other investments.
QL eventually signed with another vendor altogether (VTLS), having served Dynix on March 30, 2007 with a Notice of Material Breach of the agreement between the two parties.
High hurdle?
However, for the allegations to carry their full weight, it seems that QL would have to prove the claims made in paragraph 126 (among many others), that "Dynix's conduct in stringing the Library along was aimed specifically at putting the Library in such a position that, when Dynix finally divulged that it would not perform (which it knew all along), the Library would be under economic and operational duress such that Dynix (and the other Defendants) could force the Library into accepting the (already reject[ed]) Sirsi Unicorn-based system."
In July 2008, QL announced the completion of its migration to VTLS's Virtua ILS in less than six months, an unusually abbreviated transition period likely influenced by this dispute. The library is currently working with VTLS to enhance the patron-focused features of the system's catalog.
Contact the author: josh.hadro@reedbusiness.com
