Tusa Consulting Services’ Expert Research and Testimony Critical in Proving Case
Tyco Ordered to Pay $125.8 Million to Former Com-Net Shareholders
In a recent Com-Net shareholder action against Tyco Electronics Corp., an Allegheny Court of Common Pleas found that Tyco failed to be “diligent, timely and efficient” in completing Florida’s Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) and therefore, was responsible for paying shareholders $125.8 million. Tusa Consulting Services (TUSA) was instrumental in providing expert radio technology consultation and testimony supportive of the Com-Net Shareholders.
Former CEO of Com-Net Critical, Steve Savor, filed suit on behalf of its former shareholders. Savor retained TUSA as its expert in the case due to the company’s substantial experience in the design and development of regional and local emergency communications networks. TUSA was tasked with developing a detailed timeline of progression for a project the same scope as SLERS. This timeline would be a fundamental component of the case, as defendants argued that the original Com-Net timeline was “commercially unreasonable.”
TUSA founder Dominic “Nick” Tusa, along with Jack “Tripp” Forrest, PE and Don McGee, pored over one million pages of documents and emails to identify technical causes for implementation delays. They also addressed the addition of thirty EDACS radio tower sites and nine microwave relay tower sites that were not within the original contract. The final report, along with seven days of trial testimony by TUSA experts, highlighted a pattern of inadequate quality control and stewardship by Tyco that led to project delays and cost overages.
The Court agreed with those findings, noting that SLERS should have been completed on December 31, 2005—four years and nine months before the project was cited as completed by Florida officials. A judgement in favor of our client included $80 million that Tyco had withheld as part of the stock purchase agreement along with nearly $45.8 million in accrued interest.
“We covered the theoretical, functional and operational aspects of EDACS technology and radio propagation, and explained in laymen’s terms, how hardware and software abnormalities can negatively affect perceived radio coverage,” Tusa said. “We needed to establish a basic understanding of these concepts that clearly demonstrated how and why certain delay and added tower sites, which were fully outside of the Plaintiff’s control, occurred during Tyco’s administration of the project.”