Accountant files suit against former firm, partner

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A contentious split between two prominent accounting partners is getting even uglier after a lawsuit filed by one of them has the other pledging to countersue.

Thomas Sponsel, a former partner of Indianapolis-based Greenwalt Sponsel & Co. Inc., filed the complaint, on Dec. 24. Two other former partners, Lisa Purichia and Jason Thompson, joined him in the complaint.

The suit claims Greenwalt Sponsel, now known as Greenwalt CPAs Inc., breached both its fiduciary duty and contract with the three former partners after they left the firm in September to launch a new firm, Sponsel CPA Group.
They say Greenwalt Sponsel failed to pay money it owes them pursuant to the firm’s shareholder agreement and instead is offering a discounted value for their stock ownership because they did not give 18 months of notice before they left.

Sponsel and the two partners, though, claim they are due the full amount because the firm granted a waiver to another partner who left without giving the proper notice. They also contend the firm and its managing partner, Larry Greenwalt, forced them to leave early by creating a hostile working environment.

The suit does not specify how much money the former partners are seeking.

 “Rather than waiving the 18-month notice period and paying the full scheduled value as has been done in the past [Greenwalt Sponsel] and [Larry] Greenwalt excluded Sponsel, Purichia and Thompson from partner meetings and communications and took many steps to exclude them from having any meaningful involvement in [the firm], the cumulative effect of which forced them to terminate their employment with [Greenwalt Sponsel],” the lawsuit said.

Greenwalt said Monday morning that he attempted to resolve the dispute through mediation, to no avail, and expects to file a countersuit within the next few weeks.

He said Sponsel violated his shareholder agreement by failing to compensate his former firm for hiring Greenwalt employees.

“The purpose of shareholder agreements is to ensure the firm is not harmed in a long-term basis,” Greenwalt said. “We’re being totally consistent with our shareholder agreements.”

A disagreement over the direction of Greenwalt Sponsel’s succession plan led Sponsel to leave, he said following his exit in September.

Greenwalt acknowledged Sponsel had been expected to succeed him as the firm’s leader in January 2011. But he said Sponsel failed to deliver on certain commitments and even contemplated leaving the firm.

Sponsel and Greenwalt, who is a defendant in the lawsuit, had worked together for nearly 30 years. They both started at the former Keller Gaughan & Greenwalt accounting firm in 1980. They changed the name to Greenwalt Sponsel in 1987.

Before Sponsel’s departure, Greenwalt had 31 certified public accountants and 59 full-time employees, ranking it as the 11th-largest accounting firm in the city, according to the most recent IBJ statistics. Sponsel took at least three partners with him.

He is leasing 10,000 square feet of office space at the Gateway Plaza building at 950 N. Meridian St.



  • Think of Your Clients
    Gentleman and Ladies:

    Settle this quickly and don't this play out in the local press in this manner. Your clients don't care about your problems; they need your full attention in caring about theirs'. What both firms are doing is giving their clients a reason to look and move their business elsewhere.
  • Tom's Lawsuit
    For your info.
    Our support to Tom!!!
  • G & S

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.