IBJNews

Accountants lose court battle with former firm

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three Indianapolis accounting firm principals who left the company to start a rival practice are only entitled to part of their ownership shares in the firm, a Marion County judge has ruled.

In addition, Thomas Sponsel, who was a name partner in the former Greenwalt Sponsel & Co. Inc., cannot recover any retirement benefits from the firm.
 
Judge Michael Keele’s June 9 decision stems from a lawsuit Sponsel filed in December 2009. Two other former partners, Lisa Purichia and Jason Thompson, joined him in the complaint.

The suit claimed that Greenwalt Sponsel, now known as Greenwalt CPAs Inc., breached both its fiduciary duty and its contract with the three partners after they left the firm in September 2009 to launch Sponsel CPA Group.

They alleged Greenwalt Sponsel failed to pay money it owes them pursuant to the firm’s shareholder agreement and instead offered a discounted value for their stock ownership because they did not give 18 months' notice before they left.

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

The judge disagreed, granting Greenwalt’s motion to dismiss the claims.

“The contracts in this case are unambiguous,” Keele wrote. “They make clear what the parties intended in the event that a shareholder chose to leave [Greenwalt Sponsel], whether by resignation, retirement, or otherwise.”

Given the former partners' failure to give 18 months’ notice and their failure to abide by a non-compete clause, the judge reduced the value of their shares in Greenwalt Sponsel by 40 percent.

Greenwalt’s lawyer, David Herzog of Baker & Daniels LLP, said his client is pleased with the decision from Keele, who “carefully analyzed the contract documents and applied the law.”
 
Greenwalt Sponsel’s non-compete clause remained in effect for three years and required shareholders who left to pay the firm the entire amount of their billings for the 12 months prior to their departure.

The three partners who left Greenwalt Sponsel admitted they violated that provision, according to court documents, making them liable for damages to be determined at a future date.

They also must pay damages for violating their shareholder agreement, which prohibited them from hiring Greenwalt Sponsel employees. All told, Sponsel took 18 Greenwalt Sponsel staffers with him.

Under the shareholder agreement, the three are liable for damages equal to 25 percent of the annual salaries of the employees that left to join Sponsel.

In an e-mailed statement, Sponsel said the ongoing litigation only involves the three partners and not his new firm, Sponsel CPA Group.

“I will not be able to offer comments on the outcome to date until we have final resolution,” he said. “In the meantime, we are focusing our entire energies on providing excellent client service, something Sponsel CPA Group has done for the past two years.”

The judge ruled that Sponsel cannot collect retirement benefits from his former firm because he started Sponsel CPA Group the day after he left Greenwalt Sponsel on Sept. 1, 2009.

“The claim fails as a matter of law for the simple and obvious reason that Tom did not retire under the plain English meaning of the term,” the judge wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. It is nice and all that the developer grew up here and lives here, but do you think a company that builds and rehabs cottage-style homes has the chops to develop $150 Million of office, retail, and residential? I'm guessing they will quickly be over their skis and begging the city for even more help... This project should occur organically and be developed by those that can handle the size and scope of something like this as several other posters have mentioned.

  2. It amazes me how people with apparently zero knowledge of free markets or capitalism feel the need to read and post on a business journal website. Perhaps the Daily Worker would suit your interests better. It's definitely more sympathetic to your pro government theft views. It's too bad the Star is so awful as I'm sure you would find a much better home there.

  3. In other cities, expensive new construction projects are announced by real estate developers. In Carmel, they are announced by the local mayor. I am so, so glad I don't live in Carmel's taxbase--did you see that Carmel, a small Midwest suburb, has $500 million in debt?? That's unreal! The mayor thinks he's playing with Lego sets and Monopoly money here! Let these projects develop organically without government/taxpayer backing! Also, from a design standpoint, the whole town of Carmel looks comical. Grand, French-style buildings and promenades, sitting next to tire yards. Who do you guys think you are? Just my POV as a recent transplant to Indy.

  4. GeorgeP, you mention "necessities". Where in the announcement did it say anything about basic essentials like groceries? None of the plans and "vision" have basic essentials listed and nothing has been built. Traffic WILL be a nightmare. There is no east/west road capacity. GeorgeP, you also post on www.carmelchatter.com and your posts have repeatedly been proven wrong. You seem to have a fair amount of inside knowledge. Do you work on the third floor of Carmel City Hal?

  5. I don't know about the commuter buses...but it's a huge joke to see these IndyGo buses with just one or two passengers. Absolutely a disgusting waste of TAXPAYER money. Get some cojones and stop funding them. These (all of them) council members work for you. FIRE THEM!

ADVERTISEMENT