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. I took Bruce's comments to highlight a glaring issue when it comes to a state's image, and therefore its overall branding. An example is Michigan vs. Indiana. Michigan has done an excellent job of following through on its branding strategy around "Pure Michigan", even down to the detail of the rest stops. Since a state's branding is often targeted to visitors, it makes sense that rest stops, being that point of first impression, should be significant. It is clear that Indiana doesn't care as much about the impression it gives visitors even though our branding as the Crossroads of America does place importance on travel. Bruce's point is quite logical and accurate.

  2. I appreciated the article. I guess I have become so accustomed to making my "pit stops" at places where I can ALSO get gasoline and something hot to eat, that I hardly even notice public rest stops anymore. That said, I do concur with the rationale that our rest stops (if we are to have them at all) can and should be both fiscally-responsible AND designed to make a positive impression about our state.

  3. I don't know about the rest of you but I only stop at these places for one reason, and it's not to picnic. I move trucks for dealers and have been to rest areas in most all 48 lower states. Some of ours need upgrading no doubt. Many states rest areas are much worse than ours. In the rest area on I-70 just past Richmond truckers have to hike about a quarter of a mile. When I stop I;m generally in a bit of a hurry. Convenience,not beauty, is a primary concern.

  4. Community Hospital is the only system to not have layoffs? That is not true. Because I was one of the people who was laid off from East. And all of the LPN's have been laid off. Just because their layoffs were not announced or done all together does not mean people did not lose their jobs. They cherry-picked people from departments one by one. But you add them all up and it's several hundred. And East has had a dramatic drop I in patient beds from 800 to around 125. I know because I worked there for 30 years.

  5. I have obtained my 6 gallon badge for my donation of A Positive blood. I'm sorry to hear that my donation was nothing but a profit center for the Indiana Blood Center.

ADVERTISEMENT