ILNews

Marsh wins $19.5M judgment against Roche

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Hamilton Superior judge has awarded Marsh Supermarkets Inc. a total of $19.5 million in damages in a soured sublease deal with Swiss pharmaceutical- and medical-equipment-maker Roche.

The final judgment, entered Monday by Judge William Hughes following a bench trial in early October, includes nearly $1.4 million in attorney fees to be paid to Marsh’s Indianapolis-based law firm, Lewis Wagner LLP.

Marsh’s multimillion-dollar award stems from a breach of contract lawsuit it filed in July 2008 to enforce a deal with Roche Diagnostics Corp. to sublease the local supermarket chain’s entire 148,000-square-foot-headquarters in Fishers.

The deal, worth more than $47 million over 18 years, would have been one of the largest of its kind in central Indiana.

Roche, which has its North American headquarters and 2,800 employees spread over several buildings along Interstate 69 near East 96th Street, announced the lease of Marsh’s headquarters in March 2008 but backed out in late May of that year.

The abrupt reversal was a shock to Marsh, which had vacated most of the building, and Roche employees already were moving in and conducting meetings in the auditorium, the lawsuit claimed.

But Roche said it had a right to terminate the deal because Marsh failed to deliver certain documents, including a so-called subtenant non-disturbance agreement – standard paperwork that protects sublease tenants in many of the same ways primary tenants are protected.

Roche spokeswoman Betsy Cox said the company plans to appeal the decision.

“Roche’s corporate policy is to conduct business in a fair and ethical manner and the company believes it was acting in accordance with the terms of the contract when it terminated the sublease,” she said in an email.

Big changes were afoot at Roche the month it canceled the sublease deal. On May 5, 2008, the company said it would transfer 300 local jobs to Germany. Later that month, North American CEO Tiffany Olson resigned abruptly. Roche’s Asia-Pacific chief, Michael Tillmann, took over the local post about a week before the firm told Marsh it was pulling out of the deal.

Tillmann, who resigned as CEO in January 2010, wanted to terminate the agreement with Marsh to give the company more flexibility if he decided to move Roche out of Indianapolis, according to court documents.

In his decision, Hughes said Roche had no right to terminate the sublease and found that Marsh and Roche signed a “valid and enforceable” agreement on March 28, 2008.

A spokesman for Marsh said the company is pleased with the judge’s decision.

Marsh’s losses resulting from the termination through November 2026, the span of the original lease with Roche, totaled $47.1 million, the judge said.

He reduced damages to nearly $18.2 million because Marsh is using 20,000 square feet of space in the building, in addition to a sublease the grocer signed in June 2011 with First Advantage Background Services Corp. for 44,200 square feet.

Including attorney fees, the judgment totals more than $19.5 million.

Marsh moved its headquarters from Yorktown after it built the four-story building in the Crosspoint commercial park in 1991. The company has since moved several employees to offices at its warehouses on Franklin Road in Indianapolis and in Yorktown.

 

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT