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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT