Federal Judge Rejects Marsh’s Attempt for Temporary Restraining Order Against Former Employees

A federal judge has rejected a request from Marsh for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against seven former employees who have left the company and joined Howden US. This case is one of several ongoing lawsuits filed by Marsh against defectors who left the company to work for the newly launched Howden US retail broking business.

Earlier this month, Marsh USA filed a lawsuit against a group of former senior employees in Marsh’s Florida office, who are now working for Howden US. Howden US, which began its operations in September, is a newly established retail broking business in the United States. Marsh has accused its former employees of breaching various employee contracts, using trade secrets, and unlawfully poaching clients.

Related: Marsh Takes Legal Action Against More Ex-Employees Over Alleged ‘Scheme’ to Join Howden US

On November 19, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the Southern District Court of New York ruled against Marsh’s request for a temporary restraining order, denying the company’s motion. This decision comes amid an ongoing investigation into the involvement of these former employees in what Marsh has referred to as a “covert scheme” to solicit clients and workers to join Howden US.

In addition to this case, Marsh is also pursuing legal action against Howden US CEO Michael Parrish and former Marsh employees Giselle Lugones, Robert Lynn, and Julie Layton. Earlier this year, in September, Marsh was granted a preliminary injunction in a separate case, barring Parrish, Lugones, Lynn, and Layton from soliciting Marsh employees or clients, or using any confidential information or trade secrets belonging to Marsh.

The case against the seven former employees remains ongoing, with a hearing scheduled for February to further examine their roles in the alleged scheme.

March McLennan Agency has also filed a separate lawsuit against its former head of specialty marine in St. Louis, accusing him of breaching his contract and causing damage to the agency’s business interests.

Leave a Comment