This week, a federal judge handed Marsh a decisive courtroom victory, granting its request to bar a group of former employees now at Howden US from using confidential company information, recruiting additional Marsh staff, or pursuing its current and prospective clients.
In a sharply worded opinion and order, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that Marsh “has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits of at least some of its claims,” signaling that its breach-of-contract case carries real legal weight—and is far from over.
Last November, Marsh USA filed suit against seven former senior employees—Alfred Gronovius, Andrea Amodeo, Carlos Serio, Giovanni Perez, Janette Wilcox, Nathan Collins, and Richard Lennerth—alleging they orchestrated a coordinated scheme to walk out the door with trade secrets, confidential information, and client relationships.
All had been senior leaders in Marsh’s Florida region. Together, they departed for Howden US, the newly launched U.S. retail broking arm of Howden—raising the stakes in an already intensifying legal battle.
Before filing the latest complaint, Marsh had already taken legal action against Michael Parrish—named CEO of Howden US—along with Giselle Lugones, Robert Lynn, and Julie Layton.
In that earlier case, the court granted Marsh a preliminary injunction last September, a significant early win. According to the most recent court filings, Marsh presented evidence that Lugones had created a detailed “playbook” designed to recruit Marsh employees—an allegation that added fuel to an already high-stakes corporate showdown.
In her Feb. 24 ruling, U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon found that Marsh had met its burden for a preliminary injunction—except for one key point. She declined to bar the group from servicing clients who had already moved their business from Marsh to Howden US.
Judge Rochon also addressed Marsh’s request for the return of company property, noting that the firm had not presented evidence showing the defendants actually possessed any Marsh materials—an omission that narrowed the scope of the court’s order but left the broader dispute very much alive.
Nevertheless, Rochen said “Marsh has shown that it will suffer irreparable harm absent its requested injunctive relief,” and “has shown that it is at risk of suffering irreparable harm from the solicitation of its employees and the solicitation and servicing of its clients.” Marsh presented evidence that Serio and Gronovius solicited clients after leaving the broker, and that Marsh clients and employees continue to move to Howden, the court ruled.
The court ruled that Gronovius, Amodeo, Serio, Wilcox, and Collins are barred—for one year from the date of their resignation from Marsh—from soliciting Marsh employees or contacting any Marsh staff whose confidential information they accessed during the previous two years.
The restriction sends a clear message: the boundaries around employee poaching and the use of sensitive internal information will be enforced—and closely watched.
The court also ordered that Gronovius, Serio, and Perez are prohibited—for one year—from soliciting or servicing clients of Marsh. The restriction specifically applies to any clients whose confidential information they accessed during the preceding two years.
In effect, the ruling draws a firm line around client relationships and proprietary data—signaling that the court is prepared to step in when competitive moves cross into protected territory.
The court made its position unmistakable: all defendants are strictly prohibited from using or disclosing any confidential information belonging to Marsh—and they must return all such materials within 21 days.
The directive leaves little room for ambiguity, underscoring that sensitive corporate information is not a bargaining chip in a competitive exit.
Howden declined to comment on the court’s order, offering no public response as the legal battle continues to unfold.
