ILNews

Decision could come soon on Don Marsh severance claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Don Marsh shouldn’t have to wait long to find out if he can collect his entire $4 million severance or whether he’ll have to return the portion he’s already received from Marsh Supermarkets Inc.

That issue will be decided by Judge Sarah Evans Barker, who presided over the two-week civil trial that saw a federal jury return a $2.2 million judgment against the company’s former CEO.

The late-Friday verdict followed a nearly three-year court battle brought by locally based Marsh Supermarkets, which claimed Don Marsh, 75, used the company as a personal checkbook to finance his global travels and trysts with several mistresses.

Now that the trial is over and the facts have been presented, Barker shouldn’t take long to rule on the countersuit, Don Marsh’s attorney, Andrew McNeil, said Monday morning.

“The issue in front of Judge Barker is one the parties have addressed a few times in the case, so we anticipate a ruling coming fairly soon,” he said.

Barker’s decision will be critical for Don Marsh, who could end up owing his former company as much as $4.2 million if he is forced to give back the portion of his severance he’s already received.

On top of that, Don Marsh revealed during the trial that he owes the Internal Revenue Service more than $500,000 in back taxes.

The company paid him roughly $2 million in severance before halting payments after it said an IRS audit found “disallowed deductions” for personal expenses he racked up from April 2004 to September 2006. The company ultimately paid the IRS a $616,000 penalty.

Don Marsh's attorneys insisted the trips were business-related and within the bounds of his employment contract, prompting the former CEO to countersue the supermarket chain. He claims the company wrongfully halted severance payments following its sale to Sun Capital Partners in September 2006, shorting him $2 million.

Jeff Mallamad, co-chairman of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP’s labor and employment practice, said the decision will depend on the terms of the contract.

“There can be terms in the contract to give the company the right to cease payments,” said Mallamad, who is not involved in the case. “It could be a 'high crimes and misdemeanors' kind of standard.”

On the other hand, Mallamad expects Don Marsh’s lawyers to argue that the contract doesn’t allow the company to cancel payments and that the company’s board had every opportunity to review his expenses.

McNeil indeed insisted several times during the trial that Marsh Supermarkets’ directors reviewed Don Marsh's expenses and approved them for inclusion in the company’s annual reports.

“We certainly believe in our position, but it’s ultimately up to Judge Barker,” McNeil said. “We’ll just have to wait and see.”

The nine-member jury found Friday that Marsh committed breach of contract and fraud, but stopped short of delivering Marsh Supermarkets a total victory.

Although the grocery chain had asked for $1.6 million to cover expenses and penalties related to the IRS audit that focused on Don Marsh's expenses, the jury awarded the company half that amount, saying it shared responsibility.

Besides the $2.1 million in severance Marsh Supermarkets also is hoping to recover, the company believes it’s entitled to $1.8 million in life insurance policy premiums paid on Marsh's behalf.

“Obviously, the jury’s decisions that Mr. Marsh breached his contract and committed fraud are helpful as we go forward in the case to address the ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] issues,” said David Herzog, one of Marsh Supermarkets’ lawyers.
 

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