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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT