ILNews

Former Marsh CFO sought out bankruptcy lawyers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former top executive of Marsh Supermarkets Inc. became so concerned about the company’s deteriorating finances less than a decade ago that he took the desperate step of meeting with bankruptcy lawyers.

Doug Dougherty, a key witness in the civil trial of former CEO Don Marsh and Marsh's former chief financial officer, testified Friday morning that his warnings of possible financial collapse largely went ignored by his boss at the time.

“I was getting more calls from vendors that had some concern about our ability to pay,” Dougherty said.

Dougherty began receiving calls from vendors in late 2004 and early 2005, about a year-and-a-half before Florida-based Sun Capital Partners acquired the locally based supermarket chain. Marsh Supermarkets says Don Marsh continued to treat the company as his personal checkbook even after the CFO warned of financial problems.

Marsh Supermarkets accuses the former CEO of using company funds to pay more than $3 million in personal expenses. Marsh, 75, spent 38 years leading the public company before it was purchased by Sun Capital.

Dougherty told jurors he expressed his concerns about the company’s finances to Marsh, who reassured him “not to worry about it” because Marsh Supermarkets is in “better financial shape than he knows.”

Don Marsh testified Wednesday that he didn’t agree with company directors that the company was in financial distress.

“Some people felt that way,” Marsh said. “I didn’t.”

But Dougherty said Friday that he became increasingly worried because the company planned to refinance a line of credit and he didn’t believe it would qualify for satisfactory financing terms if it was performing poorly.

Dougherty had served as the company’s CFO since 1994 and was a veteran accountant who previously held similar positions at several other companies, including Topeka, Kan.-based Payless Shoesource Inc.

His relationship was often rocky with Don Marsh, who thought Dougherty’s business style was “too conservative,” he told jurors.

“There was a lot of conflict,” Dougherty testified. “You wouldn’t know if you were dealing with a rational businessman. He threatened to fire me many times.”

Don Marsh did just that in May 2005, when he told Dougherty he needed to be gone by the time Marsh returned from a five-day trip. Dougherty said Marsh never gave him a reason.

Earlier in the trial, Don Marsh told jurors: “I felt like he wasn’t performing the way I thought he should.”

After his replacement quit, however, Dougherty returned to Marsh Supermarkets in December 2005. At the time, Marsh was a $1.7 billion company with more than 115 grocery stores and 160 Village Pantry gas stations.

David Herzog, Marsh Supermarkets' lawyer, asked Dougherty why he would want to return seven months after being fired.

“I knew losing two CFOs in that time would be very difficult for a company to get terms from vendors, and there were 10,000 jobs on the line of people I liked,” Dougherty responded.

Before his firing, directors of Marsh Supermarkets in June 2004 signed off on a company code of conduct following federal passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a high-profile law which mandates that top management of public companies certify the accuracy of financial information.

But jurors learned earlier in the trial that Marsh continued to use the company jet for personal reasons, including numerous extramarital affairs, even after his company adopted the code of conduct to discourage financial fraud within the company.

Marsh testified Thursday that he’s “always been open and honest with the company.”

Dougherty, however, said Friday that the code of conduct was never publicized within the company because “my understanding was that Mr. Marsh didn’t want to widely distribute” it.

Lawyers for Don Marsh began cross-examining Dougherty early Friday afternoon.

On Thursday, Don Marsh’s lawyer revealed he owes more than $500,000 in federal taxes from an IRS audit that found "disallowed deductions" for personal expenses he racked up from April 2004 to September 2006.

The trial, which began Monday, is expected to last another week.
 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT