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

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