ILNews

Jury selected in Marsh civil trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Don Marsh will have a lot of explaining to do about millions of dollars in expenses he charged to Marsh Supermarkets during a two-week civil trial that got underway Monday morning.

Court proceedings began in downtown Indianapolis with U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker giving court instructions to a pool of about 50 potential jurors. Attorneys selected five men and four women from the pool for the nine-person jury before breaking for lunch.

The locally based grocery chain alleges that Marsh tapped corporate coffers to pay more than $3 million in personal expenses from at least the late 1980s until new owners ousted him in 2006.

Among the examples cited in court records:

• $1,000 for two pairs of boots he gave to a hunting trip guide and the guide’s girlfriend.

• $5,960 for four Indianapolis Colts season tickets.

• Use of the corporate plane to fly to the Dominican Republic with three female employees, one of their sisters and his driver on a trip that included a $325 dinner and a $295 round of golf.

• Rent for a mistress’s New York apartment.

Attorneys for Don Marsh defend the expenses, saying they were within the boundaries of his employment contract. And they say his extensive travels were justified to promote his company and stay on top of the trends in food retailing.

Marsh, 74, was one of Indiana’s highest-profile executives for decades. He served as CEO for 38 years and frequently appeared in the company’s TV advertising.

His attorneys aim to persuade the jury it’s the company that did wrong. After Marsh Supermarkets sued him in federal court in 2009, he countersued, asserting the company improperly halted his post-retirement payouts in 2008 and owes him millions of dollars.

Attorneys for the two sides have lined up dozens of witnesses and hundreds of pieces of evidence. Among those expected to testify are executives and board members of the company before its 2006 sale to Sun Capital Partners. Sun, which paid $88 million in cash and assumed $237 million debt, slashed expenses and installed a new board after the deal closed.

David Herzog, a partner at Faegre Baker Daniels representing the company, declined to comment. But in briefs filed over the past three years, the company paints Don Marsh as a gallivanting, philandering businessman who liberally used corporate money at his leisure.

“Mr. Marsh had a fiduciary duty to deal with the Company fairly, openly, and honestly,” one recent filing says. “He breached that duty over and over. He committed deception by misrepresenting information regarding his expenses and use of the Company plane.”

In all, the company is seeking $7 million — $3.4 million in improper expenses, $2 million in payments he received after leaving the company, and $1.6 million for fees and reimbursement for an IRS penalty stemming from his questionable expenditures.

Don Marsh’s attorneys argue he legitimately spent corporate money as he traveled for business and promoted the company.

“First and foremost, Don didn’t commit fraud or breach his contract,” said Andrew McNeil, a partner at Bose McKinney & Evans.

In addition, McNeil argues the company violated federal labor law by dodging the severance pay mandated in the CEO’s employment contract.

He argues the company waived its right to cancel retirement payouts when it terminated him “without cause” in September 2006.

While the parties can argue the facts surrounding Don Marsh’s expenses, it’s beyond debate that the company must honor the employment agreement, McNeil said.

“No matter what the facts are, we still win because of these legal issues,” he said.

Spending spree

Company documents filed in court show that, as Marsh prepped itself for sale in 2005, board members began questioning the CEO’s expenses and launched an internal investigation.

After they started to learn the extent of reimbursements, “I went ballistic,” board member Steve Huse said in a deposition filed in court.

The company estimates in its lawsuit that Marsh took 115 trips from 2000 to 2006 and his wife went on at least 100. Grocery vendors, such as Coca-Cola and Tyson, often covered part of the bill for trips, which included sojourns to the Olympics, Wimbledon and Alaska for hunting.

Marsh justified the expenses by noting his involvement with groups such as the Paris-based Centre for Food Trade and Industry, where he served as president.

Marsh Supermarkets says it initially didn’t fire Don Marsh because its investigation was in progress when the sale to Sun closed. The company argues it wasn’t until later that it concluded he had breached his employment agreement, triggering the halt to severance payments.

What to expect

The jury is expected to hear testimony from almost 40 witnesses. They range from company administrative assistants and board members to Don Marsh and Don’s son David, who worked under his father as president.

Marsh Supermarkets launched a legal assault on David in 2006 after he sued the company, alleging it shorted him $102,000 on his $2.1 million severance package. The company shot back that he had used the company “as his personal checkbook,” had expensed family trips to Africa and New Zealand, and must repay more than $750,000. The parties reached a confidential settlement in 2007.

David Marsh has gone to great lengths — to no avail — to avoid assisting the company with its case against Don Marsh.

David’s attorney, Linda Cooley, a partner at Krieg DeVault, persuaded a federal magistrate in 2011 that the company should not be allowed to depose David because it had an “inside advantage.” However, the magistrate reversed himself later that year.

Then, in late 2012, Marsh left the continental United States.

Attorneys tried to deliver a subpoena for his trial appearance to his Fishers home 19 times starting in November but learned he was in Hawaii and did not plan to return until at least March.

Herzog, of Faegre Baker Daniels, claimed Marsh was trying to avoid the subpoena, and sought a bench warrant that would have brought him back to the mainland.

A warrant proved not to be necessary because the day after attorneys applied for one, Marsh agreed to come back to Indiana to testify in person under the condition the company paid for his air fare.

Cooley said in an email to IBJ her client still intends to appear during the trial.

She denied Herzog’s claim that David Marsh was trying to avoid a subpoena.

“David and his family have been, and still are, in Hawaii on a trip and his absence from Indiana had nothing to do with the Marsh Supermarkets v. Don Marsh trial,” she said.•
 

The IBJ is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.

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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT