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

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. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT