ILNews

Jury to begin deliberating in Don Marsh trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A jury is expected to begin deliberating Friday afternoon whether Don Marsh owes Marsh Supermarkets Inc. more than $3 million in personal expenses he allegedly charged the company while he was CEO.

Closing arguments were scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday, but were pushed back to 11:30 a.m. after a lengthy closed-door conference between U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker and attorneys representing the former chief and the locally based chain.

The company filed a civil lawsuit against Marsh in April 2009, claiming he used the company as a personal checkbook to finance global travels and trysts with mistresses. Flights on the company jet included several trips to New York City and Smyrna, Tenn., to visit two of the five mistresses that Don Marsh, 75, admitted to during the two-week trial.

The trial began Feb. 4 in federal court in Indianapolis.

His dirty laundry was aired as his wife, Marilyn, sat in the courtroom during much of the proceedings.

Marsh Supermarkets lawyers have attempted to convince the jury that Don Marsh spent $3.3 million in company money for personal entertainment with no real benefit to the business.

Don Marsh’s attorneys, on the other hand, painted the veteran CEO as a networking master who traveled the globe in hopes of bringing more business to Marsh Supermarkets.

Sun Capital Partners purchased Marsh Supermarkets in September 2006 and directed the grocery to file suit after an investigation into company finances uncovered what it considered lavish spending by the former CEO.

Central to Marsh Supermarkets’ case is a report compiled by Patrick Calhoun, a former Internal Revenue Service agent, highlighting the $3.3 million in spending.

Among the expenses listed:

—$927,210 in nondeductible outings.

—$804,141 in company plane costs.

—$625,775 in Marsh family travel.

—$397,616 in professional organization costs.

—$315,451 in professional services.

On Thursday, lawyers for Don Marsh called a veteran tax adviser as an expert witness to refute Calhoun’s report.

Wayne Hoeing, who joined Clifton Larson Allen LLP in 2010 following a 24-year career at Ernst & Young LLP, attempted to discredit the findings by claiming that Calhoun used the wrong tax code to calculate the expenses.

At one point, Jonathan Mays, a lawyer for Don Marsh, asked Hoeing whether it mattered if an annual Marsh Christmas card was sent by the family of Don Marsh or Marsh Supermarkets. Company lawyers claim Don Marsh needlessly spent Marsh Supermarkets’ money to fly family members to Indianapolis annually for a Christmas card photo.

Hoeing said it did not matter.

“I grew up watching Mr. Marsh on television commercials,” he said. “It’s not too hard to equate Mr. Marsh with Marsh Supermarkets.”

Indeed, Don Marsh was one of Indiana’s highest-profile executives for decades and frequently appeared in the company’s TV advertising.

Don Marsh’s father founded the company in 1931 and took it public in 1953. He died in 1959 in a plane crash.

The younger Marsh, a graduate of Michigan State University, became a director of the company in 1960 and rose to president in 1968. He became CEO in 1980, a title he retained until Sun Capital took the company private with its purchase in 2006.

Sun Capital began paying Marsh $4.2 million in severance but only paid half after it discovered the millions of dollars of what it considered personal expenses charged to the company. Marsh is countersuing Marsh Supermarkets in an attempt to receive his full severance.

Upon its sale, Marsh Supermarkets had $1.7 billion in annual revenue and more than 100 stores in Indiana, Illinois and Ohio.
 
 

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