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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT