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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT