ILNews

Marsh defense: Travel was integral to company success

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Without membership in certain international business organizations, Don Marsh says he could not have built his grocery chain into a billion-dollar company.

His frequent trips overseas were so integral to the success of Marsh Supermarkets Inc., he claimed in testimony Thursday morning, that when his lawyer in his civil trial asked him to rate the meetings on a scale of 1 to 10, Marsh didn’t hesitate when replying “10.”

“I couldn’t have run the company without them,” he said.

Marsh’s testimony on cross-examination in his civil trial revealed part of his lawyers’ strategy to convince jurors that the frequent trips the former CEO of the locally based grocery chain took on the company jet were for business and not pleasure.

Marsh Supermarkets is suing Marsh, 75, alleging that he used company funds to pay more than $3 million in personal expenses during part of his time as CEO until after the company he led was acquired in 2006.

Don Marsh belonged to several global organizations, including the World Presidents Organization, Chief Executives Organization, World Economic Forum, American Arbitration Association and American Management Association.

One such organization took him to Berlin for a speech he gave in 1989 at the time the Berlin Wall fell, he told the jury.

While Marsh Supermarkets never operated stores outside of Indiana, Ohio or Illinois, Don Marsh traveled around the world to such wide-ranging destinations as Cuba, India, Libya, Russia and Venezuela in hopes that the Marsh brand could gain market share in those countries.

In Russia, for instance, Marsh private-label products were sold in Russian grocery stores for a short time until Don Marsh said he “pulled the plug” after he couldn’t compete with cheaper, Chinese projects.

Russia is where he met the director of the Russian ice ballet, with whom he had an affair. Marsh put her up in a New York City apartment as he considered sponsoring the tour in the United States.

When asked by his lawyer what bearing his physical relationship had on his idea to bring the ballet to the United States, Marsh replied: “None.”

The affair was one of four extra-marital relationships Marsh has admitted to during this week's ongoing testimony.

He also flew to Libya a handful of times in an attempt to open a distribution center in the country to serve “mom and pop” stores, he said. Marsh’s sale to Sun Capital Partners in 2006 interrupted the project, which Don Marsh said had the support of former U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar.

Florida-based Sun Capital Partners terminated Don Marsh’s contract “without cause” after it took over, then stopped paying his $4.2 million severance in early 2008, after it claims it discovered personal expenses charged to the company.   
 
Don Marsh is countersuing Sun Capital, claiming it still owes him about half of his severance.

Meanwhile, Don Marsh’s attorney, Andrew McNeil, presented evidence Thursday morning regarding the various condominiums either Don Marsh or the company owned or leased.

A rental agreement for a condominium in the Dominican Republican, documented in a 1996 company directors meeting, showed the condo registered to the company.

Marsh said he used it as motivation for employees who “hit certain incentives” to vacation there. He also would take workers, as well as customers, who won contests, on cruises to tropical destinations such as Tahiti.

Less glamorous were plane flights to his condo in Saugatuck, Mich., along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, where he would take various employees every year to pick their brains about the company in a relaxed atmosphere.
 

The IBJ is a sister publicatio 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. 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