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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT