ILNews

Marsh Supermarkets, former CEO spar over attorney fees

Scott Olson
September 12, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The years-long legal spat between Don Marsh and the company he once led appeared to have concluded this summer, but has now turned to attorney fees and who’s paying the million-dollar bills.

In court documents, attorneys for Marsh and Marsh Supermarkets Inc. each have submitted expenses totaling roughly $1.7 million and are seeking reimbursement from the other. The requests have drawn sharp rebukes from both sides.

“Neither the court nor the company can determine without discovery the extent to which Mr. Marsh’s request is over-inclusive,” lawyers for Marsh Supermarkets wrote in a Sept. 3 court document. “But the fact that it is over-inclusive is apparent on the face of the request.”

The argument over attorney fees marks the latest dispute in the four-year federal court battle in which Don Marsh won a partial victory.

In July, Judge Sarah Evans Barker issued an order allowing him to keep nearly $2.2 million in severance paid by Marsh Supermarkets, which had attempted to recover the payments from its former CEO.

However, Marsh ended up losing nearly the same amount on another issue. Barker's order followed a two-week civil trial in February after which a federal jury ordered Marsh to pay the local grocery chain $2.2 million, finding that he used company money to finance global travels to entertain mistresses and other unnecessary personal expenses.

Many of the arguments presented by both sides involved the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, a federal law governing pension plans. Marsh’s victory on his ERISA claim for his severance also is at the crux of the fight over attorney fees.

Barker found that Marsh can recover attorney fees relating to his ERISA claims. But she also determined that the company can recover fees relating to non-ERISA claims.

Lawyers for Don Marsh argue that because the ERISA- and non-ERISA-related issues flow from the same set of facts presented at trial, “all fees and expenses in this case are ERISA-related.”

Marsh Supermarkets strongly disagrees.

“It was not his prerogative to say, ‘Here is just about everything’ and then leave it to the court and the company to try to determine from his supporting records what was attributable to ERISA and what was not,” company lawyers wrote.

Conversely, Marsh Supermarkets is asking Marsh to pay its $1.7 million attorney bill for costs relating to only the non-ERISA claims that it succeeded in proving during the trial.

Marsh argues that there’s no legal basis to award the company attorney fees.

“The plain language of the ERISA plan leaves the court with a ‘straightforward’ task that is ‘not a matter of discretion’ when it grants Mr. Marsh his attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs but makes no provision for the company,” Don Marsh’s lawyers wrote in a Sept. 9 court filing.

Marsh Supermarkets is represented by David Herzog of Faegre Baker Daniels and Don Marsh by Andrew McNeil of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP. Both declined to comment on the fee dispute.

The fight between the two erupted in 2009, when Marsh Supermarkets sued Marsh in federal court. He countersued, asserting the company improperly withheld his post-retirement payouts in 2008 and still owed him about $2.1 million.

Marsh left the company he had led since the late 1960s following its purchase in September 2006 by Sun Capital Partners, a Florida private equity firm.

Marsh Supermarkets stopped the severance payments after it said an Internal Revenue Service audit found “disallowed deductions” for personal expenses he racked up from April 2004 to September 2006. The company ultimately paid the IRS a $616,000 penalty.

The nine-member jury in February found that Marsh committed breach of contract and fraud, but stopped short of delivering Marsh Supermarkets a total victory.

Although the grocery chain asked for $1.6 million to cover expenses and penalties related to the IRS audit, the jury awarded the company half that amount on its fraud claim, saying it shared responsibility. The jury also awarded the company $1.4 million on its breach-of-contract claim.

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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT