ILNews

Sun Capital execs 'shocked' by Marsh financials

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Any feelings of satisfaction that executives of Sun Capital Partners had after completing its acquisition of Marsh Supermarkets Inc. quickly turned to “shock and surprise,” a managing director of the private-equity firm told jurors Tuesday.

Sun Capital bought the locally based supermarket chain in 2006 and began paying longtime CEO Don Marsh a $4.2 million severance after the two parties agreed he would no longer remain with the business.

But Marsh Supermarkets, under the direction of Sun Capital, stopped paying Marsh after it says it discovered millions of dollars of travel expenses, some related to visits to mistresses, that he billed to the company.

Marsh’s trips, many of them via the company jet, are at the crux of a civil lawsuit brought by the supermarket chain. It accuses him of using company funds to pay more than $3 million in personal expenses. Marsh, 75, spent 38 years leading the public company before Sun bought it.

“We said, ‘This can’t be true that this went on,’” recalled Scott King, a managing director of Sun Capital. ‘What do we do?’”

What Marsh Supermarkets did was terminate its agreement with Don Marsh about 18 months after the sale, paying him just half his severance. After Marsh Supermarkets sued Don Marsh in federal court in 2009, he countersued, asserting the company improperly halted his post-retirement payouts in 2008.

The decision to halt payment weighed on Marsh Supermarkets, which spent more than a year investigating the company’s finances while worrying about any backlash it might suffer from bad press.

At the time, the iconic chain, founded by Don Marsh’s father in 1931, had more than 100 stores in Indiana, Illinois and Ohio. Moreover, Marsh was one of Indiana’s highest-profile executives for decades and frequently appeared in the company’s TV advertising.

“His last name’s on the building,” King said. “It could harm the business from a PR standpoint to have this out in the papers.”

Marsh Supermarkets ultimately chose to attempt to recoup the expenses from Marsh in court, because “it was not his money to spend; it was the shareholders',” King said.

Sun Capital, which specializes in acquiring companies with $50 million to $500 million in annual revenue, previously had not acquired a company as large as Marsh.

During cross-examination of King, Andrew McNeil, Don Marsh’s lawyer, questioned whether the acquisition was too big for Sun Capital. It took several months for the deal to close, rather than the 30 days it typically takes the private-equity firm to conclude a purchase.

Without Sun Capital, Marsh Supermarkets likely would have ended up in bankruptcy, King said. A former Marsh CFO told jurors Friday that he sought out bankruptcy lawyers for advice.

Sun Capital replaced Don Marsh with Frank Lazaran, a veteran supermarket executive who arrived to a CEO's office devoid of documents or files. He testified via deposition Tuesday that he didn’t understand Marsh Supermarkets’ e-voucher system used to track Don Marsh’s expenses.

“I'd never seen anything like it,” Lazaran said in his deposition.

Attorneys for Don Marsh defend the expenses, saying they were within the boundaries of his employment contract. And they say his extensive travels were justified to promote the company and stay on top of trends in food retailing.

Also testifying Tuesday morning was Patrick Calhoun, a former IRS special agent hired by the supermarket chain to look into Don Marsh's expenses from 1999 to 2006 and determine whether they were "ordinary and necessary."

Among the discoveries he discussed on the stand:

— $927,210 in "non-deductible outings" that were improperly expensed. Examples include taxidermy services and hunting licenses.

— $804,141 in costs for personal use of the company airplane, versus $906,997 for business use. After reviewing aircraft records, Calhoun determined that 47 percent of the flights were for personal business, far more than the 10 percent that Don Marsh reported.

Lawyers for Marsh Supermarkets are expected to wrap up their case against Don Marsh on Tuesday afternoon and could call David Marsh, Don Marsh’s son, as their last witness. David worked under his father as company president.

Marsh Supermarkets launched a legal fight against David in 2006 after he sued the company, alleging it shorted him $102,000 on his $2.1 million severance package. The company shot back that he had used the company “as his personal checkbook,” submitting expenses from family trips, and must repay more than $750,000. The parties reached a confidential settlement in 2007.

Don Marsh’s trial is expected to last two weeks and should conclude Friday.
 

Originally published in IBJ Daily, a sister publication 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 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