ILNews

Witnesses: Don Marsh’s expenses never questioned

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers for Don Marsh continue to hammer home their claims that the former supermarket CEO's expenses for lavish travel were widely accepted as normal business costs.

Defense witnesses Mark Varner and Steve May, two top-level accounting executives who worked at Marsh Supermarkets Inc., both testified Thursday in federal court in Indianapolis that company directors and other executives knew about its executive vouchers program.

The so-called e-voucher system has been closely scrutinized by lawyers of Marsh Supermarkets, which is suing Don Marsh in an attempt to recover more than $3 million in company funds it says the former CEO spent on travel, gifts and meals.

May, who served as Marsh Supermarkets’ director of internal controls from January 2003 to December 2006 — about the time Florida-based Sun Capital Partners bought the company — said he learned of the e-voucher system from then-CFO Doug Elbin.

Although May recounted that Elbin described it as a “secret accounts system,” Elbin also said it shouldn’t be a “huge concern” to May because the corporate controller knew about it.

Varner was Marsh Supermarkets’ corporate controller from 1991 until he retired in 2007 after a 36-year career at the company. Varner told jurors he actually reported to Elbin and Doug Dougherty, another CFO, during Varner’s tenure.

When one of Don Marsh’s lawyers, Jonathan Mays, asked Varner whether he was aware of the e-voucher system, he replied: “absolutely, yes.”

Varner said he first became aware of the system in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Much of Don Marsh’s defense rests on his assertions that he submitted his business expenses for reimbursement within the system for many years while paying personal expenses out of his own pocket.

Lawyers for Marsh Supermarkets maintain he used it as an accounting maneuver to hide his lavish spending.

The invoices “demanded some confidentiality,” Varner said, because the expenses might contain business secrets not to be seen by general accounting clerks.

Instead, Karen Workman, Marsh’s director of accounting until 2008, handled most of the invoices, Varner said. She testified Wednesday that higher-ranking company executives approved the expenses.

Varner said that as many as 35 to 40 company directors and executives might have had their expenses paid through the e-voucher system to ensure that confidentiality.

Varner told jurors he provided e-voucher documentation to outside auditors, who, “not to my knowledge,” ever questioned the expenses.

Charles R. Clark, a Muncie attorney and former Marsh board member who approved some of Don Marsh’s expense reports, testified that he also relied on the company’s auditors to voice concerns about expenses.

“I didn’t hear anything, so I didn’t react,” he said, when asked on cross-examination whether he drew any conclusions from a lack of auditor concerns.

Scott Sorensen, a former senior manager at Ernst & Young LLP, Marsh Supermarkets’ auditor at the time, testified Wednesday during cross-examination that it’s not an auditor’s responsibility to detect fraud.

Varner further told jurors that he was involved in due diligence activities leading up to Marsh Supermarkets’ sale in September 2006 to Sun Capital. During the process, he provided the private-equity firm with “volumes” of reports detailing Don Marsh’s travel and entertainment expenses.

He testified that Sun Capital never raised concerns about Marsh’s treating his travel costs as business expenses.

May later told jurors that, as the sale of Sun Capital approached, he was tasked by Dougherty to summarize in a report the contents of e-voucher documents for the fiscal years 2005 and 2006.

May presented his findings to Marsh Supermarkets' audit committee, in which he said the firm's internal financial control system showed “significant deficiencies.”

He described the system to jurors as “average” to “below average.” He maintained that the company’s CFO is charged with establishing internal controls.

On cross-examination, however, he admitted that Don Marsh and his son David Marsh, the company’s former president and chief operating officer, also shared in the responsibility.

“Between the CEO and the CFO, you would expect the CEO to contribute more to the tone at the top of the company,” Ryan Hurley, a lawyer for Marsh Supermarkets, asked May during cross examination.

“Yes,” replied May.

The defense expects to rest its case Thursday afternoon, which would leave closing arguments and jury instructions for Friday morning. The jury could get the case as soon as mid-morning Friday.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  2. Low energy. Next!

  3. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  4. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

  5. GMA Ranger, I, too, was warned against posting on how the Ind govt was attempting to destroy me professionally, and visit great costs and even destitution upon my family through their processing. No doubt the discussion in Indy today is likely how to ban me from this site (I expect I soon will be), just as they have banned me from emailing them at the BLE and Office of Bar Admission and ADA coordinator -- or, if that fails, whether they can file a complaint against my Kansas or SCOTUS law license for telling just how they operate and offering all of my files over the past decade to any of good will. The elitist insiders running the Hoosier social control mechanisms realize that knowledge and a unified response will be the end of their unjust reign. They fear exposure and accountability. I was banned for life from the Indiana bar for questioning government processing, that is, for being a whistleblower. Hoosier whistleblowers suffer much. I have no doubt, Gma Ranger, of what you report. They fear us, but realize as long as they keep us in fear of them, they can control us. Kinda like the kids' show Ants. Tyrannical governments the world over are being shaken by empowered citizens. Hoosiers dealing with The Capitol are often dealing with tyranny. Time to rise up: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/17/governments-struggling-to-retain-trust-of-citizens-global-survey-finds Back to the Founders! MAGA!

ADVERTISEMENT