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

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. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT