IBJNews

Don Marsh to keep $2.2M severance from grocery chain

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Don Marsh has won a partial victory in his four-year federal court battle with the company that he once led.

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

The order stems from 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.

If Barker's Monday ruling had gone against Don Marsh, he could have ended up owing his former company as much as $4.4 million if he was forced to give back the portion of his severance he’s already received.

Andrew McNeil, an attorney representing Don Marsh, said his client is pleased with the judge's interpretation of his employment contract. But “he’s sad and disappointed that it played out publicly when his passion has always been groceries and the grocery business."

An attorney for the supermarket chain could not be reached Tuesday morning.

Don Marsh’s missteps have become public knowledge, Barker wrote in her order, but she said company directors charged with supervising him undoubtedly fell asleep at the wheel.

“The unavoidable post-trial hurdle for the company is that the company wrote the plan it now asks the court to retroactively administer in a way that alters its terms to its advantage,” she wrote. “This we cannot do.”

After Marsh Supermarkets sued Marsh in federal court in 2009, he countersued, asserting the company improperly withheld his post-retirement payouts in 2008 and still owed him about $2.1 million. The jury denied his counterclaim.

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.

Barker denied a request from the company to collect $1.8 million in life insurance policy premiums paid on Marsh’s behalf.

Many of the arguments presented by both sides involved implications of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, a federal law governing pension plans.

“Nearly four years ago, in what was apparently a rare moment of harmony,” Barker wrote, “both parties conceded that ERISA governs only part of Mr. Marsh’s employment agreement.”

Barker concluded that ERISA provisions made the $2.2 million in severance paid to Don Marsh "vested and nonforfeitable"—a reality she said the company has to live with even though Don Marsh "behaved in a manner unbecoming of a CEO."

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

Lawyers for Marsh and Marsh Supermarkets are still determining the breakdown of those fees.
 
 

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT