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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT