IBJNews

Jury returns $2.2M judgment against Don Marsh

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal jury returned a $2.2 million judgment against iconic Marsh Supermarkets CEO Don Marsh late Friday, finding that he tapped corporate coffers for personal expenses.

The nine-member jury deliberated for about six hours before notifying the court that it had reached a verdict about 11 p.m.

Marsh had no comment on the verdict and didn't respond when U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker wished him "good luck" before adjourning the court.

Marsh Supermarkets filed a civil lawsuit against Marsh in April 2009, claiming he used the company as a personal checkbook to finance global travels and trysts with mistresses. His attorneys insisted the trips were business-related and within the bounds of his employment contract. Marsh countersued, saying the company had wrongfully halted severance payments, shorting him $2 million.

After a two-week civil trial, jury members found Marsh, 75, had commited breach of contract and fraud, but stopped short of delivering Marsh Supermarkets a total victory. Although the grocery chain had asked for $1.6 million to cover expenses and penalties related to an IRS audit that focused on Don Marsh's expenses, the jury awarded the company half that amount, saying it shared responsibility.

"We're pleased that [the jury] agreed with us in part," said Andrew McNeil, one of Don Marsh's attorneys.

The jury agreed with four of Marsh Supermarkets' eight breach-of-contract claims, ordering him to repay $1.4 million in unauthorized expenses. It did not award punitive damages.

Marsh Supermarkets was asking its former CEO for a total of about $5.6 million.

Judge Barker will rule separately on whether the company can recover the $2.2 million in severance it paid to Marsh.

Sun Capital Partners purchased the supermarket chain in September 2006 and directed it to file suit after an investigation into company finances uncovered what it considered lavish spending by the former CEO.

After Marsh Supermarkets sued him in federal court in 2009, he countersued, asserting the company improperly halted his post-retirement payouts in 2008 and owes him millions of dollars.

The jury denied his counterclaim.

Marsh showed no emotion as the verdict was read.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Did Don Really Lose?
    Did Don Marsh really lose? I don't think so. He had a jolly good time and plenty of ladies to spend lavishly on.
  • Always
    85% of these these things only serve to keep lawyers employed.. Kind of like our congress (mostly lawyers) pass laws to increase the demand for more lawyers.
  • nothing gained
    So Don Marsh took about two million dollars worth of improper benefits, and the company responded by cancelling his two million pension. Why not settle this matter out of court? The two sides basically broke even with the lawyers being the only ones who came out ahead.
    • Hmmm
      Who wants to bet Sun Capital conveniently forgets to include this as income on their 2013 tax return? Would be interesting to see if the broker who arranged the sale actually has a securities license, otherwise Sun could have rescinded the entire transaction.
    • What's the net?
      Unanswered, does Don get to keep the severence he had collected BEFORE Sun sued? Is this a $450,000 per mistress penalty? Really, the former shareholders of Marsh Supermarkets are the ones who got screwed!
    • Line breaks...
      ...are apparently stripped from comments, I see. Nice.

    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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

    2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

    3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

    4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

    5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

    ADVERTISEMENT