IBJNews

Jury returns $2.2M judgment against Don Marsh

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

    2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

    3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

    4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

    5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

    ADVERTISEMENT