IBJNews

Wal-Mart investor bribe-claim suits to be led by pensions

Bloomberg News
September 4, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. investors’ lawsuits over the retailer’s handling of allegations that it paid bribes in Mexico will be led by three pension funds, Delaware court filings show.

Pension funds from New York, California and Indiana have agreed to serve as co-lead plaintiffs in cases accusing Wal-Mart’s employees of bribing Mexican officials to help fuel the company’s growth in the country, lawyers for the funds and Wal- Mart said in a Delaware Chancery Court filing.

“The moving parties have conferred and agree, subject to this court’s approval, that the actions should be consolidated for all purposes into a single consolidated action,” according to the Monday filing.

Both U.S. and Mexican prosecutors said this year that they had started probes of the bribery allegations, first reported by the New York Times. Wal-Mart de Mexico SAB is the country’s largest private employer, with more than 209,000 employees. Twenty percent of Wal-Mart’s more than 10,000 stores worldwide are in Mexico, following growth in the past 10 years.

David Tovar, a spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, the world’s biggest retailer, didn’t immediately return a call for comment on the naming of the co-lead plaintiffs.

The Times reported that officials of Wal-Mart’s Mexican unit paid bribes to win government building permits for stores. Once the allegations came to light, company officials failed to act on the results of an internal probe or inform authorities about the allegations, the California pension fund said in the suit.

The funds, which include the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, the New York City Employees’ Retirement System and the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, contend that Wal-Mart officials may have violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and other anti-bribery statutes in connection with the alleged payments to Mexican officials.

The Indiana fund has sued to force Wal-Mart to hand over records about internal probes of the bribery allegations and contends that the company had been “woefully deficient” in producing documents.

Chancery Court Judge Leo Strine declined at a hearing in July to name a lead plaintiff in the suits, urging the investors to work together.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Bribery
    The same thing happens in Washington every day. King Obama takes millions of dollars for his campaign from those who get some access in return. Politicians get jobs for favorable votes when they retire or get booted. Bribery is alive and well in the USA
  • Buy American?
    Those who talk the loudest need not respond because as they sit and watch their foreign TV or drive their GM made in Canada with parts from Mexico they can reast assured that they are not buying America.
  • Buy American?
    The "Buy American" campaign was another shameful business practice Wal-Mart did until they got exposed.
    • remember American Made
      Remeber when Walmart was all about "American Made" and that was a great reason to shop there! Not any more, I wish as americans we would boycott Walmart there business principles are shame full. They screw their suppliers, they screw their employees and in the long run they screw their customers. Buying Cheap is not the answer. Sam Walton would be assamed!

    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