ILNews

Indiana pension fund attorneys to serve as lead co-counsel in Wal-Mart bribery suit

Marilyn Odendahl
September 10, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund has been named as co-lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against the board of directors of retail giant Wal-Mart.

According to attorney Stuart Grant, the Indiana pension fund has not joined the lawsuit but has filed a separate suit against the retailer asking for company books and records regarding the investigation of a bribery scandal.  

Yet, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Leo Strine made the Indiana union co-lead plaintiff because, in his opinion, the Indiana fund is taking the proper strategy in conducting its own review of company documents rather than relying on media reports.

The other co-lead plaintiffs are the California State Teachers Retirement System and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System.

The lawsuits stem from allegations, reported by The New York Times, that Wal-Mart employees bribed Mexican officials to get building permits which helped the company’s growth in the country.

Grant explained the pension funds are not suing Wal-Mart. The funds want to ensure that any fines or criminal liability be born solely by the directors and not by the company because the board of directors appears to have squashed an investigation into the bribery scandal.

“We’re not trying to hurt Wal-Mart,” Grant said.

The IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) has a good relationship with Wal-Mart, he continued, noting the union members shop at the store, are stockholders and want the company to prosper which will, in turn, benefit them.

The federal government is also investigating the bribery incident to see if Wal-Mart violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977.

In addition, the Indiana fund is suing to force Wal-Mart to turn over internal company reports regarding the investigation into the allegations. According to the Indianapolis Star, the attorneys for the electrical workers received 3,474 documents from the retailer but nearly half were redacted. In a twist, an anonymous informant mailed the plaintiff a slew of papers that the Indiana pension fund lawyers say supports the allegations in the Times’ story.

Whether the Indiana pension fund will join the suit against the board depends on what the internal company documents reveal, Grant said. However, he did indicate there is a strong possibility the IBEW will become a party to the lawsuit.  

“Based on what I’ve seen, it’s ugly for these directors,” he said.

 

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT