Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/20/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: May 07, 2012

According to the law firm press release, the complaint charges Walmart and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walmart operates retail stores in various formats worldwide.

The complaint alleges defendants engaged in unlawful and unethical conduct. During the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Walmart’s practices with respect to unlawful or unethical conduct. Specifically, the Company failed to disclose that its executives had been involved in a multi-million-dollar bribery scheme at Walmart’s Mexican subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico (“Walmart Latin America”). As a result of defendants’ false statements, Walmart’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $62.48 per share on February 17, 2012.

On April 21, 2012, The New York Times published an article reporting that Walmart had “shut . . . down” an investigation concerning evidence that Walmart Latin America had engaged in “widespread bribery,” which included a paper trail of hundreds of suspect payments totaling more than $24 million. The article reported that top executives at Walmart and Walmart Latin America knew about but disregarded the bribery scheme.

As a result of this news, Walmart’s stock plummeted $2.91 per share to close at $59.54 per share on April 23, 2012, a decline of nearly 5% on volume of 38 million shares. The stock dropped again on April 24, 2012, to close at $57.77 per share on volume of 30 million shares, and on April 25, 2012, fell to $57.36 per share on volume of 28 million shares, as investors absorbed this shocking news.

Walmart is now the subject of a probe in Mexico by Mexican authorities and the subject of criminal and congressional investigations in the United States.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, included that the Company had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the bribery payments and that Walmart management did not address ethical concerns in a “timely and effective manner” as represented by defendants. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Walmart stock traded at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period. However, after the above revelations seeped into the market, the Company’s shares were hammered by massive sales, sending them down nearly 5% from their Class Period high.

On July 25, 2012, the Court Granted the Defendant’s Motion to transfer this action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

On December 11, 2012, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.

On January 22, 2013, lead plaintiff filed Notice voluntarily dismissing this action as to an individual defendant.

On February 14, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Also on that date, lead plaintiff filed Notice voluntarily dismissing this action, without prejudice, as to certain individual defendants.

On February 24, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying defendants' Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint.

On September 26, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

On September 20, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Department & Discount)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: WMT
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: W.D. Arkansas
DOCKET #: 12-CV-00457
JUDGE: Hon. Todd J. Campbell
DATE FILED: 05/07/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/08/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/20/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barrett Johnston, LLC
    217 Second Avenue, North, Barrett Johnston, LLC, TN 37201-1601
    615/244-2202 ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  3. Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C.
    25800 Northwestern Highway, 1000 Maccabees Center, Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C., MI 48075-1000
    248.746.0700 248.746.0700 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: W.D. Arkansas
DOCKET #: 12-CV-05162
JUDGE: Hon. Todd J. Campbell
DATE FILED: 02/14/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/08/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/20/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barrett Johnston, LLC
    217 Second Avenue, North, Barrett Johnston, LLC, TN 37201-1601
    615/244-2202 ·
  2. Patton Tidwell & Schroeder LLP
    4605 Texas Blvd., Patton Tidwell & Schroeder LLP, TX 75503
    903.792.7080 903.792.8233 ·
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date