Wal-Mart Reserves $283 Million To Settle Mexico FCPA Case
The dollar figure doesn't put this among the top 10 highest FCPA penalties, but costs behind the scenes were still high for Wal-Mart.
November 16, 2017 at 10:12 AM
4 minute read
Wal-Mart. Photo credit: Gil C/Shutterstock.com.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has apparently agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.to pay $283 million to settle its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case over alleged bribery in Mexico.
Details of any tentative settlement were not disclosed, but the company announced as part of its third-quarter earnings report that talks with DOJ and the SEC “have progressed to a point that the company can now reasonably estimate a probable loss and has recorded an aggregate accrual of $283 million.”
That's cheap, as FCPA settlements go. The amount doesn't even put it among the top 10 highest FCPA penalties – 10th place is held by Alcoa with $384 million in 2014. But there were still staggering costs behind the scenes.
According to this filing plus previous ones, the company has reported the cost of the internal investigation, global compliance reforms and ensuing shareholder suits have amounted to about $870 million or more than three times the cost of the accrued penalty.
Details of any tentative settlement were not disclosed, but the company announced as part of its third-quarter earnings report that talks with DOJ and the SEC “have progressed to a point that the company can now reasonably estimate a probable loss and has recorded an aggregate accrual of $283 million.”
That's cheap, as FCPA settlements go. The amount doesn't even put it among the top 10 highest FCPA penalties – 10th place is held by Alcoa with $384 million in 2014. But there were still staggering costs behind the scenes.
According to this filing plus previous ones, the company has reported the cost of the internal investigation, global compliance reforms and ensuing shareholder suits have amounted to about $870 million or more than three times the cost of the accrued penalty.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Congressional Probes Often Catch Companies Off Guard. Is Your Company Ready?
9 minute read
FTC Suit Against Firm That's Not a Probe Target Reflects Rising Tensions Over Agency's Sweeping Document Demands
4 minute read
Investigating While Under Investigation: Protecting Privilege and Confidentiality in Internal Investigations
7 minute read
As It Eyes IPO, Exterro Taps Prominent Discovery Expert as First-Ever GC
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
