沃尔玛和摩根大通忽视股东酿大祸

    据《纽约时报》的调查显示，当时这些基金并不知道的是，就在同一个月，“沃尔玛的一名高级律师收到了沃尔玛墨西哥分公司的一位已离职的高管发来的邮件，其中描述了沃尔玛墨西哥分公司如何为了获得市场支配地位而行贿。”根据《纽约时报》报道，当年11月，美国伟凯律师事务所（Willkie Farr & Gallagher）建议沃尔玛对该离职高管披露的行贿问题进行独立调查。

    这种调查最好由一个董事会特别委员会和一个独立检察委员会来共同进行，不过沃尔玛的高管选择了进行内部调查，还把调查时间从四个月缩短至两周。据《纽约时报》报道，到2006年12月，沃尔玛公布了初布调查结果，称“有理由相信（墨西哥公司）已经违反了墨西哥和美国的法律”，并在内部审计报告中标出了涉嫌向墨西哥政府机构行贿的数额。

    内部审计应当向董事会的审计委员会报告。审计委员会有责任索要他们需要的材料，以审查内部审计的运作是否适当。

    审计委员会是否没有明确要求查看与涉案金额相关的内部审计报告？抑或沃尔玛的管理层自己也没有做到遵纪守法？到了11月，几支养老基金再次要求沃尔玛组建董事会特别委员会对相关问题展开调查。2006年2月，离沃尔玛公布初步调查结果和内部审计报告刚刚两个月，赫尔南德斯再次轻描淡写地回应了几支养老基金的关注，他在信中写道：“审计委员会、董事会和高管层都决心在内部控制、遵纪守法、企业责任和道德等领域开展最好的做法。”

    那么，赫尔南德斯、威廉姆斯以及审计委员会的其他人这么长时间以来都在干嘛？

    据《时代》（Times）报道，2006年5月，沃尔玛终于交出了关于行贿调查的内部报告。沃尔玛的企业调查主管认为报告的内容“非常不充分”。同时几支养老基金再次要求沃尔玛组建特别委员会。

    不过和前几次一样，他们的要求再次石沉大海。虽然已经屡次收到警报，但沃尔玛的审计委员会还是睁一只眼闭一只眼。

    2012年4月24日，沃尔玛发布了一份声明，称CEO麦道克已于2011年3月批准在全球范围内评估沃尔玛对《反海外腐败法》（FCPA）的遵守情况。声明写道：“麦道克充分支持当前在审计委员会的监督下正在墨西哥进行的独立调查……我们相信我们正在进行一次全面的调查。”沃尔玛上周在一份向美国证监会递交的文件里描述了调查的范围，以及与司法部和证监会的合作情况，并表示调查可能产生包括“刑事定罪”在内的“一系列负面后果”，而且这些问题可能会“侵占”管理时间。

    Unbeknownst to the funds, that same month, a "senior Wal-Mart lawyer [had] received an alarming e-mail from a former executive at the company's largest foreign subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico … [that] described how Wal-Mart de Mexico had orchestrated a campaign of bribery to win market dominance," a recent New York Times investigation showed. In November, according to the New York Times report, law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher recommended an independent investigation into the bribery allegations that had surfaced.

    A special committee of the board along with independent counsel would be best suited to conduct this kind of investigation. But Wal-Mart's executives chose to go with an in-house investigation, scaling back the inquiry from four months to two weeks. By December 2006, Wal-Mart's preliminary bribery inquiry uncovered "a reasonable suspicion to believe that Mexican and USA laws have been violated," and an internal audit report flagged suspicious payments to government entities in Mexico, the New York Times reported.

    Internal audit ought to report to the board's audit committee. And audit committees have a duty to request the materials they need to oversee their functions properly.

    Did the audit committee not specify that they wanted internal audit reports related to suspicious payments -- or did Wal-Mart's management fail to comply? In November, the pension funds again requested the formation of a special board committee that included specific questions related to compliance and whistleblower practices. Yet in February 2006, two full months after the preliminary bribery inquiry and the internal audit report, Hernandez again brushed aside the pension fund's concerns, writing, "The Audit Committee, the Board and senior management are all committed to developing best practices in the areas of internal controls, legal compliance, corporate responsibility and ethics."

    So where were Hernandez and Williams and the rest of the audit committee all this time?

    In May 2006, as Wal-Mart finalized its internal report on the bribery investigation, which Wal-Mart's director of corporate investigations found to be "truly lacking," according to the Times, the pension funds reiterated their request for a special committee.

    As with the others, the request fell on deaf ears, and despite repeated warnings, Wal-Mart's audit committee, it appears, never woke up.

    On April 24, 2012, Wal-Mart issued a statement that said that in March 2011, CEO Mike Duke authorized a worldwide FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) compliance review. "Mike is fully supportive of the independent investigation being conducted in Mexico with oversight by the Audit Committee…. We are confident we are conducting a comprehensive investigation," the statement said. In an SEC filing last week, the company described the current scope of its investigations and its cooperation with investigations by the Department of Justice and SEC, saying there could be "a variety of negative consequences," including "criminal convictions" and that the issues may "impinge" on management time.