retail news in context, analysis with attitude

Reuters reports that "a Delaware judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shareholders who accused the board of the world's largest retailer of trying to cover up bribes paid by company executives in Mexico.
Chancellor Andre Bouchard of the Court of Chancery in Wilmington said an earlier dismissal by an Arkansas judge of a nearly identical lawsuit by another group of shareholders precluded the Delaware case from going forward."

The suit essentially charged that Walmart was not forthcoming about the bribery probe, which meant that investors were making decisions based on less-than-complete information.

The story notes that "the litigation stemmed from a 2012 New York Times investigation that found Wal-Mart had engaged in a multi-year bribery campaign to build its Wal-Mart de Mexico business." However, it appears that multiple federal investigations into the allegations came up relatively empty, concluding that there were "few major offenses, and that Wal-Mart might be able to settle with a fine and no criminal charges being brought."
KC's View:
I'm a member of the media, but I think that it is absolutely essential at this point for the New York Times to do a follow-up story at this point explaining how and why the conclusions it reached in its stories about Walmart's bribery issues were so different from those reached by federal investigators. That is a story that simply cries out to be written.