沃爾瑪和摩根大通忽視股東釀大禍

????據《紐約時報》的調查顯示，當時這些基金并不知道的是，就在同一個月，“沃爾瑪的一名高級律師收到了沃爾瑪墨西哥分公司的一位已離職的高管發來的郵件，其中描述了沃爾瑪墨西哥分公司如何為了獲得市場支配地位而行賄。”根據《紐約時報》報道，當年11月，美國偉凱律師事務所（Willkie Farr & Gallagher）建議沃爾瑪對該離職高管披露的行賄問題進行獨立調查。

????這種調查最好由一個董事會特別委員會和一個獨立檢察委員會來共同進行，不過沃爾瑪的高管選擇了進行內部調查，還把調查時間從四個月縮短至兩周。據《紐約時報》報道，到2006年12月，沃爾瑪公布了初布調查結果，稱“有理由相信（墨西哥公司）已經違反了墨西哥和美國的法律”，并在內部審計報告中標出了涉嫌向墨西哥政府機構行賄的數額。

????內部審計應當向董事會的審計委員會報告。審計委員會有責任索要他們需要的材料，以審查內部審計的運作是否適當。

????審計委員會是否沒有明確要求查看與涉案金額相關的內部審計報告？抑或沃爾瑪的管理層自己也沒有做到遵紀守法？到了11月，幾支養老基金再次要求沃爾瑪組建董事會特別委員會對相關問題展開調查。2006年2月，離沃爾瑪公布初步調查結果和內部審計報告剛剛兩個月，赫爾南德斯再次輕描淡寫地回應了幾支養老基金的關注，他在信中寫道：“審計委員會、董事會和高管層都決心在內部控制、遵紀守法、企業責任和道德等領域開展最好的做法。”

????那么，赫爾南德斯、威廉姆斯以及審計委員會的其他人這么長時間以來都在干嘛？

????據《時代》（Times）報道，2006年5月，沃爾瑪終于交出了關于行賄調查的內部報告。沃爾瑪的企業調查主管認為報告的內容“非常不充分”。同時幾支養老基金再次要求沃爾瑪組建特別委員會。

????不過和前幾次一樣，他們的要求再次石沉大海。雖然已經屢次收到警報，但沃爾瑪的審計委員會還是睜一只眼閉一只眼。

????2012年4月24日，沃爾瑪發布了一份聲明，稱CEO麥道克已于2011年3月批準在全球范圍內評估沃爾瑪對《反海外腐敗法》（FCPA）的遵守情況。聲明寫道：“麥道克充分支持當前在審計委員會的監督下正在墨西哥進行的獨立調查……我們相信我們正在進行一次全面的調查。”沃爾瑪上周在一份向美國證監會遞交的文件里描述了調查的范圍，以及與司法部和證監會的合作情況，并表示調查可能產生包括“刑事定罪”在內的“一系列負面后果”，而且這些問題可能會“侵占”管理時間。

????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.