Arkansas Supreme Court Rules For Wal-Mart
Last updated Thursday, April 12, 2007 10:23 PM CDT in News
By Anita French
The Morning News
A jury may end up deciding whether former Wal-Mart Vice Chairman Tom Coughlin, now serving a sentence for fraud against his ex-employer, is entitled to a retirement package worth almost $15 million.
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday a state judge was wrong to dismiss Wal-Mart's lawsuit to void Coughlin's retirement benefits, saying the Bentonville-based retailer is entitled to have a jury hear its case.
Wal-Mart and Coughlin signed a retirement deal in January 2005 in which the two sides agreed not to sue the other for grievances that might come to light after Coughlin's departure.
The company said, however, it later discovered Coughlin's fraud and believes he was obligated to reveal the crime before quitting. Wal-Mart rescinded Coughlin's retirement package in June 2005 and the two parties went to court over the matter.
Benton County Circuit Judge Jay Finch ruled in November 2005 that Wal-Mart failed to show Arkansas law required a company officer to disclose any improprieties before signing a general release from liability.
"Wal-Mart must have considered the possibility that Coughlin's actions were potentially problematic when it released him of all known or unknown claims," Finch wrote in his ruling.
Wal-Mart filed an amended complaint in response, but Finch also dismissed that suit. The company appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which handed down its decision Thursday.
"We hold ... that Arkansas law is clear that a release induced by fraud is invalid. The circuit court erred in (its) ruling. The question of whether Coughlin, by his actions, exhibited the requisite intent to fraudulently induce the retirement agreement and release is a question of fact for the jury," the court stated.
"Wal-Mart has sufficiently stated a claim that it would not have entered the retirement agreement and release had it known of Coughlin's misconduct," the justices said in a unanimous opinion.
Lawyers estimate Coughlin's retirement package is worth $12 million to $15 million.
"We're pleased that the Arkansas Supreme Court has reversed the trial court's ruling and reinstated this lawsuit. This case raises important issues about the duties of corporate officers and directors to act honestly and fairly, and we look forward to the next stage of the proceedings," said Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley.
Coughlin's attorneys did not return several message left at their offices.
Coughlin retired from Wal-Mart in January 2005 and then resigned from its board the following March after an internal investigation by the company revealed his misuse of money and gift cards in an amount approaching $500,000.
He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and tax evasion in February 2006 in federal court and was sentenced to 27 months of home detention, which he began serving in October.
The U.S. Attorney General Office in Fort Smith is appealing Coughlin's sentence. Oral arguments in that case were heard Thursday before the 8th District U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis.
Under his retirement agreement, Coughlin was to receive his base salary of $1.03 million for two years. The agreement also provided Coughlin would not forfeit 186,407 shares of unvested restricted stock, worth about $10 million, that would have otherwise expired on his retirement date under the terms of the restricted stock award agreements.
Also, the retirement agreement said Coughlin was eligible to receive a pro-rated portion of any incentive payment earned under Wal-Mart's management incentive plan, as attended, for the fiscal year ending Jan. 31, 2005.
Reader Comments (54 comment(s))
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.
jamesk wrote on Apr 13, 2007 6:35 AM:
" Our society seems to excuse all actions if you are rich or well connected enough, meaning that corporations get the free-est ride of them all.
We need to decide if our founding fathers were WRONG in their fear of corporations (of which a dismaying portion of our citizens are ignorant) and if they were, then we need to codify their superiority to people. Or, we need to put reigns on the ever-expanding rights and power of corporations. "
Looks like you might be incorrect wrote on Apr 13, 2007 7:50 AM:
" Where did you see that the Board didn't know their proceedings were being recorded? Be careful with your "statements of facts" "
ex associate wrote on Apr 13, 2007 7:59 AM:
" This will be fun. Sell your stock, because after Tom tells, and shows, his side of what happened to an open court, stock will be worth about $1.00. There's a reason why the unions have stepped up and gained ground since Tom left. I'll leave that for your imagination... Whatever he was doing to slow down this wave, I guarantee you that someone above him knew about it, and approved it. This is no different than the Gabbard incident. Tom did something that a lower level associate didn't like, they blew the whistle. Management had no choice but to let him go. This trial will be a circus. "
Anne wrote on Apr 13, 2007 8:01 AM:
" I seriously doubt if Tom has enough dirt to being about the downfall of Wal-Mart. "
to ex associate wrote on Apr 13, 2007 8:25 AM:
" I can't agree with you more... once Tom tells what really happened, I think Wal-Mart will wish they would of left it alone. Lee Scott this is nothing but a vendetta against Tom.
And for Anne... You are living in dreamland, Tom definately has enough dirt to permantly damage Wal-Mart.. think is he probably won't do it!!! "
unintended consequences wrote on Apr 13, 2007 8:56 AM:
" If this voids all non-compete and non-disclosure rules, Tom would be free to write one heck of a "tell all" book about Wal-mart corporate culture and shenanigans. This would be the highest level corporate exposee ever written. Tom could still make millions. Wal-mart woudn't dare sue him--they would open themselves up to some extremely embarassing things in pretrial discovery. "
Get real wrote on Apr 13, 2007 10:20 AM:
" Rome won't fall over this. You are kidding yourself if you think so. "
To All wrote on Apr 13, 2007 10:22 AM:
" Walmart will crumble from the inside out. It's inevitable, Tom Coughlin didn't work alone. More will be revealed. "
Della wrote on Apr 13, 2007 10:34 AM:
" To get Real-- Dis I read Rome won,t fall read your history. "It did fall!" "
Alexis wrote on Apr 13, 2007 11:35 AM:
" Well, Tom is not going to rot away in prison. In 6-20 months, he will be a free man whether he serves at home or in a federal facility. And you can all find a "new" someone to gossip about. Thank goodness lynching is illegal these days, or Tom would be dangling in the square. What you fail to pay attention to is he didn't get away with anything. He has provided restitution, and is serving the sentence the judge gave him. If the sentence changes, he will serve it as well. He hasn't complained about anything. Obviously, some people don't like the fact he has a nice home, too bad, he worked hard for the home. He may have done some things wrong but he still sacrificed time from his family and gave countless hours to Wal-Mart loyally, and his reward, just like for the rest of us, is compensation. You won't be finding him living in a run down trailer park anytime soon. He hasn't complained about any of this, he is humbled and humiliated, but life goes on folks. And his will too. Sorry if this disappoints some of you. If you want to sentence people, you should become a judge, otherwise you should learn to show some of that compassion and forgiving that our God requests of us. "
Liz wrote on Apr 13, 2007 12:05 PM:
" I thought he was too feeble to serve any prison time? Also, his brand of loyalty (e.g. defrauding the company) is not the kind I am looking for in my company. No jealously here, just anxious to see him truly pay for his crimes. "
Mike wrote on Apr 13, 2007 12:09 PM:
" The Lord also called for us to obey the laws and for sinners to be punished. Sitting at home is not a 'punishment' in many people's eyes. That's why I hope the law prevails in setting an example of him by sending him to prison. (Or we could follow the laws as in biblical times and cut his hands off for stealing.) "
food for thought wrote on Apr 13, 2007 1:46 PM:
" anxious to see him "truly" pay for his crimes, sitting at home is not a 'punishment' in many people's eyes...you all have become an unrequested jury so to speak, because what you are imposing are your viewpoints and opinions. What the judge imposed was a sentence based on his interpretation of the law. Whatever decision the appeals court makes, I'm sure will be humbly accepted by TC. Quite frankly the 6-12 months prison time would probably be easier than being stuck inside a house for 2.5 years. However, as far as the retirement package goes, if I were Tom, I'd tell Wal-Mart to keep their package, and their non compete agreement, as well as their confidentiality agreement. What he has to say is worth more than the package, and that is the path I'd like to see him take, but you can bet Wal-Mart wouldn't like to see that. "
Get Real wrote on Apr 13, 2007 2:57 PM:
" I would take 'imprisonment' in my own house with its comfortable beds, internet, etc. rather than communal living behind bars with no comforts, lack of privacy, etc. any day. Who wouldn't? Its stupid to suggest someone would rather be locked in a jail if given the choice. Also, any dirit he MIGHT have on Wal-Mart will involve his actions as well. "
Wow wrote on Apr 13, 2007 5:38 PM:
" Way to go Tom. Ive been to that house its almost as big as Northwest Arkansas Mall. "
Oh it is not! wrote on Apr 13, 2007 6:34 PM:
" David Glass, Jack Shewmaker, Lee Scott, Eduardo Castro-Wright, Dana & Phil Martz (David Glass' Daughter), all have much larger houses, and together they aren't the size of the Mall. You must live in an apartment. "
Arizona wrote on Apr 13, 2007 6:48 PM:
" Well, I don't know what his house has to do with his retirement package, but if I was him, I would tell them to keep the package, and have the freedom to do whatever he chooses, whether it be interviews, books, compete, etc...but if he chooses to go to trial by jury, unless all of you know everything, which you obviously don't, you may be surprised to find out that Wal-Mart wasn't up front about their knowledge in regards to the fraud, and what that means is, if they continue, they are going to lose. It doesn't matter what Coughlin did, however it does matter if Wal-Mart was aware of any wrongdoings, and you can take this to the bank-they knew. They didn't know everything, but they knew, and that will be proven in court. Best thing they could do is stop before they embarass themselves, again. Because everything they do lately backfires, why? The left hand doesn't know what the right hands being doing, or did do. "
Deacon wrote on Apr 13, 2007 8:28 PM:
" I'm NOT pro Wal*mart but I'm glad of the courts decision. If these corporate VIP's had to put their "Perk Packages" on the line and be held monetarily libel as to their performances, perhaps they would be more apt to run these corporations as they should be. Most that get their hands caught in the cookie jar still come out with a BIG handful for themselves...... Maybe I'm just bitter with Enron and that my dreams of an early retirement are gone forever. "
New York Times wrote on Apr 13, 2007 9:07 PM:
" Mr. Gabbard said he told a Wal-Mart lawyer that ''I'm the guy listening to the board of directors when Lee Scott is excused from the room.''
Does that mean that Mr. Scott authorized spying on his own board when it was discussing his performance? If so, it would be a shocking breach of corporate etiquette and governance.
For a few days after that quote appeared, Wal-Mart declined to comment. But eventually a company spokeswoman, Mona Williams, did issue a denial: ''We never would have authorized'' bugging board meetings, she said, and Mr. Scott never listened to any such tapes.
Wal-Mart is successful, but Mr. Scott's inability to convert that success to a rising share price may have colored his judgment. It appears that the company grew paranoid about its critics, and created a security operation that went too far. At best, management controls were sorely inadequate.
It is time for the Wal-Mart board to bring in an outside investigator, one without previous ties to the company. That investigator should learn, and tell the public, what went on in the spying operation, and just who knew the details.
A generation ago, when President Richard M. Nixon lost his job because of a spying operation that went too far, it was Senator Howard H. Baker Jr. who repeatedly asked a question that must be asked at Wal-Mart: ''What did the president know, and when did he know it?
"
It is time... wrote on Apr 13, 2007 9:11 PM:
" to hold Lee Scott accountable for his participation, direction, and knowledge of the above. You can't convince me he never heard the conversations that were recorded in the board meetings when he was excused from them.At the very least, he should be terminated. Hopefully he will find his way into a nice cushy federal facility, where he belongs. He has done more damage than Tom Coughlin could have ever dreamed of doing. "
WM just won wrote on Apr 13, 2007 9:24 PM:
" an injunction against Gabbard to collect, and copy all of his electronic data. they're pretty nervous about what this guy has. there are lots of organizations barking at the door threatening legal action to get WM to open up their secret files. This is really getting funny... agree with some of the postings above about Tom telling WM where to shove their package. He could make 10 times the money just selling what he knows. WM is not so clean that they can't be worried about him spilling the beans... "
Tom said wrote on Apr 13, 2007 9:34 PM:
" In the first article that ran about this whole mess that he was reimbursing himself for personal funds spent to source out union activity in the stores. I'm beginning to believe it. Since he's been gone, the union activity has come at them from all sides, and they're getting caught blind by it. If he was doing that, he was not acting on his own. Someone above him knew about it, and approved it. Maybe that name will come out in front of the jury. Tom is by far NOT clean in this deal, but there are more who were above him that will probably go down as well. Why Wal-Mart would want to duke this issue out in open court is really strange. This will probably be bigger than the OJ trial. "
TO TOM SAID wrote on Apr 13, 2007 9:55 PM:
" Well you said the key word, DUKE. That is MIKE DUKE. And there is the REST OF THE STORY!!! "
Was Sam Walton a thief? wrote on Apr 14, 2007 8:14 AM:
" based on Tom's conviction, he just might have been,although Lee would never have investigated Sam.Wal-Mart was a public company when Sam got his hunting lease in South Texas.He used that lease for work/pleasure combination,bringing down suppliers,leaders of other companies,politicians,as well as associates.There was food,there were dog facilities,there was over the counter medicines,hunting equipment,and yes,even beer and alchohol.He never carried much money with him,so it is quite possible that he used the company credit card for purchases in relation to the above.I'll bet you he at least did on occasion.Coughlin used his hunting ranch the same way,vendors, suppliers, and also invited associates with incentive programs,sporting goods department managers etc.,so it parallels with Sam's use.Coughlin didn't have cooks at his camp,when he had these people there he provided meals,not catered but cooked,with food usually from Sam's or Wal-Mart.He also kept extra hunting gear in case someone came unprepared,medicines in case someone was sick,and provided the dogs for quail hunting,just like Sam.Take a look at the list of things the WM legal team claims he stole,most of it was camp supplies,that's why the costs were minor but added up through the years.I don't know if Sam charged his lease to WM,but Coughlin did,however it was used quite a bit as a meeting spot,so it was technically ok to charge it.Nobody complained when he had contests for associates or assistants to win trips to the camp,nor would they have cared,except Lee wanted him gone,then all the acceptable things became suddenly unacceptable. "
Continued... wrote on Apr 14, 2007 8:25 AM:
" During shareholder week the Walton's opened their home to the board,the executives wives,the executive committee,and associates.I recall Helen introducing a young woman that worked at Sam's who was arranging flowers for the house and tables outdoors.There were tons of them.I don't know how they were paid for,and I'm sure the young woman was paid through her store,based on Coughin's conviction,they could prosecute Miss Helen,however Lee would NOT go there.David Glass also had the same functions at his home,guess we could send him to prison also,if anything was paid wrong etc.The point is,nobody knows how things were handled with David or Sam,because nobody ever checked on them.Wal-Mart's attorneys are some of the sharpest in the world and they are totally capable of painting whatever picture they choose.Think about all the items,and many begin to fall into the above.Then you have the cowboy boots,and other non related hunting items,well,let's face it,Tom is not details oriented,never has been,just results oriented,and since Rob Hey never testified,it's probable that he opted to pay bills through the invoicing system just to get them taken care of,instead of trying to catch up with Coughlin to write a check.He may not have been directed to do what he did.There was no trial,so you can only speculate.What did occur was a technical violation,because items were paid for,but listed as something other than what they were, then expense checks were produced at an out of state facility,it became Federal wire fraud.So no matter what the funds were used for "
Continued... wrote on Apr 14, 2007 8:38 AM:
" it became illegal.That is why there was no trial.Even if Coughlin proved that the items were business related,because they weren't accounted for properly,it became a legal issue.Thus the plea.Also compared to leaders of other companies these items were minimal in relation to expense costs and perks of executives.The legal team put this together publicizing to all the people making ten dollars an hour that their leader was stealing from them,and painted a picture that didn't exist.They could have painted the same picture about Sam,David etc...but never dared go there.In relation to the union activities,how do any of you know whether or not the company previously paid for information,because they would have been very cautious to hide the paper trail.Previously gift cards couldn't have been used for reimbursement because they didn't exist.Do you really think that the unions simply stayed away,or the associates were always so happy they didn't want one?If so,why did some vote unions in, in the meat department etc...the unions have become much more active since Coughlin's demise,do you ever ask yourself why?Now that this case will be tried in a civil court,you are going to be ever so surprised at everything that transpired,as well as things that parallel this from the past.Remember,the legal team gathered expenses from a 10-15 year period,and investigated all the way back to 1977.Do the math,$500,000 over a 15 year period amounts to $106.83 for 6 days a week.I bet if you did the same with Sam's expenses,it'd be the same or more "
continued... wrote on Apr 14, 2007 8:47 AM:
" I don't think Sam was a thief, do you?Nor do I think David Glass was one.I also don't think Coughlin was.Had his subordinates charge the expenses properly this would never have occurred.Anyone on the inside also knows about the friction between Coughlin and the CEO,which essentially brought all of this to fruition.Some call it a vandetta,and they might be correct.Nobody investigated the CEO's expenses.Wonder how they would come out.He did alot of fishing with a vendor,accepting plane rides,and who knows if he brought his own poles or they were provided or given to him, lures, meals etc...the point is he should be held as accountable,but how can he be without being investigated as well,which by the way,he wasn't.The point is, the indictment of Coughlin was based on the mishandling of charging the expenses,the items presented to the public were provided simply to enhance the legal team's cause,and destroy credibility.Of course,some of you will not agree,and it doesn't matter,the fact is you don't really know what transpired, let alone how closely this may parallel to the man we all honor as the founder.In the end,because of Wal-Mart's decision to continue to fight the retirement package,you will all gain a much better prospective of what occurred,and I can guarantee you this,you are going to be very surprised. "
Outcomes... wrote on Apr 14, 2007 9:02 AM:
" Have you ever watched a mystery movie,and as it progresses, you think so and so did it,then you change your mind, sometimes numerous times, all the while using your logic and reasoning, knowing you must be right,based on the information provided to you? Then in the end,for whatever reason, you were totally wrong,and as the entire picture falls into place, it ends up something or someone you never could have comprehended? Get ready because this trial will be much like one of those movies, with a big shock at the end. "
ex-associate wrote on Apr 14, 2007 10:53 AM:
" I'm telling you this. It will be a very interesting "day in court" for all parties involved. Tom may walk away with no money, but his story will be worth millions. Probably more than what they're negotiating over. What will also happen, is a very dark story about the internal workings of "Big Blue" will emerge, and the impact will be difficult to overcome. Just another bump that will divert their attention off of sales... "
Think About This: wrote on Apr 14, 2007 10:58 AM:
" To all managers, or those who have ever been managers no matter how long ago: have you ever,ever,in your career padded markdowns,even once? If so, you not only violated policy but you effectively reduced the shrinkage of the store and company and received a larger bonus due to the adjustment. To department managers and associates,have you ever placed something out of the customers immediate view that you knew was going to be marked down, so that you could buy it at a reduced price? Did you ever accidentally put something in your pocket that you used at work that belonged to the company and end up using it at home? Officers of the company, do you live near or socialize with any vendors, and if so, have you ever been to their home for dinner? did you pay for it? have you golfed together, then had drinks after, and did you always pay? Has anyone ever paid workers out of petty cash, or moved the account someone is paid in to effectively lower payroll? Buyers, have you ever socialized with a vendor, and ate or drank anything offered to you without paying for it? Back in the days where we checked in trucks did any of you ever file claims on merchandise when it actually did arrive? "
thinking continued wrote on Apr 14, 2007 11:05 AM:
" Have you ever picked up something for a friend or neighbor and used your discount card without thinking about it, effectively allowing that person a discount they didn't qualify for? There are countless things such as the above that have occurred that are either illegal, or violations of policy, and many were readily accepted during periods of time with the company. While your throwing stones be sure to save some for yourself, because it is not about how many dollars are under question, or how much money you or anyone else made, it's about our traditions and protocol where one thing was said, another thing was done, and it was not only accepted, in some cases it was expected. Sure, there are actually some of you out there that have been perfect associates and never did anything questionable no matter how minute, but then again, many are not perfect. If Wal-Mart wanted to, alot of people could be investigated,and they could paint a picture of you that was one sided, are you getting the picture? Some of you just like to ride the wagon, some like to speculate, some just like to hear themselves talk, but take a look at yourselves before you condemn the condemned, because if someone took the time to investigate your last 25 years with the company, you'd be surprised at how they could make you look, even if you had reasons, or were directed to do so. "
nc asst mgr wrote on Apr 14, 2007 12:42 PM:
" I've been with the company for almost 14 years now and I have no doubt that every associate has, at one time or another, violated a policy or two. Tom did much more than violate a policy; he stole from each and every one of us that work hard every shift for a small portion of his past salary and benefits package. He surely deserves to have jail time...not house arrest for his crimes against us all! "
To thinking wrote on Apr 14, 2007 1:57 PM:
" Points well made, but also consider that an hourly associate will not see these things as stealing. Yes, undoubtedly, most associates can be found "guilty" of some of these infractions, but hey... it's only a buck or two. National figures have said for years, that 80% of today's employees steal. SOMETHING. even a pen from work. But hey, it's a buck or two. Fact is, if every one of Wal-Marts 3 million people stole a buck, Well, I guess that would be $3 million. A lot of money. Also, I happen to be a vendor. I have socialized with WM associates, none that I have direct business contact with, but associates none the less. Just because someone works for a company that I call on, doesn't mean that I should be treated like I'm a lepper. I have been in non-work social situations where I've been introduced to someone who works at WM in an area that I have nothing to do with. But just because I'm a vendor, they will not even shake hands with me. "
Chief Justice wrote on Apr 14, 2007 4:18 PM:
" Isn't it interesting that one of the chief justices' that heard the appeal for Wal-Mart has a daughter that works as a law clerk for Wal-Mart legal? "
hatchet job wrote on Apr 14, 2007 8:12 PM:
" If Lee Scott authorized surveillance on his own board of directors, he deserves an orange jumpsuit. Patricia Dunn tried sleazy tactics like this at HP and they backfired miserably. It really smells like Coughlin was let up by those who wanted him out. "
Gene wrote on Apr 15, 2007 4:21 PM:
" If all the employees banded together, they would still not have enough shares to take over the company. Too bad we can't. Don't want the company to fold...and it won't...no way...but be nice to have it employee owned and ran. "
If it is true wrote on Apr 15, 2007 11:47 PM:
" that one of the chief justice's daughter works as a clerk in the Wal-Mart legal department, and they didn't recuse themselves, then it should be redone, without that justice, that is the only right and fair thing to do. Shame on that Justice, for remaining active in the appeal. "
to Think about this-- wrote on Apr 16, 2007 3:11 PM:
" You are absolutely right. All of us made our shrinkage numbers by padding markdowns. I think that back in the olden days, things were not as tight as they are now. Tom and Sam were not as rigid as the PC people are today. You could look at anyone and find a reason to get them--- I heard that my entire career. I just think someone wanted Tom gone and they looked and found things because it is easy to find anything on anyone if you search hard enough. With todays sophisticated equipment it must be really easy. I do not trust Lee Scott. "
Unreal wrote on Apr 17, 2007 7:09 PM:
" I know Tom and see him often.Did any of you know that he will never say a bad word about Wal-Mart?He Loves the company that he helped to build.WM was a small company when he arrived Sam,Tom and Many Others built the company to the level it is today.I for one feel terrible about the way Tom has been treated.If Tom had come to WM with this contract I would say he should not get the money. Yet in reality WM came to Tom with this contract. WM asked for this from Tom. How can they then come back and say we do not want to honor this? I think Lee must have pictures or something. The stock has never risen with him at the helm of this once mighty retailer. As a matter of fact I have lost a great deal of money because the stock price has continued to go down. Lee what is your answer to this? You are stealing from me because of your performance! Who did you have dinner with last night? You are quick to tell us in our meetings. When you goto the White House do you pay the Government for your meal? Lee you have just moved the parties from the hunting lodge to the Golf Course. Did you, Mike D, John M, and Edwardo enjoy playing Pebble Beach for First Tee? I wonder who payed for that?As you all can see we could find fault with any one! "
it obvious wrote on Apr 18, 2007 4:44 AM:
" Some of you don't have a clue how it works on this level of corporate America.
Unreal, you are so right it's if you are an insider, not that, that's a bad thing. Tom is and was a hard worker and never do you hear a bad word come from his mouth.
It's a shame he is being treated like this locally, the Coughlin’s are good people. Northwest Arkansas needs more of them.
The 'New Wal-Mart' Exec's are just playing a different game. That's 'Corporate America', love it or don't support it!!!
"
it obvious wrote on Apr 18, 2007 4:44 AM:
" Some of you don't have a clue how it works on this level of Corporate America.
Unreal, you are so right it's if you are an insider, not that, that's a bad thing. Tom is and was a hard worker and never do you hear a bad word come from his mouth.
It's a shame he is being treated like this locally, the Coughlin’s are good people. Northwest Arkansas needs more of them.
The 'New Wal-Mart' Exec's are just playing a different game. That's 'Corporate America', love it or don't support it!!!
"
some of us do have a clue wrote on Apr 18, 2007 11:17 AM:
" I live very far from Bentonville and beleive me, we know who to believe when it comes to Tom vs Lee. Anyone who has been with the company over 10 years knows. We are not stupid and we can judge on a daily basis the performance of the people in place and it is dismal. Many of us have quit, some hang on, but all will remember the name of the man under who's reign brought down the mighty Wal-Mart. His turn will come, too. He has a beauty of a spread in Business Week as one of the WORST CEOs. The pictures tell the story.... "
Comments were erased on 4-18-07 wrote on Apr 18, 2007 11:49 AM:
" Please keep trying to write. We DO know, out here away from Arkansas. Remember what was done to Tom to a lesser degree was done to us, and to those that many of us loved and respected by the same person or people. Many people have quit, but some still wait for change to come. Please help us with our Proxies, too. "
ditto wrote on Apr 19, 2007 3:43 AM:
" things keep being erased. there are people being protected that shouldn't be. i assume there is some intimidation going on, or pressure, or bought out. this is ridiculous. it doesn't matter if the paper deletes comments, we all still know what's going on, and those that don't will eventually understand, the time is coming. "
To: its obvious wrote on Apr 19, 2007 9:23 AM:
" Hard worker he may have been, but he is also a convicted criminal! Good people? By what standards? We certainly don't need or want any more crooks in NWA. "
rational wrote on Apr 19, 2007 3:55 PM:
" It's all in the numbers. A superbowl commercial costs millions of dollars for 30 seconds. Wal-Mart doesn't care if they win or lose 15 million dollars on some retirement package. All the free press they are getting from the publicity of the case, either good or bad, will boost sales. Wal-Mart isn't going anywhere, and in the end, Tom Coughlin will get his money. If they settle, they'll give him his money (most probable). If he wins, they'll give him his money. If he loses, they'll still give him his money. "
it is a dawg gone shame wrote on Apr 19, 2007 6:53 PM:
" that all of you condemnor's can't find a way to accept that coughlin made his mistakes and is already paying for them, and paying for them dearly by the way. Maybe you don't like the fact he is under house arrest, but even going to prison would be the least of his payment, his reputation is ruined, his legacy destroyed, and his life as he knew it, will never ever be the same again. Obviously many of you don't feel that this is punishment but I have to disagree. Furthermore,it is us,that should be setting the example taught to us about forgiveness,as our God taught us.We can all have our feelings about the severity of the crime,but as Christians we are supposed to be above condemning others,as that is not our responsibility.Remember Jesus died for our sins,not just some of us,for all of us,Tom included.Of course, it just dawned on me,maybe some of you writing on here are aetheists and don't feel compelled to follow God's law,which would explain your attitude.At any rate,I like the man, have always liked the man and will always like the man,but if I didn't I would still respect the fact that he made a mistake and is paying and would be hesitant to be so judgemental.It's easy to blow words,but remember if this happened to one of your family or friends,or you for whatever reason made your own mistake,I doubt you would be so judgemental and heartless,something to think about. "
paul wrote on Apr 24, 2007 1:16 PM:
" When David Glass and Tom Coughlin are finally made to tell what the really know, not what the company has said they know, it will be the end of wal-mart as we know it. "
Not already registered?
The Grim Reaper wrote on Apr 12, 2007 9:12 PM: