Archives
October 2005
10/31/05
10/31/05
10/30/05
10/28/05
10/28/05
10/25/05
10/25/05
10/25/05
10/25/05
10/25/05
10/24/05
10/22/05
10/21/05
10/20/05
10/20/05
10/20/05
10/19/05
10/18/05
10/18/05
10/18/05
10/16/05
10/16/05
10/16/05
10/16/05
10/15/05
10/15/05
Wal-Mart vs Tom Coughlin
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/14/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/13/05
10/12/05
10/12/05
10/8/05
10/8/05
10/5/05
10/3/05
10/3/05
10/2/05
10/2/05
Saturday, October 15, 2005
7:46:00 PM EDT
Wal-Mart: Coughlin Should Have Revealed Thefts While Still Director
Court filings clarify timing of contract signing; Coughlin says a deal's a deal
By Lana F. Flowers
The Morning News
Tom Coughlin retired as a Wal-Mart vice president in January, but still had an ethical duty to the company while he remained on its board of directors through March.
Wal-Mart attorneys P.K. Holmes III of Fort Smith and Michael J. Mills of Omaha, Neb. on Friday filed court documents that clarify when Coughlin and Wal-Mart signed a contract releasing each other from ethical duties and claims.
The nation's largest retailer and its former executive are doing battle to see if Coughlin, accused of thefts and misdeeds, will get to keep nearly $12 million in retirement benefits and stock options.
Wal-Mart sued Coughlin in Benton County Circuit Court in July. The company claimed Coughlin's alleged thefts voided a contract releasing both Coughlin and Wal-Mart from misconduct claims arising from Coughlin's 25-year career with the retailer.
Coughlin filed a motion to dismiss the case because the contract clearly releases both parties from all known and unknown claims.
Benton County Circuit Judge Jay Finch held a Monday hearing and gave attorneys until Friday to file written arguments. Finch said he would issue a ruling late next week.
Finch must decide whether the signed release would let Coughlin keep $1.03 million -- his base salary for two years -- along with 186,407 shares of Wal-Mart stock, worth approximately $10 million.
Wal-Mart in its Friday court filings noted the release contract was signed when Coughlin resigned his vice presidency in January. However, Coughlin still had an ethical duty to the company -- including reporting his own thefts --until he resigned from the board of directors on March 25, Wal-Mart contends in court documents.
Coughlin allegedly used fake Wal-Mart expense vouchers and misused company gift cards to buy items ranging from bottled water and underwear to a $10,000 hunting vehicle and hunting leases, Wal-Mart claims in its lawsuit.
Coughlin, when questioned in a Wal-Mart internal investigation, contended he used the money for a "union project." Wal-Mart officials deny any knowledge of the union project.
Wal-Mart also said in court filings Coughlin's alleged thefts occurred after he signed the release contract.
Coughlin's attorneys, W.H. Taylor and Steven Vowell of Fayetteville; and William W. Taylor III, Blair G. Brown and Caroline Judge Mehta, all of Washington, D.C., contend Coughlin did not have an ethical duty to Wal-Mart after he signed the release.
Coughlin's attorneys contend the release required Coughlin to keep aspects of Wal-Mart's business dealings confidential and barred Coughlin from working for competing firms.
Coughlin also did not commit any fraud or induce Wal-Mart to sign the release contract.
"Wal-Mart got the bargain that its own lawyers constructed," Coughlin's court filings state. "It is sound public policy to hold the number one Fortune 500 company to the same deal that it demanded Mr. Coughlin sign."
Written by mbergdahl Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
7:46:00 PM EDT
Wal-Mart vs Tom Coughlin
Wal-Mart: Coughlin Should Have Revealed Thefts While Still Director
Court filings clarify timing of contract signing; Coughlin says a deal's a deal
By Lana F. Flowers
The Morning News
Tom Coughlin retired as a Wal-Mart vice president in January, but still had an ethical duty to the company while he remained on its board of directors through March.
Wal-Mart attorneys P.K. Holmes III of Fort Smith and Michael J. Mills of Omaha, Neb. on Friday filed court documents that clarify when Coughlin and Wal-Mart signed a contract releasing each other from ethical duties and claims.
The nation's largest retailer and its former executive are doing battle to see if Coughlin, accused of thefts and misdeeds, will get to keep nearly $12 million in retirement benefits and stock options.
Wal-Mart sued Coughlin in Benton County Circuit Court in July. The company claimed Coughlin's alleged thefts voided a contract releasing both Coughlin and Wal-Mart from misconduct claims arising from Coughlin's 25-year career with the retailer.
Coughlin filed a motion to dismiss the case because the contract clearly releases both parties from all known and unknown claims.
Benton County Circuit Judge Jay Finch held a Monday hearing and gave attorneys until Friday to file written arguments. Finch said he would issue a ruling late next week.
Finch must decide whether the signed release would let Coughlin keep $1.03 million -- his base salary for two years -- along with 186,407 shares of Wal-Mart stock, worth approximately $10 million.
Wal-Mart in its Friday court filings noted the release contract was signed when Coughlin resigned his vice presidency in January. However, Coughlin still had an ethical duty to the company -- including reporting his own thefts --until he resigned from the board of directors on March 25, Wal-Mart contends in court documents.
Coughlin allegedly used fake Wal-Mart expense vouchers and misused company gift cards to buy items ranging from bottled water and underwear to a $10,000 hunting vehicle and hunting leases, Wal-Mart claims in its lawsuit.
Coughlin, when questioned in a Wal-Mart internal investigation, contended he used the money for a "union project." Wal-Mart officials deny any knowledge of the union project.
Wal-Mart also said in court filings Coughlin's alleged thefts occurred after he signed the release contract.
Coughlin's attorneys, W.H. Taylor and Steven Vowell of Fayetteville; and William W. Taylor III, Blair G. Brown and Caroline Judge Mehta, all of Washington, D.C., contend Coughlin did not have an ethical duty to Wal-Mart after he signed the release.
Coughlin's attorneys contend the release required Coughlin to keep aspects of Wal-Mart's business dealings confidential and barred Coughlin from working for competing firms.
Coughlin also did not commit any fraud or induce Wal-Mart to sign the release contract.
"Wal-Mart got the bargain that its own lawyers constructed," Coughlin's court filings state. "It is sound public policy to hold the number one Fortune 500 company to the same deal that it demanded Mr. Coughlin sign."
For information about Wal-Mart Competition go to: www.michaelbergdahl.net
Written by mbergdahl Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | digg this
