Montgomery, AL. Wal-Mart Tire Customer Wins $4 Million Negligence Suit

Carolyn Thome of Montgomery, Alabama won a $4 million lawsuit this week against Wal-Mart, and it only took her three years to do it. Thome was paralyzed as a result of an auto accident. Thome’s case stems from a 2004 rollover crash involving her Ford Expedition SUV. The crash occurred when the tread on one of her SUV’s tires separated. Thome’s attorney said his client was awarded $2 million in punitive damages and $2 million in compensatory damages by the jury. There were actually several companies that Thome sued, including Continental Tire, Sonic Automotive, and Ford Motor Co. The other three companies settled, but only Wal-Mart forced Thome to take them to court. Thorne was driving to a business meeting, wearing her seatbelt, when the tire tread separated and she lost control of her car. Her SUV rolled over one time and the roof was crushed down on Thome. Continental Tire put a recall on her make of tire in August of 2002. Thorne sued Wal-Mart on negligence and products liability theories.

She charged that Wal-Mart’s service personnel were not trained to check the tires on customers’ cars for tire problems and that Wal-Mart had a policy of not disclosing recalls on tires unless Wal-Mart sold the tires to the customer in the first place. The company replaced four of Thorne’s tires---but did not replace a fifth one, which she used as a spare, but which was on her car the day of the crash. Thorne had her car serviced at the Wal-Mart after the recall, but she wasn’t told that the fifth tire was also defective. “Their defense was: ‘All we’re doing is checking tread depth,’ and she thought they were checking for safety,” Thome’s lawyer told the Associated Press. Thome took her car to Wal-Mart service center a week before the crash. “If somebody had looked at it, they would have found the bulge and realized it was separating,” the lawyer noted.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, April 23 | 0 comments | Permalink

Illinois State Board Presses for Wal-Mart Investigation

Members of the Illinois State Board of Investment requested SEC Chairman Christopher Cox conduct an investigation into Wal-Mart’s recent surveillance activity on Wednesday. Their letters (linked to at left) applaud Mr. Cox’s statement that “efforts to investigate or intimidate shareholders be ‘condemned.’” The Chicago Tribune carried the full story yesterday:

Wal-Mart inquiry sought by state

Appalled by reports that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. allegedly dispatched investigators to snoop on some of its biggest investors, the head of the Illinois State Board of Investment has asked federal authorities to look into the company’s internal security efforts and stop any possibly illegal activities.

The state board, which oversees the various state pension funds, sent the request to the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and a top official with the U.S. Justice Department.

William Atwood, executive director of the pension board, said Wal-Mart’s alleged display of “corporate paranoia” raises concerns that it may have violated company policies and justifies the need for an independent review that Wal-Mart’s board has consistently rejected.

The state board owns stock worth $22 million in Wal-Mart.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Media Team on Thursday, April 19 | 0 comments | Permalink

Wal-Mart Evades $2B in Taxes, Report Says

Watchdog: Wal-Mart Skirted More Than $2 Billion in State Taxes [News Inferno]

According to a new report by a corporate watchdog group, Wal-Mart has used a tax loophole to wriggle out of paying more than $2 billion in state taxes since 1999. The report was prepared by Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), a nonpartisan research and advocacy group that fights for tax fairness.

“Wal-Mart avoided $2.3 billion in state income taxes, cutting its payment to state governments almost in half between 1999 and 2005,” notes the CTJ report. “Over those seven years, Wal-Mart reported $77.4 billion in pretax U.S. profits to its shareholders. But it reported a total state income tax bill of only $2.4 billion, just 3.16 percent of those profits. Had Wal-Mart paid taxes at the statutory state corporate tax rates for the same period, it would have paid $4.7 billion in state income taxes.”

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Thursday, April 19 | 47 comments | Permalink

Prescott Valley, AZ. Wal-Mart Spends $300K to Win Ballot Question

In a corporate democracy, the one with the most money wins. That’s the rule they follow in Bentonville, Arkansas, where Wal-Mart makes lavish “gifts” to local astro-roots citizens groups who support the retailer on election day. Case in point: Prescott Valley, Arizona. Sprawl-Busters reported on March 9, 2007 that the Prescott Valley Town Council had voted in July, 2006 to rezone 19.5 acres to allow Wal-Mart to build a superstore, but local residents challenged that vote on the ballot. In response, Wal-Mart hired a PR firm and created an “astro-roots” group to overwhelm the grassroots efforts to block their store. The measure was called Proposition 400, and a No vote would have killed the rezoning. The campaign committee set up by Wal-Mart ran afoul of state campaign reporting laws, and the town Clerk said that the so-called “Friends of Prescott Valley, Yes on 400” was facing a $70,000 fine for not reporting its income. This pro-Wal-Mart group gave the town a campaign statement that said the group had no receipts, but a debt of $33,313 for the Jan. 1 through Feb. 21 reporting period. State law mandates that campaign groups inform the town within 24 hours of its financial activities the first time it receives or spends $10,000 or more. On March 13th, the voters supported the Wal-Mart rezoning by a 65% majority. It turns out that every vote in Prescott Valley was worth its weight in gold, as the group received more than $300,658 from Wal-Mart and its consultants. The “Friends” group had very wealthy ties at Wal-Mart. The group reported receiving contributions from Wal-Mart Stores of Bentonville, Ark., of $100,000 on March 9, $116,100 March 12 and about $59,558 March 16, and $25,000 from the Prescott Valley-based Fain group March 9. The committee reported spending $266,243 during the Feb. 22 to April 2 reporting period. The group “Protect Prescott Valley,” received a total of $1,500 from Local 99 of the United Food & Commercial Workers union, and spent $1,486 during the same reporting period. That means for every one dollar spent by the anti Wal-Mart group, $179 was spent by the pro Wal-Mart group. In local ballot questions, finance law allows corporations to spend an unlimited amount of funding. The Friends of Prescott Valley faxed its financial report late to the town. The Town Attorney required the Friends group to submit an amended report for the pre-primary reporting period of Jan. 1 to Feb. 21 because he determined the previously submitted report was incomplete. The town notified the pro-Wal-Mart committee on April 2 that they faced a $30,000 fine but had the right to challenge the penalty.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, April 19 | 0 comments | Permalink

Montgomery, AL. Mayor Asks Residents Not To Shop At Nearby Wal-Mart

The Mayor of Montgomery, Alabama says that a new Wal-Mart supercenter just outside his city’s limits is getting an unfair tax break. Mayor Bobby Bright told the Montgomery Advertiser that because the 203,856 s.f.

Wal-Mart is outside the city limits, it will be allowed to charge only 6.5 cents sales tax-—while businesses a stone’s throw from the superstore will have to charge 8.75 cents in the city of Pike Road, and 10 cents in the city of Montgomery itself. Merchants within the city limits, less than a mile from the new Wal-Mart, say Wal-Mart is being given an unfair advantage. Mayor Bright adds that the superstore and other stores that are opening in nearby Chantilly, including Home Depot, will be able to use city water and sewer lines, without paying their fair share. The Mayor has vowed that he will never allow this situation to happen again. He said Wal-Mart now has to pay the same sewer and water fees as others in the city, but not the taxes that go to build and maintain the utility systems.
“About 90 percent of the people shopping at those businesses will be from Montgomery, yet the city won’t be getting sales tax,” the Mayor said.

“It’s not right. It’s not fair, and that’s why it’s important for me to let the people of the city of Montgomery know about it. The people of the city should rise up (and stop shopping there) because we don’t need a big retailer locating themselves right on the outskirts of our city limits and draining our resources—not if we are going to continue to pay our police and firemen and maintain our city services,” he said. A spokesman from Wal-Mart said that some cities have talked about annexing them into their city. “Wal-Mart is happy to operate in whatever municipality we find ourselves in,” he said. “Municipalities have contacted us, but we have not entered into any negotiations or stated a preference, and will not.” One local grocery store said it was not happy about the tax arrangement, but added, “We’ll do the best we can.” His store has a written “Wal-Mart Defense Manual” that stresses his store’s advantages: a high quality meat market, deli, bakery, and better customer service. But Mayor Bright is outspoken in his opposition to the Wal-Mart store. “We don’t need businesses ripping the city of Montgomery off, and that is exactly what they are trying to do by locating themselves right over the city limits and using our services without paying any sales taxes like other businesses here do,” the Mayor said. “They are already there using city services, and we are going to have to deal with it. But they are going to have to be paying a surcharge, or at least be paying more than the people of Montgomery are paying. These people are reaping the benefits of our services without paying for them, and all the people who go and shop there from Montgomery are supporting them in what they are doing.”

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, April 19 | 0 comments | Permalink

Knightdale, NC. Judge Rules Against Local Homeowners In Wal-Mart Case

On April 13th, a Superior Court judge in Wake County, North Carolina set back efforts of local residents in Knightdale to block a Wal-Mart superstore from being built far too close for comfort. According to The News & Observer, Judge Henry Barnette Jr. ruled that Knightdale officials did not act improperly last year when they approved the Wal-Mart. The Citizens Against Residential Encroachment (CARE), filed their lawsuit last August, charging that Knightdale officials failed to notify neighbors of public hearings, and gave the developer variances to the town’s ordinances. The residents also charged that one councilor who voted for the project had a conflict of interest. The Judge said none of the plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to be present at any hearing, and the councilman had no substantial financial interest in the project.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, April 17 | 0 comments | Permalink

Wal-Mart skips out on $2.3 billion in state taxes

According to new research conducted in part by leading non-partisan, non-profit tax organization Citizens for Tax Justice, Wal-Mart has avoided paying $2.3 billion in state income taxes between 1999 and 2005. Wal-Mart has done this through the use of captive Real Estate Investment Trusts, or REITs. You can find the PRNewswire article summarizing the Citizens for Tax Justice research here.

One state, Wisconsin, discloses the taxes that corporations pay annually. Between 2000 and 2003, Wal-Mart’s profits in Wisconsin are estimated at around $852 million, yet the retailer paid only $3 million in Wisconsin taxes. That equals a tax rate of .35%, far below the Wisconsin corporate income tax rate of 7.9%.

If your state has not already examined the REIT issue, or is not a combined reporting state, we urge you to review you state’s tax laws and push to update them where necessary. Wal-Mart and others could be costing your state millions and millions in state tax revenue each year.

You can also review our own research on Wal-Mart’s tax avoidance schemes here.

Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, April 17 | 2 comments | Permalink

Charleston, WV. Another Lawsuit Filed in Wal-Mart “Time Shaving” Case

The West Virginia Record newspaper reported this week that another lawsuit has been filed against Wal-Mart, charging the company with stealing from its own workers by not fully crediting them for their hours worked. This practice is known as “time-shaving.” Sprawl-Busters reported on December 20, 2005 that Massachusetts Attorney Robert Bonsignore had charged Wal-Mart with time-shaving, and said the retailer was facing a serious class action lawsuit because of its prevalent “time shaving” violations against its workers. Bonsignore said that Wal-Mart had stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from its workers across the country. “Time shaving” is a form of theft in which the company fails to properly credit its employees for all the time they worked. According to Atty. Bonsignore, “Our case is going well. We have filed in a number of states and have had interest expressed in several more. We have proof that Wal-Mart secretly manipulated the time records of their hourly rate employees, robbing them of about $1,000,000 per year per store. We can prove they did this through objective electronic evidence from 1997 on.” On April 3, 2007, Charleston, West Virginia lawyer Troy Giatras filed suit in U. S. District Court claiming that Wal-Mart shaved minutes from payroll records. In the suit, three former employees at the South Charleston store seek to represent every employee Wal-Mart has stolen time from in West Virginia since 1989.