Walmart Securities Settlement
HomeCase DocumentsContact UsFile Claim


This website has been established to provide general information related to the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the action captioned City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., No. 5:12-cv-05162-SOH (the "Litigation"). The capitalized terms used on this website, and not otherwise defined, shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") dated October 26, 2018, which can be found and downloaded by clicking on the Case Documents tab above.


The Litigation is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (the “Court”), before United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey. The entity that leads the Litigation, City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System ("PGERS") , is called the Lead Plaintiff.  The company and individual, Walmart Inc. ("Walmart" or the "Company") and Michael T. Duke, sued are called the Defendants. The Court appointed the law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel to represent the Class.

Lead Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period. Specifically, Lead Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to disclose that its executives had allegedly been involved in a multi-million-dollar bribery scheme at Walmart’s Mexican subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico, used to obtain building permits that fueled Walmart’s growth in Mexico. The Complaint further alleges that as a result of Defendants’ allegedly false statements, Walmart’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, until the alleged misstatements were disclosed in an article published in The New York Times on April 21, 2012.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on March 4, 2013, and moved to strike the Complaint in whole on March 7, 2013. On February 24, 2014, the Court issued an order denying Defendants’ motion to strike the Complaint. On May 8, 2014, Magistrate Judge Setser entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants filed objections to the R&R, which the Court overruled on September 26, 2014, when it entered an order adopting the R&R in toto.

On November 3, 2015, PGERS moved for class certification, to appoint PGERS as the class representative, and to appoint Robbins Geller as class counsel. Following extensive briefing in connection with PGERS’ motion to certify, the Court certified the class on September 20, 2016.

On October 4, 2016, Defendants petitioned for permission to appeal the Court’s class certification order and on November 7, 2016, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Defendants’ petition. 

On January 4, 2017, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss Lead Plaintiff’s claim, which sought dismissal of PGERS’ build-up damages model. Following considerable briefing, the Court entered an order denying Defendants’ motion on September 29, 2017. On October 20, 2017, Defendants filed a motion requesting the Court certify its September 29, 2017 Order for interlocutory review.

During discovery, Defendants produced over 412,000 documents, totaling over 2.2 million pages. PGERS deposed five witnesses, including one witness twice. The parties also exchanged and responded to multiple sets of requests for admission and interrogatories.

In September 2018, the parties engaged the services of the Hon. Layn R. Phillips (Ret.), a nationally recognized mediator, to facilitate settlement negotiations. On September 11, 2018, the parties engaged in an in-person mediation session with Judge Phillips. The settlement conference was preceded by submission of mediation statements and exhibits by each party. The parties engaged in arm’s-length negotiations during the mediation session and continued their settlement discussions through Judge Phillips following the mediation session. On September 24, 2018, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal to resolve the Litigation.

The agreement included, among other things, the Settling Parties’ agreement to settle and release all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the Litigation in return for a cash payment of $160 million ("Settlement Amount") to be paid by Walmart on behalf of Defendants, for the benefit of the Class, subject to the negotiation of the terms of a Stipulation of Settlement and approval by the Court. The Stipulation (together with the Exhibits thereto) reflects the final and binding agreement between the Settling Parties.

The Settlement provides that the Settlement Fund, the Settlement Amount plus all interest and accretions thereto, be distributed after taxes, fees, and expenses, pro rata, to Class Members who send in or submit a valid Proof of Claim pursuant to the Court-approved Plan of Allocation. 

The Class includes all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Walmart between December 8, 2011 and April 20, 2012, and who were allegedly damaged by Defendants’ alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except those Persons and entities that are excluded. Excluded from the Class are: Defendants, Duke’s family, Walmart’s subsidiaries and affiliates, the officers and directors of the Company or any of the Company’s subsidiaries or affiliates at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class is any Class Member that validly and timely requests exclusion in accordance with the requirements set by the Court.

Although the information in this website is intended to assist you, it does not replace the information contained in the relevant case documents found on the Case Documents tab above. We recommend that you read the relevant case documents carefully and in their entirety.


Submit a Proof of Claim

The only way to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement.

Exclude Yourself from the Settlement

Get no payment. This is the only option that potentially allows you to ever be part of any other lawsuit against any of the Defendants or any other Released Defendant Parties about the legal claims being resolved by this Settlement. Should you elect to exclude yourself from the Class, you should understand that Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties will have the right to assert any and all defenses they may have to any claims that you may seek to assert, including, without limitation, the defense that any such claims are untimely under applicable statutes of limitations and statutes of repose.

Object to the Settlement

Write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the request for attorneys’ fees and expenses. You will still be a Member of the Class.

Go to the Hearing

Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement.

Do Nothing

Receive no payment. You will, however, still be a Member of the Class, which means that you give up your right to ever be part of any other lawsuit against the Defendants or any other Released Defendant Parties about the legal claims being resolved by this Settlement and you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Litigation.


Submit Proof of Claim April 15, 2019
Request Exclusion March 14, 2019
Submit Written Objection March 14, 2019
Submit Notice of Intention to Appear April 4, 2019
Settlement Hearing  April 4, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. CT