????據(jù)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的調(diào)查顯示,，當(dāng)時(shí)這些基金并不知道的是，就在同一個(gè)月,，“沃爾瑪?shù)囊幻呒?jí)律師收到了沃爾瑪墨西哥分公司的一位已離職的高管發(fā)來(lái)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(chǎng)支配地位而行賄?！备鶕?jù)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道,，當(dāng)年11月，美國(guó)偉凱律師事務(wù)所（Willkie Farr & Gallagher）建議沃爾瑪對(duì)該離職高管披露的行賄問(wèn)題進(jìn)行獨(dú)立調(diào)查,。

????這種調(diào)查最好由一個(gè)董事會(huì)特別委員會(huì)和一個(gè)獨(dú)立檢察委員會(huì)來(lái)共同進(jìn)行,，不過(guò)沃爾瑪?shù)母吖苓x擇了進(jìn)行內(nèi)部調(diào)查，還把調(diào)查時(shí)間從四個(gè)月縮短至兩周,。據(jù)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道,，到2006年12月，沃爾瑪公布了初布調(diào)查結(jié)果,，稱(chēng)“有理由相信（墨西哥公司）已經(jīng)違反了墨西哥和美國(guó)的法律”,，并在內(nèi)部審計(jì)報(bào)告中標(biāo)出了涉嫌向墨西哥政府機(jī)構(gòu)行賄的數(shù)額。

????內(nèi)部審計(jì)應(yīng)當(dāng)向董事會(huì)的審計(jì)委員會(huì)報(bào)告,。審計(jì)委員會(huì)有責(zé)任索要他們需要的材料,，以審查內(nèi)部審計(jì)的運(yùn)作是否適當(dāng),。

????審計(jì)委員會(huì)是否沒(méi)有明確要求查看與涉案金額相關(guān)的內(nèi)部審計(jì)報(bào)告,？抑或沃爾瑪?shù)墓芾韺幼约阂矝](méi)有做到遵紀(jì)守法？到了11月,，幾支養(yǎng)老基金再次要求沃爾瑪組建董事會(huì)特別委員會(huì)對(duì)相關(guān)問(wèn)題展開(kāi)調(diào)查,。2006年2月，離沃爾瑪公布初步調(diào)查結(jié)果和內(nèi)部審計(jì)報(bào)告剛剛兩個(gè)月,，赫爾南德斯再次輕描淡寫(xiě)地回應(yīng)了幾支養(yǎng)老基金的關(guān)注,，他在信中寫(xiě)道：“審計(jì)委員會(huì)、董事會(huì)和高管層都決心在內(nèi)部控制,、遵紀(jì)守法,、企業(yè)責(zé)任和道德等領(lǐng)域開(kāi)展最好的做法,。”

????那么,，赫爾南德斯,、威廉姆斯以及審計(jì)委員會(huì)的其他人這么長(zhǎng)時(shí)間以來(lái)都在干嘛？

????據(jù)《時(shí)代》（Times）報(bào)道,，2006年5月,，沃爾瑪終于交出了關(guān)于行賄調(diào)查的內(nèi)部報(bào)告。沃爾瑪?shù)钠髽I(yè)調(diào)查主管認(rèn)為報(bào)告的內(nèi)容“非常不充分”,。同時(shí)幾支養(yǎng)老基金再次要求沃爾瑪組建特別委員會(huì),。

????不過(guò)和前幾次一樣，他們的要求再次石沉大海,。雖然已經(jīng)屢次收到警報(bào),，但沃爾瑪?shù)膶徲?jì)委員會(huì)還是睜一只眼閉一只眼。

????2012年4月24日,，沃爾瑪發(fā)布了一份聲明,，稱(chēng)CEO麥道克已于2011年3月批準(zhǔn)在全球范圍內(nèi)評(píng)估沃爾瑪對(duì)《反海外腐敗法》（FCPA）的遵守情況。聲明寫(xiě)道：“麥道克充分支持當(dāng)前在審計(jì)委員會(huì)的監(jiān)督下正在墨西哥進(jìn)行的獨(dú)立調(diào)查……我們相信我們正在進(jìn)行一次全面的調(diào)查,?！蔽譅柆斏现茉谝环菹蛎绹?guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)遞交的文件里描述了調(diào)查的范圍，以及與司法部和證監(jiān)會(huì)的合作情況,，并表示調(diào)查可能產(chǎn)生包括“刑事定罪”在內(nèi)的“一系列負(fù)面后果”,，而且這些問(wèn)題可能會(huì)“侵占”管理時(shí)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.