Page 474 -

70 AMIT J. SHAH AND MICHAEL L. MONAHANAT

limits. Associates may choose from among 13 different investment options for the 401(k)
component of the plan and 14 investment options for the profit-sharing component of the
plan. For associates who did not make an election, their 401(k) balance in the plan was
placed in a balanced fund. Associates’ 401(k) funds immediately vest, and associates may
change their investment options at any time. Associates with three years of service have
full diversification rights with the 14 investment options for the profit-sharing component
of the plan. Prior to January 31, 2008, associates were fully vested in the profit-sharing
component of the plan after seven years of service, with vesting starting at 20 percent at
three years of service and increasing 20 percent each year until year 7. Effective January 31,
2008, associates are fully vested in the profit-sharing component of the plan after six years
of service, with vesting starting at 20 percent at two years of service and increasing 20 percent
each year until year six. Annual contributions made by the company to the United States
and Puerto Rico Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plans are made at the sole discretion of the
company. Expense associated with these plans was $945 million, $890 million, and $827
million in fiscal 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively.
Company contributions can be withdrawn only on termination. If employment with
the company is terminated because of retirement, death, or permanent disability, the com-
pany contribution is fully vested (meaning the entire amount is nonforfeitable). If termina-
tion of employment occurs for any other reason, the amount that is nonforfeitable depends
on the number of years of service with the company. After completion of the third year of
service with the company, 20 percent of each participant’s account is nonforfeitable for
each subsequent year of service. After seven years of service, a participant’s account is
100 percent vested.

Predatory Pricing
Does Wal-Mart engage in predatory pricing? Three independent pharmacies in Conway,
Arkansas, filed a suit, claiming Wal-Mart was deliberately pricing products below cost to
kill competition. Wal-Mart argued that it priced products below cost not to harm com-
petitors but to meet or beat rivals’ prices. Chancery Court Judge David L. Reynolds on
October 11, 1996, found Wal-Mart guilty of predatory pricing and ordered the company to
pay the pharmacies $286,407 in damages. The judge also forbade Wal-Mart from selling
products below cost in Conway in the future.
Wal-Mart appealed the ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which reversed and
dismissed the case. It is Wal-Mart’s policy that its store managers monitor the retail
prices charged by competitors in their respective market areas and lower prices for
highly competitive merchandise without regard to the cost of individual items. This
price is frequently below Wal-Mart’s cost of acquiring some of these products in highly
competitive markets. The stated purpose of Wal-Mart’s pricing policy is to “meet
or beat” the retail prices contemporaneously charged by competitors for highly compet-
itive, price-sensitive merchandise; to maintain “low-price leadership” in the local
marketplace; and to “attract a disproportionate number of customers into a store to
increase traffic.”
The store’s pricing practices with regard to specific articles did not violate the
Arkansas Unfair Practices Act section prohibiting vendors from selling at or below their
cost. The mere proof of below-cost sales was not sufficient to prove a violation of the act
absent intent to destroy competition. There was no evidence showing exactly which indi-
vidual items were sold below cost, the frequency of those sales, the duration of the sales,
and to what extent the sales existed.
Diversity Among Employees
Sam Walton was admittedly old-fashioned in many respects and Wal-Mart store
policies reflected many of his values. For example, store policies forbid employees
from dating other employees without the prior approval of the executive committee.
Also, women are rarely found in management positions. However, promotions have
recently been made so there are now women in senior officer positions. Walton also
resisted placing women on the board of directors; however, there are three women on
the board at this time. Wal-Mart is an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative