> But little to substantiate the prosecution narrative recounted as fact by the NYT.
I think you missed the part where they settled.
> There is a reason Wal-Mart spent a billion dollars investigating this case but the government agreed to settle for less than $300 million—once prosecutors dug in, there wasn’t much of a story there.
Wouldn't that rather suggest that they feared they could be liable for much, much more than a billion, and they jumped at the chance to make it all go away for just a "paltry" $300 million?
I think you missed the part where they settled.
> There is a reason Wal-Mart spent a billion dollars investigating this case but the government agreed to settle for less than $300 million—once prosecutors dug in, there wasn’t much of a story there.
Wouldn't that rather suggest that they feared they could be liable for much, much more than a billion, and they jumped at the chance to make it all go away for just a "paltry" $300 million?