Wal-Mart, former exec call truce
Fired Wal-Mart marketing executive drops her case against retailer, citing financial constraints; Wal-Mart abandon its countersuit.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Fired ex-Wal-Mart marketing executive Julie Roehm and Wal-Mart have called a truce and dropped lawsuits against each other.
Roehm said in a statement Monday that she will drop the case against her former employer because the litigation was financially draining.
"The sole purpose for filing the lawsuit was to recover the severance pay that was outlined in that contract. I thought that a settlement agreement would be reached within a few weeks. Instead, the lawsuit has expanded into other issues, and has become more difficult and financially draining than I ever imagined," Roehm said in her statement obtained by CNNMoney.com.
For its part, Wal-Mart said Monday that it has agreed to drop its countersuit against Roehm.
"Since Ms. Roehm is dropping all claims against the company, we will also drop our counterclaim. We are satisfied with the resolution and are ready to put this behind us and move on," Wal-Mart in a statement to CNNMoney.com.
Wal-Mart (Charts, Fortune 500) fired Roehm last December after accusing her of having a personal relationship with another marketing employee in violation of the company's ethics policy, and for allegedly accepting gifts like meals from companies bidding for the retailer's advertising and marketing business.
Roehm denied those allegations and sued Wal-Mart in January for breach of contract and fraud stemming from her dismissal from Wal-Mart.
Moreover, Roehm said in the suit that Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott had violated the company's ethics policy by accepting gifts such as "a number of yachts" and "a large pink diamond" at preferential prices from Minnesota businessman Irwin Jacobs.
The retailer responded by filing a countersuit against Roehm, releasing salacious details of her alleged relationship with her marketing colleague.
In addition to citing the suit's financial burden, Roehm said a recent exchange of information between her lawyers and those for Wal-Mart and Jacobs leads her to believe that some of what she had claimed in the suit about Scott and Jacobs was inaccurate.