SEC v. Charles C. Conaway; and John T. McDonald, Jr., Eastern District of Michigan (Aug. 23, 2005) — Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SECURITIES AND Jury Trial Demanded 
EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
Plaintiff, 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 
CHARLES C. CONAWAY and 
JOHN T. MCDONALD, JR., 
Defendants. 
COMPLAINT 
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission"), for its 
Complaint against defendants Charles C. Conaway ("Conaway") and John 
T. McDonald, Jr. 
("McDonald"), (collectively the "Defendants"), alleges as follows: 
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 
1. This civil fraud case involves material misrepresentations and omissions by 
Conaway and McDonald about the financial condition of Kmart Corporation ("Kmart" or 
"Company") in the months preceding the Company's bankruptcy.  Conaway was Kmart's 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), and McDonald was Treasurer and Chief 
Financial Officer ("CFO"). 
2. 
Defendants failed to disclose that Kmart had made an extraordinary and reckless 
over purchase of inventory.  Instead of candidly admitting the fact of the ill-advised overbuy 
and the significant impact it had on the Company's  liquidity, Conaway and McDonald dealt 

with Kmart's  liquidity problem by secretly slowing down payments owed vendors.  Defendants 
then lied about why vendors were not being paid on time and misrepresented the impact that 
Kmart's  liquidity problems had on the Company's relationship with its vendors, many of whom 
stopped shipping product to Krnart. 
3. 
Conaway and McDonald are responsible for materially false and misleading 
disclosure about such matters in the Management's Discussion and Analysis ("MD&A") 
section of Kmart's  Form 10-Q for the quarter and nine months ended October 3 1,2001 ("Form 
10-Q(3)") and in a conference call with analysts and investors on November 27,2001 
("Conference  Call"). 
4. 
By engaging in such conduct, Conaway and McDonald (i) directly or indirectly 
violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
("Exchange  Act") and Rule lob-5 thereunder; (ii) aided and abetted violations of Sections 1 O(b) 
and  13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules lob-5, 13a-13, and 12b-20 thereunder by Krnart; and 
(iii) demonstrated their substantial unfitness to serve as officers or directors of a publicly-traded 
company pursuant to Section 
2 1 (d) of the Exchange Act. 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 
5. 
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 
2 1 (e) and 27 of 
the Exchange Act, [15 U.S.C. §§78u(e) and 78aal. 
6. 
Defendants, directly and indirectly, have made use of the means and 
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or the facilities of a national securities 
exchange in connection with the transactions, acts, practices and courses of business alleged 
herein. 

7. 
Venue is proper because many of the transactions, acts, practices and courses of 
business alleged in this Complaint occurred in the Eastern District of Michigan, including, 
among other things, the preparation of the Form  10-Q(3) and the Conference Call. 
DEFENDANTS 
8. Conaway was Kmart's Chairman of the Board and CEO from May 3 1,2000, 
until his termination on March 11,2002. Conaway resides in Michigan. 
9. 
McDonald was hart's Vice President and Treasurer from September 6,2000, 
through November 9,2001. From November 9,2001, until his termination on March 11,2002, 
McDonald was Kmart's CFO.  McDonald is licensed as a Certified Public accountant by the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  McDonald resides in West Virginia. 
THE COMPANY 
10. 
Kmart is a Michigan corporation headquartered in Troy, Michigan.  The 
Company is a large discount and general merchandise retailer. Its common stock was registered 
with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act 
and traded on the New 
York Stock Exchange until December 19,2002, when trading was suspended. 
11. 
On January 22,2002, Kmart filed a petition under the Federal Bankruptcy Code 
seeking reorganization relief.  Before filing for relief under the Federal Bankruptcy Code, 
Kmart operated approximately 2,100 stores nationwide, employed approximately 250,000 
people and had annual sales of approximately $37 billion. 
INVENTORY OVERBUY 
12. 
Each year beginning in late September and peaking in late October Kmart made 
inventory purchases to stock its shelves for the Holiday Season. These inventory purchases 
required Kmart to borrow heavily against its $1.565 billion credit facility ("Credit Facility"). 

The inventory purchases were timed to enable Kmart to pay its suppliers and banks according to 
terms with Holiday Season sales proceeds. Although there was variation among vendors, 
Kmart's terms with its suppliers generally required payment within thirty to sixty days. 
Historically, the time around Thanksgiving and Christmas ("Holiday  Season") was Kmart's 
highest sales period.  In a typical year, Kmart's reliance on its Credit Facility would peak near 
the end of October or beginning of November, before Holiday Season sales enabled the 
Company to begin paying down its bank debt. 
13. In the summer of 2001, Kmart's Chief Operating Officer ("COO), newly 
promoted to that position by Conaway, made an extraordinary purchase of inventory in the 
approximate amount of $850 million ("Inventory  Overbuy"). The Inventory Overbuy was 
made without the approval or knowledge of other senior managers of the Company. It was 
extraordinary not just because of its size, but also because of its timing, which was at least one 
and a half months before the historical Holiday Season inventory build. 
14. In mid-August, 2001, Defendants and other members of senior management, 
referred to as the Executive Leadership Team ("ELT"), became aware of the Inventory 
Overbuy. Initially, they believed the size of the Inventory Overbuy was in the range of $400 
million, and would not discover until after Labor Day that it was more than double that amount. 
Even at the lower amount of $400 million, these members of senior management, including 
Defendants, were seriously concerned that the Inventory Overbuy would cause Kmart to exceed 
the available balance on the Credit Facility. 
15. 
Defendants and other members of senior management identified a series of 
action steps to address the apparent $400 million liquidity problem caused by the Inventory 
Overbuy.  These included plans to lower capital expenditures by $168 million, to consummate 

real estate sale-leaseback transactions valued at  $200 million, and to accelerate the collection of 
vendor allowances in the third quarter by $300 million. Allowances were provided by vendors 
for advertising, special displays, price protections, exclusivity and similar product related 
considerations. In a normal year, Kmart did not collect the majority of its allowances until the 
end of Kmart's  fourth quarter in January. 
16. 
By early September, Defendants and other members of senior management knew 
that the Inventory Overbuy was actually $850 million, more than double the original estimate. 
They also learned that the vendor allowance collections effort would fall far short of the 
projected $300 million, and that the actual collection might be approximately $50 million. In 
time, the capital expenditures effort was ineffective, and the sale-leaseback transaction fell 
through entirely. 
PROJECT SID 
17. 
By Labor Day, Defendants and other members of senior management realized 
that the action steps initially identified would not alleviate the liquidity problem caused by the 
Inventory Overbuy, which Conaway characterized as "reckless"  and "unilateral." At this time, 
Defendants considered, approved and authorized the implementation of a plan to unilaterally 
extend the terms of payment to hart's suppliers. This plan was known among senior 
managers as Project SID, which was an acronym for "slow-it-down." Under Project SID, 
Kmart's Assistant Treasurer, who was responsible for its day-to-day implementation, would 
select the vendor invoices to be paid and not paid.  Kmart's  extension of payment terms beyond 
usual terms was not discussed in advance with suppliers nor approved by them. As a 
consequence, Project SID created serious business relationship issues between Kmart and its 
vendor community. 

18. 
Defendants instructed the Kmart employees responsible for managing Project 
SID to maintain a minimum total borrowing "cushion" on the Credit Facility of at least $100 
million. By the end of September 2001, Kmart owed its primary banks approximately $1.185 
billion, leaving a liquidity cushion of approximately $380 million. In addition, Kmart had 
withheld approximately $163 million from its suppliers through Project SID. 
19. 
In September and October 2001, Conaway convened a series of meetings 
attended by McDonald and other members of Kmart's  ELT.  The purpose of these meetings was 
to track accounts payable and available cash, address specific problems with vendors caused by 
Project SID, and review operations issues related to Kmart's  liquidity. At these meetings, 
Defendants and the other members of Kmart's  ELT received cash flow analyses that showed 
Kmart's  available cash with and without SID. By the end of the quarter ended October 3 1, 
2001 ("third quarter"), Defendants knew that Kmart had insufficient liquidity to pay its bills on 
time. 
20. 
A significant number of vendors stopped shipping product to Kmart as of late 
Octoberlearly November 2001.  These included major suppliers such as Black and Decker, 3M, 
Newel1 Rubbemaid, Gillette, LEGO, and Samsung, among others. 
21. On October 27,2001, McDonald's  predecessor as Krnart's  CFO warned 
Conaway in an email of the seriousness of the Company's "cash crunch" and the "nearly $800 
million in past due invoices," over half of which was attributable to Project SID. 
22. 
As of October 3 1,2001, the last day of the third quarter, Kmart had $267 million 
available on its Credit Facility and 
$570 million in past due invoices with its suppliers as a 
result of Project SID. Stated differently, if Project SID withholdings are factored into Kmart's 
liquidity calculation, Kmart's  cash position was negative $300 million. 

23. 
On November 8,2001, McDonald's predecessor as Kmart's CFO met with 
Conaway in person and briefed him at length on the significant financial problems facing the 
Company. Kmart's CFO recommended to Conaway that the Company may need to plan for a 
bankruptcy filing and that senior management discuss the liquidity crisis and Project SID at an 
upcoming meeting of the Board of Directors. The next day, November 9,2001, Conaway 
terminated Kmart's  CFO and appointed McDonald to that position. 
24. 
As of November 27,2001, a significant number of vendors were still not 
shipping product to Kmart. These included such major household names as Newel1 
Rubbermaid, Anchor Hocking,  Samsung, Wilson Sporting Goods, LEGO, 3M, Coleman, 
American Tourister, and AC Delco. Some Kmart stores were out of such staple products as 
vitamins, cigarettes, light bulbs, books and magazines. 
eLMO COVER STORY 
25. 
At the same time Project SID was being implemented, Kmart was converting its 
inventory and payables software to better track "hard"  and "soft" goods, its two general 
categories of product. This conversion was known as Project eLMO. 
26. 
Defendants constructed a cover story to mask Project SID that attributed Kmart's 
failure to pay its bills on time to glitches in implementing software changes associated with 
Project eLMO.  Defendants instructed Kmart employees to tell suppliers who complained that 
Project eLMO was the reason for their past due invoices. In fact, as Defendants knew, Project 
eLMO had nothing to do with vendors not being paid on time. 
27. 
In response to a direct question from an analyst during the Conference Call 
(more fully detailed at paragraphs 35 
-39 of this Complaint), Defendants attributed Kmart's 
failure to pay its vendors on time to Project eLMO. Defendants knew at all relevant times that 

Kmart's past due invoices were the result of Project SID and that Project eLMO was not the 
cause. 
FALSE AND MISLEADING MD&A 
28. 
Defendants were required to provide the investing public, including Kmart's 
shareholders, with complete and accurate MD&A disclosure in the Form  10-Q(3). The purpose 
of MD&A is to give investors an opportunity to look at the Company through the eyes of 
management.  Defendants deprived Kmart's  shareholders of that opportunity in at least three 
respects. 
29. 
First, Kmart was required to discuss in the MD&A section of Kmart's Form 10- 
Q(3) material changes in the financial condition of the Company from the end of the preceding 
fiscal year to October 
31,2001, as well as material changes in financial condition from the third 
quarter of the preceding year. Where the interim financial statements reveal material changes 
from period to period in one or more significant line items, 
Kmart was obligated to describe the 
causes for the changes if they had not already been disclosed. 
Kmart failed to adequately 
describe in the MD&A section of the Form  10-Q(3) the causes for material changes in accounts 
payable and merchandise inventory 
Kmart experienced during the third quarter. 
30. 
As reported in the Form  10-Q(3), Kmart experienced 
an increase in accounts 
payable of $1,180 million or 
56% between fiscal year ended January 31,2001 ($2,093 million) 
and the third quarter ended October 
31,2001 ($3,273 million). Kmart experienced an increase 
in accounts payable of $7 18 million or 28% from the third quarter ended October 25,2000 
($2,555 million) to the end of the third quarter ended October 31,2001 ($3,273 million).  There 
is no description of the causes for those material changes in accounts payable in the MD&A 
section.  The MD&A fails to disclose that at least $570 million of that change was past due and 

attributable to Project SID. By not describing Project  SID in the MD&A section, Krnart 
provided incomplete and inaccurate disclosure in the Form  10-Q(3) because it did not describe a 
significant cause for the material change in accounts payable. 
3 1. 
As also reported in the Form  10-Q(3), Kmart experienced a change in 
merchandise inventory of $1,906 million or 30% between fiscal year ended January 
3 1,2001 
($6,412 million) and the third quarter ended October 3 1,2001 ($8,318 million).  Kmart 
experienced a change in inventory levels of $440 million or 6% from the third quarter ended 
October 25,2000 ($7,878 million) to the end of the third quarter ended October 31,2001 
($8,3 18 million). The MD&A section describes the causes for those material changes as 
follows: "[ilnventory  increased 
. . . due to seasonal inventory fluctuations and actions taken to 
improve our overall in-stock position."  That description fails to inform the reader that a 
significant cause for those material changes was the COO'S $850 million Inventory Overbuy, 
which Conaway characterized as "reckless" and "~nilateral.'~ By not including this information 
in the MD&A section, Kmart provided incomplete and inaccurate disclosure in the Form  10- 
Q(3) because it did not describe a significant cause for the material change in inventory. 
32. Second, Kmart was required to identify in the MD&A section of the Form  10-Q 
any known trends or any known demands, commitments, events or uncertainties that will result 
in or that were reasonably likely to result in the Company's liquidity increasing or decreasing in 
any material way.  Where material deficiencies were identified, Krnart was obligated to indicate 
the course of action that the Company had taken or proposed to take to remedy the deficiency, 
and also to identify and separately describe internal and external sources of liquidity.  As of 
October 3 1,2001, Krnart had effectively withheld approximately $570 million from its vendors 
without their consent via Project SID. The vendor borrowing constituted a material deficiency 

at quarter end that should have been identified in the MD&A, and Project SID was a source of 
liquidity that should have been identified and separately described. 
33. 
Third, the MD&A section also states that "[olur primary sources of working 
capital are cash flows from operations and borrowings under our credit facilities." This was 
misleading because hundreds of millions of dollars in "working capital" were attributable to 
Project 
SID during the third quarter. 
34. 
McDonald was well aware of these problems when he signed Krnart's  Form 10- 
Q(3) on or about November 27,2001. Conaway led the management team that created and 
responded to the liquidity crisis and then concealed the problem from the public. As a result, 
Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that the MD&A section of the Form 10- 
Q(3) was false and misleading when it was filed with the Commission on November 27,2001. 
CONFERENCE CALL 
35. 
Conaway and McDonald also made a number of materially false and misleading 
statements to investors and analysts in the Conference Call on November 27, 2001. 
36. 
During the Conference Call, McDonald stated that Project eLMO "did have 
some issues along the way." Conaway then sought to "eliminate any misinformation that's 
clearly been circling in the marketplace." Conaway explained that, "We've clearly caused 
some systems issues, as John [McDonald] mentioned.  During our accounts payable conversion, 
certain invoices involved in the integration were dropped and [this] has clearly caused some 
confusion." These statements were false and misleading.  Project eLMO did not cause invoices 
to be "dropped." Payments were deliberately withheld through Project SID. 
37. 
When asked by an analyst about Kmart's problems with vendors, Conaway 
responded in part, "there was a lot of noise from a small group of suppliers." This was false 

and misleading. In truth, a substantial number of vendors had stopped shipping product to 
Kmart stores including such major suppliers as Black and Decker, Newel1 Rubbermaid, Gillette, 
LEG0 and Samsung. 
38. McDonald added, "we're  fully caught up at this point." This was false.  Kmart 
still owed approximately $365 million in undisclosed vendor borrowing as the result of Project 
SID as of November 30,200 1. 
39. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that these statements to 
investors and analysts were false and misleading.  McDonald knew that the statement "we're 
fully caught up at this point" was false, in part, because the Assistant Treasurer had told 
McDonald shortly before the Conference Call that the company would not be "fully caught up" 
until early December. 
KMART'S BANKRUPTCY 
40. 
Kmart utilized Holiday Season sales proceeds to pay down its Project SID 
borrowing in early December 2001.  Kmart's  bank borrowing under its Credit Facility rose to 
unprecedented levels as a result. This caused hart's banks to begin preparing debtor-in- 
possession petitions under the Federal Bankruptcy Code.  Historically, Kmart had paid off its 
entire bank debt by calendar year end, but at the end of December 2001, Kmart's  bank debt on 
its Credit Facility was approximately $970 million.  To make matters worse, hart was unable 
to collect from its vendors hundreds of millions of dollars worth of allowances arguably due 
and owing in January 2001, which further exacerbated Kmart's deteriorating liquidity situation. 
On January 22,2002, Kmart filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code. 
41. 
On the eve of bankruptcy, January 15,2002, McDonald received a $1.75 million 
cash payment from Kmart.  This supplemented a similar $750,000 payment McDonald had 

received on December 3,2001. Conaway received approximately $20 million in compensation 
from Krnart for 20 months service. 
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
(Violations of the Antifraud Provisions 
of the Exchange Act) 
42. The Commission incorporates paragraphs  1 through 41 with the same force and 
effect as if set out here. 
43. 
In the manner described in paragraphs  1 through 42, Conaway and McDonald, in 
connection with the purchase or sale of securities, knowingly or recklessly, by the use of means 
or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails, directly or indirectly (a) employed 
devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material facts or 
omissions of material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the 
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in transactions, 
practices or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon 
persons in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C 
9 78j(b)] and Rule lob-5 
[17 C.F.R. 
5 240.10b-51 promulgated thereunder. 
44. Conaway and McDonald are likely to continue to violate these antifraud 
provisions of the Exchange Act unless enjoined. 
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
JAidin~and Abetting Violations of the Antifraud 
Provisions of the Exchange Act) 
45. 
The Commission hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 44 with the same 
force and effect as if set out here. 

46. 
In the manner described in paragraphs 1 through 45, Kmart violated Section 
10(b) [15 U.S.C 
5 78j(b)] and Rule lob-5 [17 C.F.R. 5 240.10b-51 promulgated thereunder by 
filing with the Commission a Form 10-Q(3) containing materially false and misleading MD&A 
and Conaway and McDonald aided and abetted 
Krnart, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the 
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 
$ 78t(e)], because they had a general awareness that their roles were 
part of an overall activity that was improper, and knowingly and substantially assisted the 
violation. 
47. Conaway and McDonald are likely to continue to aid and abet violations of these 
antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act unless enjoined. 
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
[Violations of the Reporting and MD&A Provisions 
of the Exchange Act) 
48. 
The Commission hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 47 with the same 
force and effect as if set out here. 
49. 
In the manner described in paragraphs 1 through 48, Krnart violated Section 
13(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 
$ 78m(a)] and Rules  12b-20 and 13a-13 promulgated 
thereunder [17 C.F.R. 
$4 240.12b-20 and 240.13a-131 by filing with the Commission a Form 
10-Q(3) containing materially false and misleading MD&A, and Conaway and McDonald aided 
and abetted Krnart, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 
$ 78t(e)], because 
they had a general awareness that their roles were part of an overall activity that was improper, 
and knowingly and substantially assisted the violation. 
50. 
Conaway and McDonald are likely to continue to aid and abet violations of these 
reporting and MD&A provisions of the Exchange Act unless enjoined. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment: 
(a) 
permanently enjoining defendants Conway and McDonald, and their agents, 
servants, employees, attorneys, and those in active concert or participation with them, who 
receive actual notice by personal service or otherwise, fiom 
(i) violating Section 10(b) of the 
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C 
5 78j(b)] and Rule  10b-5 [I 7 C.F.R. 5 240.10b-51 promulgated 
thereunder; and (ii) aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a) of the Exchange Act [15 
U.S.C. 
tj 78m(a)] and Rules  12b-20 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. $5 240.12b-
20 and 240.13a-131; 
(b) 
ordering defendants Conaway and McDonald to disgorge all ill-gotten gains 
fiom the conduct alleged herein, with prejudgment interest; 
(c) 
ordering defendants Conaway and McDonald to pay civil money penalties 
pursuant to Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 
5 78u(d)(3)]; 
(d) 
permanently barring defendants Conaway and McDonald fiom serving as an 
officer or director of a publicly traded company pursuant to Section 21 (d) of the Exchange Act 
[15 U.S.C. 
5 78u(d)]; and 

(e) 
granting such other relief as this Court may deem just  and appropriate. 
3
'I0 
Dated: August d2005 
Washington, D. C. 
By: 
Alan M. Lieberman 
Attorney for Plaintiff 
United States Securities and 
Exchange Commission 
100 F St., 
N. E. 
Washington, D. C. 20549-463 1 
Tel: 202-55 1-4474 
Fax: 202-772-9245 
Of Counsel: 
Peter 
H. Bresnan 
Cheryl 
J. Scarboro 
Reid 
A. Muoio 
Timothy P. Peterson 
Local Counsel: 
Ellen Christensen 
Assistant United States Attorney 
21
1 W. Fort Street 
Suite 2001 
Detroit, MI  48226-32 1 1 
Tel: 3 131226-9112 
Fax: 3 131226-3800 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SECURITIES AND Jury Trial Demanded 
EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Plaintiff, 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

CHARLES C. CONAWAY and 
JOHN T. MCDONALD, JR., 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission"), for its 

Complaint against defendants Charles C. Conaway ("Conaway") and John T. McDonald, Jr. 

("McDonald"), (collectively the "Defendants"), alleges as follows: 

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 

1. This civil fraud case involves material misrepresentations and omissions by 

Conaway and McDonald about the financial condition of Kmart Corporation ("Kmart" or 

"Company") in the months preceding the Company's bankruptcy. Conaway was Kmart's 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), and McDonald was Treasurer and Chief 

Financial Officer ("CFO"). 

2.  Defendants failed to disclose that Kmart had made an extraordinary and reckless 

over purchase of inventory. Instead of candidly admitting the fact of the ill-advised overbuy 

and the significant impact it had on the Company's liquidity, Conaway and McDonald dealt 



with Kmart's liquidity problem by secretly slowing down payments owed vendors. Defendants 

then lied about why vendors were not being paid on time and misrepresented the impact that 

Kmart's liquidity problems had on the Company's relationship with its vendors, many of whom 

stopped shipping product to Krnart. 

3. Conaway and McDonald are responsible for materially false and misleading 

disclosure about such matters in the Management's Discussion and Analysis ("MD&A") 

section of Kmart's Form 10-Q for the quarter and nine months ended October 3 1,2001 ("Form 

10-Q(3)") and in a conference call with analysts and investors on November 27,2001 

("Conference Call"). 

4. By engaging in such conduct, Conaway and McDonald (i) directly or indirectly 

violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

("Exchange Act") and Rule lob-5 thereunder; (ii) aided and abetted violations of Sections 1 O(b) 

and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules lob-5, 13a-13, and 12b-20 thereunder by Krnart; and 

(iii) demonstrated their substantial unfitness to serve as officers or directors of a publicly-traded 

company pursuant to Section 2 1 (d) of the Exchange Act. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 2 1 (e) and 27 of 

the Exchange Act, [15 U.S.C. §§78u(e) and 78aal. 

6. Defendants, directly and indirectly, have made use of the means and 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or the facilities of a national securities 

exchange in connection with the transactions, acts, practices and courses of business alleged 

herein. 



7. Venue is proper because many of the transactions, acts, practices and courses of 

business alleged in this Complaint occurred in the Eastern District of Michigan, including, 

among other things, the preparation of the Form 10-Q(3) and the Conference Call. 

DEFENDANTS 

8. Conaway was Kmart's Chairman of the Board and CEO from May 3 1,2000, 

until his termination on March 11,2002. Conaway resides in Michigan. 

9. McDonald was h a r t ' s  Vice President and Treasurer from September 6,2000, 

through November 9,2001. From November 9,2001, until his termination on March 11,2002, 

McDonald was Kmart's CFO. McDonald is licensed as a Certified Public accountant by the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. McDonald resides in West Virginia. 

THE COMPANY 

10. Kmart is a Michigan corporation headquartered in Troy, Michigan. The 

Company is a large discount and general merchandise retailer. Its common stock was registered 

with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act and traded on the New 

York Stock Exchange until December 19,2002, when trading was suspended. 

11. On January 22,2002, Kmart filed a petition under the Federal Bankruptcy Code 

seeking reorganization relief. Before filing for relief under the Federal Bankruptcy Code, 

Kmart operated approximately 2,100 stores nationwide, employed approximately 250,000 

people and had annual sales of approximately $37 billion. 

INVENTORY OVERBUY 

12. Each year beginning in late September and peaking in late October Kmart made 

inventory purchases to stock its shelves for the Holiday Season. These inventory purchases 

required Kmart to borrow heavily against its $1.565 billion credit facility ("Credit Facility"). 



The inventory purchases were timed to enable Kmart to pay its suppliers and banks according to 

terms with Holiday Season sales proceeds. Although there was variation among vendors, 

Kmart's terms with its suppliers generally required payment within thirty to sixty days. 

Historically, the time around Thanksgiving and Christmas ("Holiday Season") was Kmart's 

highest sales period. In a typical year, Kmart's reliance on its Credit Facility would peak near 

the end of October or beginning of November, before Holiday Season sales enabled the 

Company to begin paying down its bank debt. 

13. In the summer of 2001, Kmart's Chief Operating Officer ("COO), newly 

promoted to that position by Conaway, made an extraordinary purchase of inventory in the 

approximate amount of $850 million ("Inventory Overbuy"). The Inventory Overbuy was 

made without the approval or knowledge of other senior managers of the Company. It was 

extraordinary not just because of its size, but also because of its timing, which was at least one 

and a half months before the historical Holiday Season inventory build. 

14. In mid-August, 2001, Defendants and other members of senior management, 

referred to as the Executive Leadership Team ("ELT"), became aware of the Inventory 

Overbuy. Initially, they believed the size of the Inventory Overbuy was in the range of $400 

million, and would not discover until after Labor Day that it was more than double that amount. 

Even at the lower amount of $400 million, these members of senior management, including 

Defendants, were seriously concerned that the Inventory Overbuy would cause Kmart to exceed 

the available balance on the Credit Facility. 

15. Defendants and other members of senior management identified a series of 

action steps to address the apparent $400 million liquidity problem caused by the Inventory 

Overbuy. These included plans to lower capital expenditures by $168 million, to consummate 



real estate sale-leaseback transactions valued at $200 million, and to accelerate the collection of 

vendor allowances in the third quarter by $300 million. Allowances were provided by vendors 

for advertising, special displays, price protections, exclusivity and similar product related 

considerations. In a normal year, Kmart did not collect the majority of its allowances until the 

end of Kmart's fourth quarter in January. 

16. By early September, Defendants and other members of senior management knew 

that the Inventory Overbuy was actually $850 million, more than double the original estimate. 

They also learned that the vendor allowance collections effort would fall far short of the 

projected $300 million, and that the actual collection might be approximately $50 million. In 

time, the capital expenditures effort was ineffective, and the sale-leaseback transaction fell 

through entirely. 

PROJECT SID 

17. By Labor Day, Defendants and other members of senior management realized 

that the action steps initially identified would not alleviate the liquidity problem caused by the 

Inventory Overbuy, which Conaway characterized as "reckless" and "unilateral." At this time, 

Defendants considered, approved and authorized the implementation of a plan to unilaterally 

extend the terms of payment to h a r t ' s  suppliers. This plan was known among senior 

managers as Project SID, which was an acronym for "slow-it-down." Under Project SID, 

Kmart's Assistant Treasurer, who was responsible for its day-to-day implementation, would 

select the vendor invoices to be paid and not paid. Kmart's extension of payment terms beyond 

usual terms was not discussed in advance with suppliers nor approved by them. As a 

consequence, Project SID created serious business relationship issues between Kmart and its 

vendor community. 



18. Defendants instructed the Kmart employees responsible for managing Project 

SID to maintain a minimum total borrowing "cushion" on the Credit Facility of at least $100 

million. By the end of September 2001, Kmart owed its primary banks approximately $1.185 

billion, leaving a liquidity cushion of approximately $380 million. In addition, Kmart had 

withheld approximately $163 million from its suppliers through Project SID. 

19. In September and October 2001, Conaway convened a series of meetings 

attended by McDonald and other members of Kmart's ELT. The purpose of these meetings was 

to track accounts payable and available cash, address specific problems with vendors caused by 

Project SID, and review operations issues related to Kmart's liquidity. At these meetings, 

Defendants and the other members of Kmart's ELT received cash flow analyses that showed 

Kmart's available cash with and without SID. By the end of the quarter ended October 3 1, 

2001 ("third quarter"), Defendants knew that Kmart had insufficient liquidity to pay its bills on 

time. 

20. A significant number of vendors stopped shipping product to Kmart as of late 

Octoberlearly November 2001. These included major suppliers such as Black and Decker, 3M, 

Newel1 Rubbemaid, Gillette, LEGO, and Samsung, among others. 

21. On October 27,2001, McDonald's predecessor as Krnart's CFO warned 

Conaway in an email of the seriousness of the Company's "cash crunch" and the "nearly $800 

million in past due invoices," over half of which was attributable to Project SID. 

22. As of October 3 1,2001, the last day of the third quarter, Kmart had $267 million 

available on its Credit Facility and $570 million in past due invoices with its suppliers as a 

result of Project SID. Stated differently, if Project SID withholdings are factored into Kmart's 

liquidity calculation, Kmart's cash position was negative $300 million. 



23. On November 8,2001, McDonald's predecessor as Kmart's CFO met with 

Conaway in person and briefed him at length on the significant financial problems facing the 

Company. Kmart's CFO recommended to Conaway that the Company may need to plan for a 

bankruptcy filing and that senior management discuss the liquidity crisis and Project SID at an 

upcoming meeting of the Board of Directors. The next day, November 9,2001, Conaway 

terminated Kmart's CFO and appointed McDonald to that position. 

24. As of November 27,2001, a significant number of vendors were still not 

shipping product to Kmart. These included such major household names as Newel1 

Rubbermaid, Anchor Hocking, Samsung, Wilson Sporting Goods, LEGO, 3M, Coleman, 

American Tourister, and AC Delco. Some Kmart stores were out of such staple products as 

vitamins, cigarettes, light bulbs, books and magazines. 

eLMO COVER STORY 

25. At the same time Project SID was being implemented, Kmart was converting its 

inventory and payables software to better track "hard" and "soft" goods, its two general 

categories of product. This conversion was known as Project eLMO. 

26. Defendants constructed a cover story to mask Project SID that attributed Kmart's 

failure to pay its bills on time to glitches in implementing software changes associated with 

Project eLMO. Defendants instructed Kmart employees to tell suppliers who complained that 

Project eLMO was the reason for their past due invoices. In fact, as Defendants knew, Project 

eLMO had nothing to do with vendors not being paid on time. 

27. In response to a direct question from an analyst during the Conference Call 

(more fully detailed at paragraphs 35 - 39 of this Complaint), Defendants attributed Kmart's 

failure to pay its vendors on time to Project eLMO. Defendants knew at all relevant times that 



Kmart's past due invoices were the result of Project SID and that Project eLMO was not the 

cause. 

FALSE AND MISLEADING MD&A 

28. Defendants were required to provide the investing public, including Kmart's 

shareholders, with complete and accurate MD&A disclosure in the Form 10-Q(3). The purpose 

of MD&A is to give investors an opportunity to look at the Company through the eyes of 

management. Defendants deprived Kmart's shareholders of that opportunity in at least three 

respects. 

29. First, Kmart was required to discuss in the MD&A section of Kmart's Form 10- 

Q(3) material changes in the financial condition of the Company from the end of the preceding 

fiscal year to October 31,2001, as well as material changes in financial condition from the third 

quarter of the preceding year. Where the interim financial statements reveal material changes 

from period to period in one or more significant line items, Kmart was obligated to describe the 

causes for the changes if they had not already been disclosed. Kmart failed to adequately 

describe in the MD&A section of the Form 10-Q(3) the causes for material changes in accounts 

payable and merchandise inventory Kmart experienced during the third quarter. 

30. As reported in the Form 10-Q(3), Kmart experienced an increase in accounts 

payable of $1,180 million or 56% between fiscal year ended January 31,2001 ($2,093 million) 

and the third quarter ended October 31,2001 ($3,273 million). Kmart experienced an increase 

in accounts payable of $7 18 million or 28% from the third quarter ended October 25,2000 

($2,555 million) to the end of the third quarter ended October 31,2001 ($3,273 million). There 

is no description of the causes for those material changes in accounts payable in the MD&A 

section. The MD&A fails to disclose that at least $570 million of that change was past due and 



attributable to Project SID. By not describing Project SID in the MD&A section, Krnart 

provided incomplete and inaccurate disclosure in the Form 10-Q(3) because it did not describe a 

significant cause for the material change in accounts payable. 

3 1. As also reported in the Form 10-Q(3), Kmart experienced a change in 

merchandise inventory of $1,906 million or 30% between fiscal year ended January 3 1,2001 

($6,412 million) and the third quarter ended October 3 1,2001 ($8,318 million). Kmart 

experienced a change in inventory levels of $440 million or 6% from the third quarter ended 

October 25,2000 ($7,878 million) to the end of the third quarter ended October 31,2001 

($8,3 18 million). The MD&A section describes the causes for those material changes as 

follows: "[ilnventory increased . . . due to seasonal inventory fluctuations and actions taken to 

improve our overall in-stock position." That description fails to inform the reader that a 

significant cause for those material changes was the COO'S $850 million Inventory Overbuy, 

which Conaway characterized as "reckless" and "~nilateral.'~ By not including this information 

in the MD&A section, Kmart provided incomplete and inaccurate disclosure in the Form 10- 

Q(3) because it did not describe a significant cause for the material change in inventory. 

32. Second, Kmart was required to identify in the MD&A section of the Form 10-Q 

any known trends or any known demands, commitments, events or uncertainties that will result 

in or that were reasonably likely to result in the Company's liquidity increasing or decreasing in 

any material way. Where material deficiencies were identified, Krnart was obligated to indicate 

the course of action that the Company had taken or proposed to take to remedy the deficiency, 

and also to identify and separately describe internal and external sources of liquidity. As of 

October 3 1,2001, Krnart had effectively withheld approximately $570 million from its vendors 

without their consent via Project SID. The vendor borrowing constituted a material deficiency 



at quarter end that should have been identified in the MD&A, and Project SID was a source of 

liquidity that should have been identified and separately described. 

33. Third, the MD&A section also states that "[olur primary sources of working 

capital are cash flows from operations and borrowings under our credit facilities." This was 

misleading because hundreds of millions of dollars in "working capital" were attributable to 

Project SID during the third quarter. 

34. McDonald was well aware of these problems when he signed Krnart's Form 10- 

Q(3) on or about November 27,2001. Conaway led the management team that created and 

responded to the liquidity crisis and then concealed the problem from the public. As a result, 

Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that the MD&A section of the Form 10- 

Q(3) was false and misleading when it was filed with the Commission on November 27,2001. 

CONFERENCE CALL 

35. Conaway and McDonald also made a number of materially false and misleading 

statements to investors and analysts in the Conference Call on November 27, 2001. 

36. During the Conference Call, McDonald stated that Project eLMO "did have 

some issues along the way." Conaway then sought to "eliminate any misinformation that's 

clearly been circling in the marketplace." Conaway explained that, "We've clearly caused 

some systems issues, as John [McDonald] mentioned. During our accounts payable conversion, 

certain invoices involved in the integration were dropped and [this] has clearly caused some 

confusion." These statements were false and misleading. Project eLMO did not cause invoices 

to be "dropped." Payments were deliberately withheld through Project SID. 

37. When asked by an analyst about Kmart's problems with vendors, Conaway 

responded in part, "there was a lot of noise from a small group of suppliers." This was false 



and misleading. In truth, a substantial number of vendors had stopped shipping product to 

Kmart stores including such major suppliers as Black and Decker, Newel1 Rubbermaid, Gillette, 

LEG0 and Samsung. 

38. McDonald added, "we're fully caught up at this point." This was false. Kmart 

still owed approximately $365 million in undisclosed vendor borrowing as the result of Project 

SID as of November 30,200 1. 

39. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that these statements to 

investors and analysts were false and misleading. McDonald knew that the statement "we're 

fully caught up at this point" was false, in part, because the Assistant Treasurer had told 

McDonald shortly before the Conference Call that the company would not be "fully caught up" 

until early December. 

KMART'S BANKRUPTCY 

40. Kmart utilized Holiday Season sales proceeds to pay down its Project SID 

borrowing in early December 2001. Kmart's bank borrowing under its Credit Facility rose to 

unprecedented levels as a result. This caused h a r t ' s  banks to begin preparing debtor-in- 

possession petitions under the Federal Bankruptcy Code. Historically, Kmart had paid off its 

entire bank debt by calendar year end, but at the end of December 2001, Kmart's bank debt on 

its Credit Facility was approximately $970 million. To make matters worse, h a r t  was unable 

to collect from its vendors hundreds of millions of dollars worth of allowances arguably due 

and owing in January 2001, which further exacerbated Kmart's deteriorating liquidity situation. 

On January 22,2002, Kmart filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code. 

41. On the eve of bankruptcy, January 15,2002, McDonald received a $1.75 million 

cash payment from Kmart. This supplemented a similar $750,000 payment McDonald had 



received on December 3,2001. Conaway received approximately $20 million in compensation 

from Krnart for 20 months service. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Violations of the Antifraud Provisions 
of the Exchange Act) 

42. The Commission incorporates paragraphs 1 through 41 with the same force and 

effect as if set out here. 

43. In the manner described in paragraphs 1 through 42, Conaway and McDonald, in 

connection with the purchase or sale of securities, knowingly or recklessly, by the use of means 

or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails, directly or indirectly (a) employed 

devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material facts or 

omissions of material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the 

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in transactions, 

practices or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon 

persons in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C 9 78j(b)] and Rule lob-5 

[17 C.F.R. 5 240.10b-51 promulgated thereunder. 

44. Conaway and McDonald are likely to continue to violate these antifraud 

provisions of the Exchange Act unless enjoined. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

JAidin~and Abetting Violations of the Antifraud 
Provisions of the Exchange Act) 

45. The Commission hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 44 with the same 

force and effect as if set out here. 



46. In the manner described in paragraphs 1 through 45, Kmart violated Section 

10(b) [15 U.S.C 5 78j(b)] and Rule lob-5 [17 C.F.R. 5 240.10b-51 promulgated thereunder by 

filing with the Commission a Form 10-Q(3) containing materially false and misleading MD&A 

and Conaway and McDonald aided and abetted Krnart, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. $ 78t(e)], because they had a general awareness that their roles were 

part of an overall activity that was improper, and knowingly and substantially assisted the 

violation. 

47. Conaway and McDonald are likely to continue to aid and abet violations of these 

antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act unless enjoined. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

[Violations of the Reporting and MD&A Provisions 
of the Exchange Act) 

48. The Commission hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 47 with the same 

force and effect as if set out here. 

49. In the manner described in paragraphs 1 through 48, Krnart violated Section 

13(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. $ 78m(a)] and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 promulgated 

thereunder [17 C.F.R. $ 4  240.12b-20 and 240.13a-131 by filing with the Commission a Form 

10-Q(3) containing materially false and misleading MD&A, and Conaway and McDonald aided 

and abetted Krnart, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. $ 78t(e)], because 

they had a general awareness that their roles were part of an overall activity that was improper, 

and knowingly and substantially assisted the violation. 

50. Conaway and McDonald are likely to continue to aid and abet violations of these 

reporting and MD&A provisions of the Exchange Act unless enjoined. 



PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment: 

(a) permanently enjoining defendants Conway and McDonald, and their agents, 

servants, employees, attorneys, and those in active concert or participation with them, who 

receive actual notice by personal service or otherwise, fiom (i) violating Section 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C 5 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [I 7 C.F.R. 5 240.10b-51 promulgated 

thereunder; and (ii) aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a) of the Exchange Act [15 

U.S.C. tj 78m(a)] and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. $5 240.12b-

20 and 240.13a-131; 

(b) ordering defendants Conaway and McDonald to disgorge all ill-gotten gains 

fiom the conduct alleged herein, with prejudgment interest; 

(c) ordering defendants Conaway and McDonald to pay civil money penalties 

pursuant to Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 5 78u(d)(3)]; 

(d) permanently barring defendants Conaway and McDonald fiom serving as an 

officer or director of a publicly traded company pursuant to Section 21 (d) of the Exchange Act 

[15 U.S.C. 5 78u(d)]; and 



(e) granting such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. 

3
'I0 

Dated: August d 2 0 0 5  

Washington, D. C. 

By: 

Alan M. Lieberman 
Attorney for Plaintiff 
United States Securities and 

Exchange Commission 
100 F St., N. E. 

Washington, D. C. 20549-463 1 
Tel: 202-55 1-4474 
Fax: 202-772-9245 

Of Counsel: 

Peter H. Bresnan 
Cheryl J. Scarboro 
Reid A. Muoio 
Timothy P. Peterson 

Local Counsel: 

Ellen Christensen 
Assistant United States Attorney 
211 W. Fort Street 
Suite 2001 
Detroit, MI 48226-32 1 1 
Tel: 3 131226-9112 
Fax: 3 131226-3800