Ep63 - 2014: Eni’s Way goes public

In recent posts, I showed what happened before the Italian courts.

But alongside the legal dispute, one question remained:

📌 who within Eni would be willing to independently examine the documents I had been presenting for so many years?

I had already tried different paths.

In 2002, I took my case to the highest levels of governance - under CEO Vittorio Mincato.

In 2009, I presented the facts and documents again - under CEO Paolo Scaroni.

And in 2014, with a new Board of Directors, I tried once more.

A new Chairwoman: Emma Marcegaglia.

A new CEO: Claudio Descalzi.

A new Board: Andrea Gemma, Pietro Guindani, Karina Litvack, Alessandro Lorenzi, Moriani Diva, Fabrizio Pagani and Luigi Zingales.

For me, this was another opportunity for the facts to finally be examined.

But once again, that did not happen.

Three moments: 2002. 2009. 2014.

Three attempts to reach Eni’s governance.

It was then, still in 2014, that I made a decision that would change my strategy:

🔹 if the documents could not find room for an effective review within the company, I would take them to the public.

I decided to take the Flinto Case public.

And I created the "Eni’s Way" social media channels.

The name was not chosen by chance.

When I was an executive at Eni’s Brazilian subsidiary, "Eni’s Way" was the name of a global corporate publication.

One of its covers, which I still have, featured Enrico Mattei, accompanied by the headline:

🔹 “Il secolo di Mattei - The Century of Mattei”.

Years later, the publication was discontinued.

But the name remained in my memory.

In 2014, I brought it back for an entirely different purpose.

🔴 If “Eni’s Way” had once presented Eni to the world from the company’s own perspective, it would now present documents and events that were also part of my history with Eni.

And so, the "Eni’s Way" social media channels were born.

Not to ask people to believe my version.

But to do something more objective:

🔹 make the documents public.

Letters. Emails. Reports. Court decisions. Correspondence with governance bodies.

And a chronology allowing anyone interested to reconstruct the events and form their own opinion.

For years, I had insisted that Eni itself examine my case internally.

After the attempts in 2002, 2009 and again in 2014, I decided this story needed to move beyond the company’s walls.

That is how an old name from Eni’s corporate communications took on a new meaning.

🔷 ENI’S WAY.

The name remained.

Who told the story changed.

From that moment on, the dispute would no longer remain confined to internal channels and the courts.

The documents would begin to speak directly to the public.

And that decision would have consequences.

On Monday, I will continue from this point.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Memorial (1999–2025)

2️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events

Ep62 - Eni: from €15 million to €5 million

Yesterday, I showed that, following the judgment of September 29, 2014, there were contacts between the lawyers representing the parties in Italy.

Those discussions culminated, on January 20, 2015, in my lawyer formally submitting a request for €5 million as compensation for the damages I claimed to have suffered over those years.

There appeared to be an opportunity to finally bring an end to a dispute that had already lasted more than a decade.

But an amicable settlement was not reached.

Eni decided to continue the legal battle.

The company appealed the judgment of the Civil Court of Rome that had rejected its claim against me and the Brazilian Institute for Business Ethics (Instituto Brasileiro de Ética nos Negócios).

But something changed on appeal.

And that detail deserves attention.

In the original lawsuit, Eni had quantified its alleged damages at €15 million.

The Court rejected the claim, referring critically to the way the damages had been quantified at the substantial sum of €15 million.

Then, on appeal, Eni reduced its damages claim from €15 million to €5 million.

A reduction of €10 million - two-thirds of the amount originally claimed.

Coincidence or not, there was a particularly curious fact in that sequence.

Shortly before, during the discussions that followed the judgment, my lawyer had formally submitted to Eni a request for €5 million for the professional, financial, moral and reputational damages I claimed to have suffered.

Now, on appeal, €5 million had also become the amount Eni was seeking against me and the Institute.

I have no documentary evidence that allows me to state that there was a connection between these two amounts.

But the chronological and financial coincidence exists - and it is part of the reconstruction of events:

🔹 Eni claimed €15 million.

🔹 The Civil Court of Rome declared the claim unfounded and rejected the lawsuit.

🔹 There was an attempt to reach a settlement between the parties.

🔹 No settlement was reached.

🔹 Eni appealed - and reduced its claim to €5 million.

The case, therefore, did not end.

It continued for several more years before the Italian courts.

And on October 16, 2019, the Rome Court of Appeal would rule on that dispute.

But before we reach that point, there is another part of this story that needs to be told.

After so many years of trying to bring the documents to the company’s internal channels and different levels of governance, the dispute was beginning to move definitively beyond the corporate walls.

Tomorrow, I will continue from exactly this point.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Civil Court of Rome Judgment:
🔹 original in Italian
🔹 English

2️⃣ Fax from Micali to D’Ercole:
🔹 original in Italian
🔹 English

3️⃣ Memorial (1999–2025)

4️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events

Ep61 - After the judgment: a €5 million proposal

On Sep 29, 2014, the Civil Court of Rome rejected the lawsuit brought by Eni against me and the Brazilian Institute for Business Ethics (Instituto Brasileiro de Ética nos Negócios).

The company had quantified its alleged damages at €15 million.

The Court was clear:

🔹 “La domanda è infondata”.

🔷 “The claim is unfounded”.

For me, that decision could mean more than a legal victory.

It could open an opportunity to finally end a dispute that had lasted more than a decade.

After the judgment, there were contacts between the lawyers representing the parties in Italy.

On one side, Fabio Micali, my lawyer.

On the other, Stefano D’Ercole, from Studio Legale D'Ercole, the external lawyer representing Eni in that case.

Those contacts are not an assumption.

On Jan 20, 2015, my lawyer sent D’Ercole a formal fax beginning:

🔹 “Facendo seguito alla corrispondenza intercorsa sia per le vie brevi che a mezzo fax...”

In English:

🔷 “Following the correspondence exchanged both through direct contacts and by fax...”

The document itself therefore records that previous communications had already taken place between the lawyers representing the parties.

My lawyer described the professional, financial, moral and reputational damages I claimed to have suffered and formally requested, on behalf of myself and the Institute, €5 million as compensation for damages suffered and to be suffered.

I personally signed the document, fully ratifying its contents and requests.

The sequence deserves attention.

Eni had claimed €15 million against me and the Institute.

The Italian Court rejected that claim.

Months later, after contacts between the parties’ lawyers, my representative formally submitted to Eni a €5 million request for the damages I claimed to have suffered.

A negotiation of this magnitude was not an informal conversation between two individuals.

Both lawyers represented their respective clients in that litigation.

In my case, there is no doubt: Micali discussed the matter with me and formalized the document on my behalf, with my signature and express ratification.

As for Eni’s internal decision-making, I have no document showing who within the company followed or authorized each stage of the discussions.

But one fact is documented:

📌 my lawyer and the lawyer representing Eni had already been in contact before the €5 million request was formally submitted.

For me, this was a concrete opportunity to seek a solution and end a story that had begun in 2001.

But that did not happen.

The dispute continued.

What happened next added another chapter to this story.

Tomorrow, I will continue from exactly this point.

❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Fax from Micali to D’Ercole:
🔹 Italian
🔹 English

2️⃣ Civil Court of Rome Judgment:
🔹 Italian
🔹 English

3️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events

Ep60 - The claim is unfounded!

Yesterday, I ended this account at exactly this point.

In May 2014, with a new governance at Eni, I once again tried to bring my case to the company’s highest leadership.

Four months later, however, it would not be Eni that reached a conclusion about the documents.

It would be the Italian Court.

On September 29, 2014, the Civil Court of Rome issued its judgment in the lawsuit brought by Eni SpA against me and the Brazilian Institute for Business Ethics (Instituto Brasileiro de Ética nos Negócios).

The company was seeking damages for alleged defamation.

And the amount was far from insignificant:

Eni had quantified its alleged damages at €15 million.

Judge Vittorio Contento made a particularly significant observation.

The judgment states that the damages had been:

🔹 “disinvoltamente specificati nell’ingente somma di € 15.000.000,00”.

In English:

🔹 “quantified in the substantial sum of €15 million”.

The wording is relevant: the judge did not literally use the term “exorbitant”, but described the €15 million as an “ingente somma” and used “disinvoltamente specificati” to describe how the damages had been quantified.

And at the beginning of its reasoning, the judgment states:

🔷 “La domanda è infondata”.

🔷 “The claim is unfounded”.

The Court observed that my numerous messages could, in principle, be considered offensive to the company’s image.

But that was not enough to establish the alleged damage.

According to the judgment, Eni had not indicated what harmful consequences to its image had resulted from my correspondence.

There is another significant passage.

The judge observed that it would be difficult to imagine that numerous authorities would form a negative image of Eni simply from messages received from an unknown employee, without first “accertare e valutare” - verifying and assessing - the dispute.

In the end, the decision was unequivocal:

🔹 “Rigetta la domanda”.

🔹 The Court rejected Eni’s claim.

It also ordered Eni SpA to reimburse me and the Institute €32,344.00 in legal costs, plus the other amounts specified in the judgment.

The contrast was significant.

On one side, Eni had quantified its alleged damages at €15 million.

On the other, a judgment declaring the claim unfounded, rejecting it, and ordering the company to pay legal costs.

After years of trying to bring the documents to different levels of Eni’s governance, there was now a new element:

📌 a decision by the Italian Court itself rejecting Eni’s lawsuit.

Could that judgment have created an opportunity to finally end the dispute?

That is what I thought too.

But that is not what happened.

Tomorrow, I will continue from exactly this point.


❎ Learn more:
;
1️⃣ Civil Court of Rome Judgment — Sep 29, 2014:
🔹 original in Italian
🔹 English

2️⃣ Memorial (1999–2025)

3️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events

Ep59 - 2014: A new Eni Board. But...

In May 2014, a new chapter began in Eni’s governance.

The company had a new Chairwoman, Emma Marcegaglia, a new CEO, Claudio Descalzi, and a newly appointed Board of Directors.

For me, that change represented a new opportunity.

By then, I had already made several attempts to bring my case to the company’s highest levels.

I had written to AGIP Brazil’s leadership (2001), the Ethics Committee (2002), and Eni’s Board of Directors in Rome (2002).

In 2009, following another change in governance, I sent a ten-page MEMORIAL to then-CEO Paolo Scaroni, copying Chairman Roberto Poli, members of the Board, the Board of Statutory Auditors and other governance bodies.

My intention was always the same:

📌 to give Eni the opportunity to examine the documents and reach its own conclusions.

In 2014, once again, there was a new leadership that had not been involved in the events of 2001.

So I decided to try once more.

On April 15, 2014, even before the new governance was formally confirmed, I wrote to Emma Marcegaglia, briefly presenting my story and asking that my case be examined.

After the new leadership was confirmed, on May 9, I wrote again.

The subject line said exactly:

🔷 “Guardians of Ethics at Eni SpA”.

The message was addressed to Emma Marcegaglia, with copies to Claudio Descalzi and members of Eni’s new governance, including Andrea Gemma, Pietro Guindani, Karina Litvack, Alessandro Lorenzi, Moriani Diva, Fabrizio Pagani and Luigi Zingales, as well as members of the company’s oversight bodies.

In that message, I expressed a conviction I still hold today:

🔴 members of the Board should also act as “Guardians of Ethics”, respecting not only the letter but also the spirit of the company’s Code of Ethics.

I also sent the Memorial concerning my case, in English.

I was not asking them to accept my version of events.

The documents existed.

AGIP’s internal audit existed.

The witness statements existed.

My communications to the company since 2001 existed.

And the events that followed my reports also existed.

What I expected was simple

🔹 to examine the documents;

🔹 to determine what had actually happened;

🔹 and to reach an independent conclusion.

Changes in leadership can provide an opportunity to revisit past decisions through new eyes.

But another important element was unfolding.

While I was once again trying to be heard by Eni, a lawsuit brought against me by the company itself was approaching a decisive moment in Italy.

On September 29, 2014, the Italian Court would issue its ruling.

That decision would add another document to the story I am reconstructing in this series.

Tomorrow, I will continue from exactly this point.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Email “Guardians of Ethics at Eni SpA” (May 9, 2014 — original in English)

2️⃣ Memorial (1999–2025)

3️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events