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
 

Ep58 - Whistleblowing should not end in punishment

Yesterday, I showed a document that, years after my dismissal, recorded something I had been unable to explain.

According to a statement by a ROYAL FIC executive, a version was circulating in the job market claiming that I had been involved in the fraud and acts of corruption at AGIP do Brasil.

Not the employee who had reported the irregularities.

But someone allegedly involved in them.

I also made clear what I cannot prove:

📌 I have no document showing who created this narrative, who spread it, or how far it circulated.

But I can show what happened afterward.

My executive career practically ended.

And there is a particularly painful contrast.

In 2004, Petrobras acquired assets from AGIP Brasil.

All my former colleagues who remained with the company - those who were not dismissed when Eni acted at its Brazilian subsidiary - were incorporated into Petrobras and were able to continue their careers at Brazil’s state-controlled oil company.

I did not have that opportunity.

And there is an important detail: regular entry into Petrobras requires a public competitive examination.

The acquisition gave those employees an exceptional opportunity for professional continuity.

Had I not been dismissed in 2001, would I have followed the same path?

I cannot prove what did not happen.

But I lost the possibility of having that opportunity.

That is what I consider a “loss of a chance”.

The consequences went further.

Unable to rebuild my executive career, I faced financial and economic difficulties.

Without regular professional income, I also became unable to maintain regular contributions to INSS - Brazil’s public Social Security system.

Decades later, this affected:

🔹 my retirement benefits.

This story, therefore, has never been only about a dismissal in 2001.

It is about what can happen after a professional reports irregularities and his reputation is called into question.

A professional decision can take only minutes.

Its consequences can last for decades.

That is why modern whistleblowing systems should not merely receive reports.

They must protect those who report in good faith against retaliation and professional harm.

After twenty-five years, I continue to ask the Italian oil giant Eni for something at the heart of Corporate Governance best practices:

📌 that the documents be examined together and independently.

My report.

My dismissal.

The subsequent investigations.

The different versions of my dismissal.

The information that, according to a notarized statement, circulated in the job market.

And the consequences.

Only an independent, impartial and transparent review of the entire body of evidence can answer the question that has followed this story since 2001:

🔴 what really happened after I decided to follow the Code of Ethics and report the irregularities?


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Memorial 1999–2025

2️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events

Ep57 - What does the market say about me?

Yesterday, I showed a 2010 court document in which Eni presented a new explanation for my dismissal from AGIP do Brasil.

But one question had remained unanswered for years:

📌 Why was I unable to rebuild my executive career?

I had experience, professional results and extensive knowledge of the fuel industry.

Yet after my dismissal, my career changed dramatically.

Then a particularly important document emerged.

An executive from Royal FIC, where I worked from Aug 2002 to Feb 2003, put in writing what, according to him, was circulating in the job market:

🔷 “The job market claims that Douglas Linares Flinto was dismissed from Agip Brasil because of his involvement in the internal fraud and acts of corruption that occurred in 2001 within the Regional Sales Management in Cuiabá”.

Read that again.

According to that statement, the market was not saying that I had reported the irregularities.

It was saying that I had been involved in them.

Yet Royal FIC hired me because, according to the same document, it believed my account:

📌 that I was the whistleblower who reported the facts in accordance with the company’s Code of Ethics.

The executive added that while he worked with me, “there was never anything that discredited me”.

That document changed my understanding of what might have happened to my career.

There was now a written record that an extremely damaging version about me was circulating in the job market.

Who created this narrative?

Who spread it?

How far did it circulate?

I do not have a document that allows me to answer those questions definitively.

I do not present as fact what I cannot prove.

But one thing can be documented:

🔹 the statement records that this information was circulating in the job market.

And that raises an unavoidable question:

🔴 What realistic chance does an executive have to rebuild his career when the market associates him with the very fraud and corruption he says he reported?

In Brazil, the informal circulation of information intended to prevent workers from finding new employment is often described as “blacklisting”.

Brazilian Labor Courts have addressed allegations involving this type of practice.

Almost ten years later, a possible explanation was emerging for what had profoundly changed my professional life.

But the consequences went further.

They include what I consider the “loss of a chance” at Petrobras, as well as the effects on my assets, Social Security contributions and, years later, my retirement benefits.

That is what I will show tomorrow.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Statement by the Royal FIC executive:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English

2️⃣ VEJA article on “blacklisting” in the Brazilian job market:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English

3️⃣ Brazilian Superior Labor Court (TST) decisions on alleged “blacklisting”:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English