Ep85 - Why did Eni mention the NCP Brazil?

In the previous episodes, I reconstructed an important moment in the history of the Flinto Case.

On December 18, 2020, my lawyer sent Eni’s external lawyer, Studio Legale D'Ercole, a “Proposal for Amicable Settlement”.

As previously documented in this series, the proposal followed my contact with the then Italian Ambassador to Brazil, Francesco Azzarello, who informed me that Eni was awaiting a proposal for a possible amicable solution.

After 120 days without Eni contacting me, I wrote again to the Board of Directors on April 19, 2021, asking when we could discuss bringing an almost 20-year story to an end.

A few weeks later, through Fondazione Finanza Etica, three questions were submitted on my behalf at Eni’s 2021 AGM:

1️⃣ Why had Eni asked me for a “Proposal for Amicable Settlement”?

2️⃣ Why had Eni not contacted me after receiving it?

3️⃣ When did Eni intend to respond?

The official AGM document expressly records that the proposal had been submitted “as requested by Eni”.

Eni did not answer the three questions individually. For the first two, it referred to its answer to the third. In that single response, Eni did not mention that the settlement proposal had been requested by the company itself.

Instead, Eni referred to ongoing litigation and to:

🔹 “an instance promoted by Flinto on July 16, 2020 before the NCP Brazil”.

Eni concluded that the AGM was not the appropriate forum to discuss matters already before different courts and the NCP Brazil.

But why was the Flinto Case before the NCP Brazil?

In April 2020, I contacted Eni’s Board of Directors for the fifth time.

I received no response.

I then pursued another institutional avenue and brought the Flinto Case before the NCP Brazil, alleging possible non-compliance by Eni with the OECD - OCDE Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

The sequence is important:

📌 I contacted the Board again. No response. I brought the case to the NCP Brazil.

📌 Months later, Eni requested an amicable settlement proposal.

📌 The proposal was submitted.

📌 120 days passed without a response.

📌 And when I asked Eni’s shareholders why the company had requested it and when it intended to respond, Eni itself pointed, among other proceedings, to the NCP Brazil.

So what exactly was this proceeding?

What happened after I brought the Flinto Case to the NCP Brazil - and how did Eni respond?

In the coming episodes, I will reconstruct through the documents what happened before the NCP Brazil.

PEOPLE. FACTS. DOCUMENTS. ANSWERS.

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: WHAT IS THE NCP BRAZIL?

After almost 20 years, one question remains unanswered:

🔴 Why not submit the facts, the documents and the different versions regarding my dismissal to a truly independent investigation?

I am not asking anyone to believe me.

Know the facts.

Examine the supporting evidence.

And reach your own conclusion.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ OECD Watch

Ep84 - 13 years of questions. But...

In the previous episode, I showed Eni’s response to three questions submitted on my behalf at its May 12, 2021 AGM.

But I was not the only one asking questions.

Fondazione Finanza Etica had attended Eni’s AGMs as a critical shareholder for 13 years.

In 2021, it submitted more than 90 questions, also coordinating questions on behalf of Greenpeace Italia, ReCommon, Legambiente, and a Brazilian whistleblower:

🔹 Douglas Linares Flinto

After the AGM, the Italian magazine Valori.it, linked to Fondazione Finanza Etica, published an analysis with a significant headline:

📌 “Eni remains evasive with critical shareholders.”

The article noted that 46 of the 138 pages of the AGM’s official Questions and Answers document covered the exchange between the Fondazione and Eni.

But it added:

🔹 “Unfortunately, evidently, we do not understand each other”

📌 “EVASIVE ANSWERS”

Valori.it examined several of the company’s responses.

Discussing questions about hydrogen and sponsorships, it described some as “evasive answers”.

According to the publication, some answers were also “tautologies” - statements that merely reformulated what should have been explained and were “devoid of any informative value”.

The article did not specifically characterize Eni’s response to the Flinto Case in those terms.

But my name and questions were part of that same set submitted to Eni at the AGM.

And this brings us back to yesterday’s document.

Eni’s official documentation stated that my amicable settlement proposal had been submitted:

🔹 “as requested by Eni”

The proposal was submitted on December 18, 2020.

120 days later, I was still waiting for an answer.

I asked the Board again.

I received no direct response.

The questions then reached the AGM.

Eni explained that there were ongoing legal proceedings and a case before the NCP Brazil, and that the AGM was not the appropriate forum to discuss those matters.

But it did not clarify what had happened to the amicable settlement proposal Eni had requested.

Moreover, Eni referred simply to Mr. Flinto’s “proposal for amicable settlement”. without repeating what appeared on the previous page:

🔹 “as requested by Eni”

📌 A QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO READ THE DOCUMENTS

Valori.it characterized several of Eni’s responses to critical shareholders at that AGM as evasive.

Did Eni’s response to the Flinto Case also fit that description?

That is for the reader to consider.

After almost 20 years, one question remained:

🔴 Why not submit the facts, documents and different versions regarding my dismissal to a truly independent investigation?

I am not asking anyone to believe me.

Read the questions. Read the answers. Examine the documents.

And reach your own independent conclusion.

📌 13 YEARS OF QUESTIONS. THE DOCUMENTS REMAIN


❎ Learn more

1️⃣ Valori: “Eni resta evasiva con gli azionisti critici”

2️⃣ Questions & Answers before Eni’s 2021 AGM

Ep83 - Three questions. One more answer!

In the previous episode, I showed that, at Eni’s AGM on May 12, 2021, Mauro Meggiolaro, representing Fondazione Finanza Etica, submitted three questions on my behalf regarding the amicable settlement proposal sent on December 18, 2020.

The AGM’s official document stated:

📌 "On December 18th, 2020, Mr. Douglas Linares Flinto’s lawyer sent a ‘Proposal for Amicable Settlement’ to Eni’s lawyer, as requested by Eni”.

The wording is clear:

🔹 “as requested by Eni”.

As shown in previous episodes, the proposal came after the then-Italian Ambassador to Brazil, Francesco Azzarello, informed me that, following the Embassy’s contact with the company, Eni was waiting for an amicable settlement proposal.

The proposal was submitted to Eni’s external lawyer.

120 days later, I was still waiting for an answer.

I wrote to the Board asking whether it had been received and when we could discuss it.

I received no direct response.

Then the matter reached the AGM.

The three questions essentially asked:

📌 Why, after requesting and receiving an amicable settlement proposal, had Eni still not responded?

The company could accept it, reject it or make a counterproposal.

But what was Eni’s response to the proposal it had requested?

To the first two questions, Eni simply replied:

🔹“See answer 11.3.”

Thus, three questions converged into one answer.

📌 ENI’S ANSWER

Eni stated that the proposal concerned ongoing legal proceedings between the parties and the case I had submitted to the Brazilian National Contact Point for the OECD - OCDE Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Therefore, Eni considered the AGM not the appropriate forum to address those matters again.

But the central question remained unanswered:

📌 What happened to the amicable settlement proposal Eni had requested?

There was also an important documentary detail.

The questions stated:

🔹 “as requested by Eni".

In its answer, however, Eni referred simply to Mr. Flinto’s “proposal for amicable settlement”, without mentioning that, according to the previous page, it had been submitted at Eni’s request.

Someone reading only the answer could therefore have the impression that I had submitted the settlement proposal on my own initiative.

But the documented sequence was different:

🔹 Eni was waiting for an amicable settlement proposal.

The proposal was submitted.

120 days later, I asked for an answer.

And at the AGM, Eni’s response did not clarify what had happened to that proposal.

After almost 20 years, the fundamental question remained:

🔴 Why not submit the facts, documents and different versions regarding my dismissal to a truly independent investigation?

I am not asking anyone to believe me.

I am asking them to compare the documents before reaching an independent conclusion.

📌 TOMORROW: 13 YEARS OF QUESTIONS. AN “EVASIVE” APPROACH?


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Questions and Answers before Eni’s 2021 AGM

Ep82 - The Flinto Case returns to Eni's AGM

In the previous episode, I showed that, on April 19, 2021, 120 days after the amicable settlement proposal was submitted, I wrote again to Eni’s Board of Directors.

My question was simple:

🔹 Had the Board received the proposal?

🔹And, if so, when could we discuss the possibility of bringing to an end a story that would turn 20 years old that year?

I received no direct response.

A few weeks later, however, the Flinto Case would return to one of the company’s most important institutional forums.

📌 May 12, 2021.

At Eni’s Annual General Meeting, Mauro Meggiolaro, acting as a critical shareholder and representing Fondazione Finanza Etica, officially submitted three questions on my behalf.

It was the fourth time the Flinto Case had reached Eni’s AGM - after 2017, 2018 and 2020.

This time, the subject was clearly identified in the company’s official document:

🔹 "Amicable Settlement Proposal Submitted by Douglas Linares Flinto”.

The AGM document itself recorded the context.

On December 18, 2020, my lawyer had sent Eni’s lawyer a “Proposal for Amicable Settlement”.

And the text submitted to the AGM contained a fundamental piece of information:

🔹 the proposal had been submitted “as requested by Eni”.

It also recorded that, after 120 days without being contacted by the company, I had written again to the Board on April 19, 2021, asking whether the proposal had been received and when it would be possible to discuss a resolution of the case.

Then came the three questions.

QUESTION 1
Why did Eni ask Douglas Linares Flinto for a “Proposal for Amicable Settlement”?

QUESTION 2
If, in an attempt to reach an amicable settlement, the party requesting a proposal may accept it or respond with a counterproposal, why had Eni still not contacted me after receiving my proposal?

QUESTION 3
When did Eni plan to respond to my amicable settlement proposal?

Three questions.

📌 All concerning a proposal that, according to the document submitted to the AGM itself, had been sent at Eni’s request.

But there was an even larger question behind them.

After almost 20 years, I was still seeking what I had repeatedly requested from the beginning:

🔴 that the facts, the documents and the different versions presented regarding my dismissal be effectively examined.

The 2021 AGM offered Eni another opportunity to publicly explain its position.

How did the company answer the three questions?

That is what we will see in the next episode.

Tomorrow:

📌 THREE QUESTIONS. ONE MORE ANSWER.

After 25 years, my request remains the same:

🔴 that Eni allow a truly independent investigation into the Flinto Case - examining the facts, the documents and the different versions presented by the company itself over the years.

I am not asking anyone to believe me.

I am asking them to examine the documents before reaching an independent conclusion.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Questions and Answers before Eni’s 2021 AGM

Ep81 - 120 days... No answer!

In the previous episode, I showed that, on December 18, 2020, a proposal for an amicable settlement of the Flinto Case was formally submitted.

€5.5 million.

But the amount was only part of a much broader document.

The proposal reconstructed almost twenty years of the Flinto Case and incorporated new internal documents produced by Agip Brasil and the Italian Agip/Eni structure, held by Petrobras after it acquired Agip Brasil’s assets and obtained by me under Brazil’s Access to Information Law.

The documents were on the table.

So was the proposal.

Then the waiting began.

📌 April 19, 2021.

Exactly 120 days had passed since the proposal was submitted.

I was still waiting for an answer.

So I wrote directly to the then-Chairwoman of Eni’s Board, copying the other Board members, including CEO Claudio Descalzi.

I began by recalling that 120 days had passed since the proposal was submitted.

The email also recorded that the proposal had been submitted to Eni’s external lawyer after the then-Italian Ambassador to Brazil, Francesco Azzarello, had informed me that Eni was waiting for an amicable settlement proposal.

My purpose was simple.

I wanted to know two things:

🔹 Had Eni’s Board received my proposal?

And:

🔹When could we discuss bringing the Flinto Case to an end?

This is exactly what I wrote:

📌 “The purpose of this e-mail is to confirm whether the Board of Eni has received my Proposal for Amicable Settlement, and also to find out when we can discuss the possibility of putting an end on this story that, in August 2021, will complete 20 long years.”

I was not submitting a new complaint or presenting a new proposal.

I was asking whether the Board had received the proposal submitted 120 days earlier - and when we could discuss it.

There was another significant coincidence.

Exactly one year earlier, on Apr 19, 2020, I had written to Lucia Calvosa when she had been nominated to become Chairwoman of Eni’s new Board.

I presented the Flinto Case and provided documents so that the new corporate governance could know my version of the facts before reaching its own conclusion.

Now, on Apr 19, 2021, I was returning to the same Board.

A year had passed.

The proposal had been submitted.

The new documents were available.

And the Flinto Case was approaching its 20th anniversary.

But the central question remained:

🔴 Why not submit the Flinto Case - the facts, the documents and the different versions presented regarding my dismissal - to a truly independent investigation?

A few weeks later, the Flinto Case would once again reach Eni’s Annual General Meeting.

🔹 For the fourth time.

I am not asking anyone to believe me.

I am asking them to examine the documents before reaching an independent conclusion.

📌 NEXT EPISODE: THE FLINTO CASE RETURNS TO ENI’S AGM. FOR THE FOURTH TIME.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Email to Eni’s Board - Apr19, 2021