Thursday, April 20, 2017

What's this?

Eni's Senior Executive is named "ambassador" in Qatar.

What's this? One more reason that confirms: the Italian oil giant is a "Parallel State"

Note: Read more "Eni: a company that is a state within a State" (first investigative book about Eni)

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

This article* explains my case against Eni

If you want a reliable indication of a company’s culture, just look at how the company treats employee concerns and whistleblowers. Recent events have highlighted serious failures on the part of major companies to address employee concerns and treat whistleblowers with some degree of respect.

Barclay Bank’s CEO was disciplined and suffered financial penalties for his improper attempts  to identify a whistleblower who sent an anonymous complaint to the Barclay’s Board.

Wells Fargo is alleged to have fired several managers and employees after they raised specific concerns about the sales incentive program.

You have to ask yourself – what the heck are these companies doing?

Given today’s enforcement environment and focus on protecting whistleblowers and employees who raise concerns, it is surprising to see companies retaliating against whistleblowers and employees.  In general, we have seen little progress in corporate handling of employee concerns and in particular non-retaliation against whistleblowers.  Offending companies deserve every penny of punishment and reputational damage from retaliating against employees.

In the Barclay’s case, the CEO enlisted the bank’s security office to identify the anonymous whistleblower who sent two letters to Barclay’s board alleging prior misconduct by a close colleague of the CEO who had worked with the CEO at his former bank.  The CEO explained in his subsequent apology:

In my desire to protect our colleague, however, I got too personally involved in this matter. My hope was that if we found out who was sending these letters we could try and get them to stop the harassment of a person who did not deserve that treatment. Nevertheless, I realise that I should simply have the compliance function handle this matter, as they were doing. This was a mistake on my part and I apologise for it.

The challenge for companies like Barclays and Wells Fargo is how to start rebuilding a culture of trust where employees feel comfortable raising concerns without fear of retaliation. Without a real commitment to encouraging employee concerns, most employees are suspicious and reluctant to raise concerns.  It is a difficult to overcome employee reluctance.

The challenge for companies like Barclays and Wells Fargo is even more daunting when employees who raised concerns are terminated or investigated by the CEO.

In the case of Wells Fargo, the Department of Labor is investigating the company for whistleblower violations of Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley.  In one case, a Wells Fargo manager was fired within 20 days of raising a complaint. The reason for the firing cited by the bank was a previously discredited complaint about a manager’s alleged drinking behavior.

A speak up culture requires the commitment of the board, the CEO and senior executive management. Concrete actions have to be taken to establish credibility for an employee communications program.

Barclays has a real credibility program – the offending CEO cannot turn around and tell employees that he wants to hear their concerns. As he demonstrated, he is more interested in the identity of the whistleblower than responding to the substance of the concern.

Similarly, Wells Fargo’s firing of employees who complained about the abusive sales incentive program creates a manifest culture of distrust. To repair such a culture will take time, commitment, and specific actions by leadership, mid-level managers and staff. Until such remediation occurs, Wells Fargo will continue to suffer from a culture where employees are reluctant to raise specific concerns.

Actions always speak louder than words and companies who have suffered serious retaliation issues can only restore trust with meaningful actions and specific commitments.

Monday, April 17, 2017

Shell Villain vs Eni Victim

Shell has assumed irregularities and illegal activity in the case OPL245 (Nigeria)... The Italian oil giant Eni continues to deny!

In a way, Shell is the "villain" and Eni is the "victim"!

What does the Shell's Board think about it?

Note: Read more about this subject at Global Witness 

Friday, April 14, 2017


At the 2017's Shareholders Meeting, held in Rome on April 13th, the Eni's Chairwoman reaffirmed that, in the OPL 245 Case, the Italian oil giant didn't commit any illegal acts nor its executives any criminal acts, going against the words of its "business partner" (Shell) who has already "admitted" paying bribe to Malibu Oil, company of former Energy Minister from Nigeria. 

The Board of Directors of Eni think that their Stakeholders are fools! 

What does the Eni's Board think about it? And Shell's Board?

Note: Read more about this in the Lettera43 and Global Witness.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Until when?

Until when will Eni continue to deny the unethical and criminal acts of its executives in the acquisition of #OPL245 in Nigeria? 

Read more about new "incontrovertible" evidences:
a) BBC
b) BuzzFeed

Saturday, April 08, 2017

An airplane to the Eni's CEO

This Monday (April, 10), the television program "Report", from the Italian channel of the largest audience, RAI, will present an investigative report involving the Italian oil giant and the billionaire bribe payment in Nigeria (OPL 245 Case). 

With the title "An airplane to the CEO", the television program will accuse the former all-powerful of Eni, Mr. Paolo Scaroni, of having sent 50 million dollars to Switzerland using the airplane of an executive from Congo. 

It will be worth knowing whether the Board of Directors of Eni will now assume that the company and its executives acted with a complete lack of Ethics & Integrity, harming the words and spirit of the company's Code of Ethics.

Thursday, April 06, 2017

Eni & Company Executives Face Corruption Charges

On 20th April 2017, Shell, Eni, and several Eni senior executives including the current CEO Claudio Descalzi, will face a preliminary court hearing in Italy where the Milan prosecutor is seeking that they be tried for alleged international corruption offences over the 2011 purchase of the Nigerian OPL 245 oil block. Charges have also reportedly been filed in recent weeks against both companies by Nigerian authorities in relation to the same deal. 

Global Witness has published a new briefing for investors. This briefing outlines the recent legal developments in Italy and provides background on the OPL 245 deal which has led to the Italian charges, as well as ongoing investigations in Nigeria and the Netherlands.

As well as raising specific issues for Eni and Shell, this matter highlights the risks to companies and shareholders more broadly from a lack of transparency around company payments to governments and the ultimate beneficial ownership of companies, as well as the need for more robust corporate anti-corruption policies and practices.

The briefing identifies the following key issues for investors:

- potential loss of oil block key to Shell's and Eni's future reserves;
- potential convictions for corruption;
- inadequate anti-bribery & corruption policies & board oversight; 
- and repeal of anti-corruption regulations at the request of extractive industries.

The briefing also suggests questions investors can ask Shell and Eni to assess the companies' handling of this issue and of their anti-bribery and corruption policies and practices.

Note: Read more at Global Witness.

Wednesday, April 05, 2017

Eni vs Corporate Governance

What is this? The Italian oil giant Eni doesn't observe and fulfill the "Best Practices"of Corporate Governance? Much less respects Eni's Code of Ethics? 

Evidently not! You just have to analyze my case!