Friday, July 13, 2018

Question 08 to be answered by Eni

This is "Question 08" to be answered by #Eni.

Introduction Question 08: A defeat of the Italian Oil Giant

Fortunately, at the end of 2014, the judge didn’t accept Eni’s (unproven) arguments in the lawsuit moved against me and the Brazilian Business Ethics Institute. In the sentence, the magistrate alleged that the lawsuit was “groundless” (Doc. 31).

After this sentence unfavorable to Eni, my lawyer and Eni’s outsourced lawyer, elaborated a deal (Doc. 32), accepted by the parties, however, Eni preferred to appeal to the Italian second instance. To confirm the company’s position, I sent a “notice” of this same subject but Eni alleged that our case was still in court (Doc. 33).

In the Court of Appeal, Eni maintained the “characteristics” in the lawsuit against me (Doc. 34). But contrary to Italian law, Eni “reduced” the indemnization from “15” million Euro to “5” million Euro. In addition, it gathered more evidence in its appeal. Reducing compensation and gathering more evidence are acts that Italian laws prohibit. And that can be easily confirmed in my defense (Doc. 35).

Questions 08:
8-A) “Judicial agreements” are made by the attorneys of the “author” and the “defendant” of the lawsuit with “consent” of both. Why did Eni not “comply” with the agreement proposed by the company’s “outsourced lawyer” and preferred to appeal the sentence?

8-B) Even though it is contrary to Italian laws, why did Eni reduce the compensation amount of the lawsuit filed against me from “15” million Euro to “5” million Euro, and also gathered more evidence in the appeal? 

I am Eni's Whistleblower that suffers "retaliation" from this company until today.

There will be a total of "15 questions" which, in these 17 years, Eni has not yet answered.

Follow daily the new questions in this Blog to see if the Italian oil giant will answer.

Question 08 is also in my LinkedIN.

No comments:

Post a Comment