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
No comments:
Post a Comment