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
