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