Shareholder Connivance

Lundin’s controversial operations in Sudan have been regularly discussed at Annual General Meetings. In 2001, when the company faced strong criticism, its shareholders strongly supported Adolf H. Lundin to carry on. The company’s role in Sudan and handling of its consequences has since enjoyed the backing of the overwhelming majority of shareholders. The same is true for Petronas and OMV.

Since 2012, PAX gave shareholders several occasions to distance themselves from Lundin’s policy and conduct:

March 2020 proposals by Egbert Wesselink from PAX to the Annual General Meeting to claw-back management remunerations in case of misconduct, felony and actions that damage to the company; and to assess the financial and reputational risks and costs of the company’s confrontational legal strategy. Voted down with a 99% majority.

Board recommendations to vote against the 2020 shareholder proposals.

2019 shareholder proposals by Egbert Wesselink from PAX that the members of the Board of Directors resign and the CEO and senior management are dismissed. Rejected by app. 98% of registered shareholders.

Board recommendations to vote against 2019 shareholder proposals.

Proposals submitted by Egbert Wesselink from PAX in 2017 to allocate SEK 5 billion to remedy adverse human rights impacts in Sudan and defeated by a 99,84% majority of registered shareholders.

Board response to the 2017 shareholder proposals.

May 2013 resolution by Egbert Wesselink of PAX to implement the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Rejected by a majority of app. 97%.

Board of Directors recommendation to vote against the 2013 shareholder proposal.

May 2012 proposals by 1. Carina Lundberg Markow from Folksam and 2. Egbert Wesselink from PAX to 1. audit compliance of the company’s operations in Sudan with the UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines, and 2. investigate allegations about the company’s conduct in Sudan, cooperate with the Prosecution, and implement the UNGP. The proposal by Ms Markow was supported by a majority of independent shareholders, but overwhelmingly defeated nevertheless as the Lundin family held the majority of registered shares.

Board of Directors recommendation to vote against the 2012 shareholder resolutions, arguing that an independent investigation into the allegations would be detrimental to the work of the prosecutor, and that it fully cooperated with the prosecutor. Nonetheless, in 2014 the company finalised its own investigation in secret, that it refuses to share with the prosecution and its shareholders.

Comments are closed.

Back to Top ↑