Lundin intending to put stop to Sudan enquiry
Today’s AGM of Lundin Petroleum is expected to be stormy. Folksam is demanding a review of the company’s previous activities in Sudan, but is meeting with opposition from the board and other shareholders. Among others, Första AP-fonden is intending to vote against the proposal.
Folksam’s proposal that Lundin Petroleum should appoint an independent enquiry into, among other things, its previous operations in Sudan, will be voted down by today’s AGM. The board, led by major shareholder Ian Lundin, will recommend the shareholders to vote no. Första AP-fonden is also against an independent enquiry.
“We will vote no and our main reason is that, even if there are serious accusations made against Lundin, there is already an independent enquiry being conducted by public prosecutor Magnus Elving. There is no reason for the company to do the same thing, because it will never be regarded as independent and there is a risk that it will interfere with the real enquiry,” says Ossian Ekdahl, head of communications and ESG at Första AP-fonden.
The board of Lundin Petroleum argues in a similar vein when it opposes an enquiry.
Representatives of, among others, Swedbank Robur as well as Andra, Tredje and Fjärde AP-fonden do not wish to say in advance how they regard Folksam’s proposal.
“We have decided, but new information may emerge at the meeting, and we wish to hear the arguments from both sides,” says Peter Lundkvist, senior strategist at Tredje AP-fonden.
He does not consider that one should mix up what the prosecutor’s office is doing with what Lundin Petroleum should do.
“The prosecutor is investigating what individual co-workers may have done; people who, what is more, are no longer employed by the company. We want to safeguard the value of the company,” says Peter Lundkvist.
AMF Pension & Försäkring have decided not to support Folksam’s proposal.
“As regards matters that touch on the criminal investigation, these are better dealt with by the prosecutor. But this is also a question of confidence in Lundin Petroleum, and then primarily about the fact that the company must get much better at communicating, and we do not think that an investigation is the right way to go there either,” says Anders Oscarsson, president of AMF funds.
As regards the Swedish Shareholders’ Association, they will vote according to the discussion at the meeting.
“We are not convinced that an independent enquiry is the best thing for the shareholders, but merely letting the matter rest is also a cost, and then it may be better to accommodate one shareholder,” says the association’s CEO Günther Mårder.
Carina Lundberg Markow, head of responsible ownership at Folksam, who has raised the proposal, points out that she has no intention of encroaching on the work of the police and the prosecutor.
“Against the background of what has emerged from, for example, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, the company must systematically check whether it is following its own global guidelines,” says Carina Markow Lundberg.
What significance does Folksam’s proposal have if nevertheless it is voted down?
“The proposal is in itself a clear signal to the board and also to other shareholders. And if it is only Folksam that votes for the proposal, then we will have to decide whether there is any point in exercising active shareholder influence in this company,” she says.
- Database Search
- Unpaid Debt A comprehensive overview of the role of the Lundin Consortium in the oil war. ECOS calls upon the Swedish, Austrian and Malaysian governments to investigate whether, as a matter of international law, Lundin, OMV and Petronas 'were complicit in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity by others during the period 1997-2003.’ In response, the Swedish Public Prosecutor for International crimes opened a criminal investigation into ‘links between Sweden and the reported crimes’.
- In Depth For more specific information about the Lundin court case please visit the Unpaid Debt dossier.
