Vale denies irregularities in Council president's resignation
The mining company Vale informed the CVM (Securities Commission) that there was no agreement, composition or compensation conditioning the resignation of Daniel André Stieler as chairman of the board of directors. According to the company, the resignation was a personal decision by Stieler, formalized in a letter delivered last Monday (6)
Vale's information is a response to the process opened by the CVM to investigate possible irregularities in Stieler's resignation. According to a report by Valor Econômico, there is a suspicion that the executive had received financial compensation to resign from his position. Stieler's mandate would only expire in April of next year, but the Previ pension fund, the mining company's largest shareholder, had been under pressure for his departure.
In the clarification sent to the CVM, Vale confirms that there was a financial agreement with Stieler. But he stated that it was the executive's decision that motivated the negotiation and conclusion of a "Non-Competition Compensation Contract and Other Covenants", and not the other way around. The mining company said that the contract was closed because it was an unplanned layoff, while there were strategic themes maturing within the scope of the functions performed by him.
According to the company, the contract establishes obligations of non-competition, non-solicitation, non-defamation and confidentiality for 24 months, due to the former president of the board's access to the group's confidential and strategic information during the period in which he served on the board.
Vale also stated that the board of directors' remuneration policy "remains fully in force and has not undergone any changes". According to the document, the compensation provided for in the contract is compensation for the obligations assumed by Stieler during the 24-month period and "is not to be confused" with remuneration for holding the position.
The company also said that the values provided for in the contract were analyzed by an internationally recognized company, specialized in executive recruitment and compensation design, and that the evaluation concluded that the parameters are aligned with market practices.
Finally, Vale informed that it considered that the specific terms of the contract do not qualify as a material fact, as it understands that they do not have the potential to significantly influence the shareholders' investment decision or the price of the company's securities.
Source: CNN