Why would the issue of payment for loss of office even arise? Perhaps I am wrong but I am left with the impression that his early departure was by mutual consent and on the basis of no compensation for loss of office? In other words the board wanted him to leave early and he agreed?
By John Donovan
I was intrigued by the inclusion of the following statement by Shell in the Remuneration Disclosure for Peter Voser published earlier today:
“Payment for loss of office
No payment for loss of office is made or will be made to Peter Voser.”
Consequently I sent the following email to a source with Shell insider knowledge:
Wording seems odd to me?
Why would the issue of payment for loss of office even arise?
Perhaps I am wrong but I am left with the impression that his early departure was by mutual consent and on the basis of no compensation for loss of office?
EBOOK TITLE: “SIR HENRI DETERDING AND THE NAZI HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON
EBOOK TITLE: “JOHN DONOVAN, SHELL’S NIGHTMARE: MY EPIC FEUD WITH THE UNSCRUPULOUS OIL GIANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.
EBOOK TITLE: “TOXIC FACTS ABOUT SHELL REMOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA: HOW SHELL BECAME THE MOST HATED BRAND IN THE WORLD” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.
