Suche starten DE menü Kundenportal der EIB-Gruppe
Suche starten
Ergebnisse
Top-5-Suchergebnisse Alle Ergebnisse anzeigen Erweiterte Suche
Häufigste Suchbegriffe
Meistbesuchte Seiten
    Reference: EIF/E/2025/01
    Received Date: 31 July 2025
    Subject: Fund F
    Complainant: Individual
    Allegations: The complainant is a former managing director of a company that Fund F, an EIF client, invested in. The complainant raises concerns regarding fair treatment, payment of fees and respect of good governance principles.
    Type: E - Environmental and social impacts of financed projects/operations
    Monitoring: N/A
    Outcome*: No grounds
    Suggestions for improvement*: N/A
    Confidentiality: No
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    20/08/2025
    24/06/2026
    24/06/2026

    * Admissibility date reflects the date the case was officially registered. All other dates pertain to the date in which a stage was completed.

    Case Description

    The EIB-CM received a complaint in July 2025 from a co-founder of Company X (an investee of Fund F, which is one of EIF’s clients) alleging that Fund F and its co-investors engaged in abusive governance practices, including coercive replacement as CEO, withholding agreed payments, and linking payment to asset sale approval. The complainant also raised concerns about potential systemic gender discrimination affecting other women founders backed by Fund F, alongside ongoing issues with company governance and access to information after her departure as CEO.

    Work performed

    In this case, the EIB-CM reviewed relevant rules, engaged with the complainant and EIF services, and consulted Fund F, which stated that the complainant’s dismissal was lawful and that unpaid fees were due to an alleged breach of contract.

    Conclusion

    The EIB-CM concluded that the complainant’s allegations relate primarily to a commercial dispute linked to shareholding and contractual arrangements, with no sufficient connection to potential non-compliance by the EIF. It also noted that the dispute had been settled, the complainant had exited the company, and there was insufficient evidence to substantiate broader claims of gender discrimination. Accordingly, the EIB-CM found no prima facie evidence of maladministration by the EIF.

    Outcome

    No further inquiry is required.