At a board meeting on Friday AMF Pension was given access to a report into the pensions scandal that broke in March.
According to an AMF Pension press release Elmehagen’s pension was “considerably higher than that agreed by the remuneration committee in the contract signed with the CEO in 2004.”
AMF Pension chairperson Göran Tunhammar explains that the reason for the high pensions premiums between the second half of 2006 and 2008 is contained in the text of annual reports published in 2006, 2007 and 2008 which are erroneous.
“The root of the problem is that when we passed Christer Elmehagen’s sixtieth birthday the impression is given that there remained outstanding payments from the old pensions agreement from 1998,” Göran Tunhammar said to news agency TT.
In actual fact obligations according to the 1998 agreement had already been met by the time Elmehagen celebrated his sixtieth birthday, he said.
Tunhammar was unwilling to confirm how much money AMF Pension is demanding from Christer Elmehagen, but states that it concerns a considerable sum.
AMF Pension’s ex-CEO Christer Elmehagen told TT that he had not divulged faulty information in the annual reports.
“The information that has been divulged has been presented on the basis of prior knowledge of my agreement. It is also known that 10 of the 11 board members have not read the agreement, it is then easy to misunderstand,” he said.
Elmehagen welcomes a discussion of the issue with AMF.
“I think it is positive that they invite me to engage in a discussion and that they want to resolve the matter amicably.”
On the issue of whether he would be prepared to pay back a portion of his pension he replied:
“That is the issue that the discussions with AMF shall consider, if I understand it correctly.”
The report also covered Elmehagen’s timely decision to move his pensions investment to avoid a cut in the dividend rate.
“The move contradicts the CEO’s obligation of loyalty and should be considered a breach of contract,” AMF Pension wrote in a company press release.
Elmehagen claims that he is willing to repay the money he has earned from moving his pensions investment if the board can show that the rules stipulate that he should not have done so.