Compensated for damage caused by splinters of solar panels

Insurer Achmea and the dairy farmers around Moerbeek affected by millions of loose splinters from solar panels have reached agreement on the costs of the clean-up campaign.

After a major fire at bulb company De Wit Flowerbulbs in the neighborhood near Schagen, glass particles and soot ended up in the surrounding meadows last week. Over a strip with a width of 500 meters and a length of more than 3 kilometers.

In total, the plots of seven livestock farmers were affected, as well as a field of wheat. The costs to remove the remains of the fire amount to several tons. This is a necessary action to ensure animal welfare. Livestock farmers keep their animals in the stable until everything is cleaned up.

Decisive attitude

Niels Klaver, LTO Noord-division Hollands Kroon, who is also affected by soot on his land, is pleased with the insurer’s decisive attitude. ‘Due to a lack of communication, there was a lot of concern in the area about what action the farmers should take to prevent worse damage and what they should and should not do.’

Together they look for splinters from the solar panels. © Marc Moussault

In a conversation between the insurer and entrepreneurs, including the affected bulb grower, it was agreed that the working hours to manually pick up the splinters from the plots will be fully compensated. With more than seventy people, mostly working at De Wit, they have been working on cleaning up for days.

Suction action

Klaver: ‘It is expected that this will allow 80 percent of the glass particles to be removed. Another 10 percent is cleaned up with a mechanical vacuuming action, for which Achmea also bears the costs. ‘

Agreements have also been made with regard to subsequent damage. ‘Entrepreneurs who are not sure whether their grass bales are free from sharp parts, can have them removed. They receive compensation for this. And agreements have been made with a veterinary practice to monitor the animals extra in the coming months to see whether they have received anything sharp. ‘


Although there has recently been a similar claim in the Noordoostpolder due to flying splinters from solar panels, according to Klaver, there is an unknown situation for the insurer and the victims. ‘This also applies to the Environment Agency, which initially underestimated the matter,’ says Klaver. ‘It would be good to draw up a protocol to prevent so much unnecessary unrest in the future.’

The splinters are thrown into large buckets at White Flowerbulbs.

The splinters are thrown into large buckets at White Flowerbulbs. © Marc Moussault

Both fires will also have consequences with regard to the insurance of such risks, says the agricultural manager. ‘It is difficult to determine under what cover this damage falls.’

Great drama

For now it remains a major drama for the bulb grower that he has lost all the planting material that was in the shed during the fire, says Klaver. ‘The only positive thing is that we have now all been able to take steps to resolve all this as quickly as possible.’


The court sentenced the former Prime Minister of France for embezzlement of the budget and payments to his wife :: Society :: RBC

Former French Prime Minister Francois Fillon was accused of embezzlement of the state budget, as well as the fact that he paid his wife Penelope a salary for work that she did not perform. Fillon received five years in prison, three of them probation

Francois Fillon

(Photo: Benoit Tessier / Reuters)

The Paris Criminal Court found former French Prime Minister François Fillon guilty of embezzlement of public funds, as well as complicity in the fictitious employment of his wife Penelope, reports Le Figaro.

Fillon was sentenced to five years in prison, three of which are conditionally assigned. In addition, Fillon must pay a fine of € 375 thousand. He is forbidden to stand for election for ten years.

A similar amount will be fined and his spouse. In addition, the court sentenced her to three years probation and limited her right to be elected for two years. The deputy Fillon Marc Julot was also found guilty. The court appointed him two years probation, a fine of € 20 thousand and five years of disqualification.

In addition to fines, Le Figaro writes, all three must compensate the National Assembly for the amounts received by fraud Penelope Fillon. The court ruled that the former prime minister and his wife will jointly pay € 401 thousand, another € 679 thousand in compensation to Penelope Fillon will share with Julot. Thus, the French National Assembly alone should receive about € 1.15 million from Fillons.

The Paris Criminal Court did not issue a warrant for the detention of the former prime minister, and he and his wife left the building after the meeting. Fillon spouses appeal the decision, writes Le Figaro.


The founders Modelbank Avetisyan complained to the Commission on ethics RSPP :: Finance :: RBC

As the conflict developed

Worked at Sberbank Petrov, Laguta and Novikov became partners Avetisyan in 2014, when agreed to establish on the basis of the Bank “Regional credit” online banking for small business, said in the claim, the authenticity of which was confirmed by interlocutors from different sides of the dispute. “Recredit” later renamed Modelbank, Petrov was the head of the Board of Directors, Novikov was a member of the Board, and Laguta held the position of Chairman of the Board of the Bank. Now “Module” assets to 20.5 billion. is the 142nd place in the Russian banking system.

Shares Modelbank Petrov, Laguta and Novikov received 31 may 2016 after signing with Avetisyan of the agreement to purchase 7.5% of the Bank, which was estimated at 230 million rubles under the contract, the bankers didn’t pay for the paper at once: they had to pay in installments until the fall of 2021 at the expense of dividends.

Because of the conflict Avetisyan with Baring collapsed deal to attract investors in a “Module” is stated in the claim, although in 2018, banks have sent an offer to purchase 100% of the “Module” for 10-12 billion. the Founders of the Bank began negotiations with Avetisyan on withdrawal from business. Avetisyan and his lawyer, as stated in the document, proposed the following scheme: Petrov, Laguta and Novikov undertook to transfer the shares, to withdraw from the “Module” and not to create new business in the region online banking for small business in Russia. The Bank in turn paid them compensation for termination of employment agreements.

Petrov, Laguta and Novikov in the claim say that they have fulfilled their obligations: terminated contracts and transfer the shares to Avetisyan, the Bank paid compensation in the amount of 15 million rubles. each, instead of 186 million rubles, and the opposite party refused further performance of obligations. “As a result of execution of agreements on our part and rejection on the part of Mr. Avetisyan we lost promotions and jobs with decent wages,” write the former minority shareholders. They have not received and compensation for the assumed restrictions when implementing business ideas.

Parachute or compensation

Petrov said earlier “Vedomosti” that the formula for compensation was spelled out in the agreement on the termination of the employment contract. It was calculated on the basis of net profit Modelbank RAS 2019 (777 million rubles) multiplied by seven. From the resulting sum was subtracted the initial value of the business at 3 billion rubles, and the result was multiplied by the proportion of business founders (in the formula, there were several indicators). In the end, according to Petrov, the three minority shareholders were to receive approximately 435 million rubles.

In a press-service Modelbank call compensation managers a Golden parachute. “Shortly before his dismissal, former top executives prepared and approved by the Board of Directors of the Bank the agreement on compensation in connection with the dismissal of the so-called Golden parachutes”, — said there. The agreement provided for the payment of compensation on the basis of the final annual accounts of the Bank for the year 2019, provided that top managers are faithfully fulfilling their commitments. “In the end, the Bank’s performance under the leadership of Petrov, Novikov and Lahuti and based on the approved annual accounts, the compensation is not provided,” — concluded the press service Modelbank.

To the Bank on compensation compensation for termination of labor contracts filed three lawsuits. The court considered the claim so far, only Petrov and denied in its satisfaction.

Lawsuits against Avetisyan associated with the compensation for “unjust enrichment”, which is calculated from the increased value of the shares Modelbank. The founders of the Bank over the shares of Avetisyan in January for free by terminating the contract of their purchase, and two months later, the Bank acquired 7% stake from another minority shareholder and partner Avetisyan Sherzod Yusupov 420 million rubles. Each of the minority shareholders, according to their position, sustained a loss of about 200 million rubles due to the increased value of securities in the amount of more than RUB 600 million of Them require Avetisyan. The applicants are ready to dialogue with him, says the claim, the owner sent the proposal for pre-trial settlement.

The London court accepted the claim, the Baring of shareholders of Bank “East”

Banking secrecy and audit

Avetisyan, in a letter to the Chairman of the Commission on ethics RSPP said that he considered it impossible at this stage of its consideration of any claim otherwise than in the manner prescribed by law. “I personally bound by the obligation of banking secrecy,” he wrote, adding that “disclosure of this information is possible only in judicial proceedings”. He also pointed out that “all efforts” Petrov, Novikov and lagouti immediately after the signing of controversial agreements were aimed “to achieve at any cost formal indicators of influence (as they thought) to increase compensation for their dismissal”. “These facts were revealed by the auditors of the big four,” wrote Avetisyan.

According to the partner of the Bureau “A2 Lawyers,” Mikhail Alexandrov, as Modelbank is not a public company other things being equal “difference in value of transactions, even if committed in a very close time period, in itself, is not grounds for their contestation.” But there may be other circumstances pointing to it, makes a reservation Alexandrov.

With claims for compensation for breach of an employment agreement a different situation, said the lawyer. “In the courts of General jurisdiction on labor disputes there are two tendencies: the court always stands up for the rights of workers and often trims Golden parachutes top managers, — said Alexandrov. In this case we are talking about abandoning the exercise of the option in exchange for compensation in employment relationships”.

In his opinion, in the court of General jurisdiction would be difficult “to push through such a big design,” and with high probability the judge will consider this solely as a labor dispute. “In this case for the plaintiffs, much will depend on the actual circumstances, for example, has been whether the agreement on the termination of the contract binding commitment to terminate the agreement to purchase shares”, — said Alexandrov.

Artem Avetisyan and representative of the ex-minority shareholders declined to comment. RBC sent a request to the press service of the Union.


Coronavirus. An association requests the creation of a compensation fund for victims of the

The Coronavictimes association has asked the government to create a compensation fund for victims of Covid-19 along the lines of that of asbestos victims, to go further than recognition as an occupational disease.

> Follow our live Monday, May 4 devoted to the coronavirus pandemic

The current discussions on the initiative of the government relate only to the recognition as occupational disease of certain victims, regretted the young association in a press release published Monday.

Gold, the concept of occupational disease is unsuitable for an epidemic like that of Covid-19 because it concerns only the person infected in the workplace and not the members of his family, who cannot be compensated by this system, she believes.

“A stack of state faults”

Created on March 27 at the initiative of the Jussieu Anti-Asbestos Committee, the Coronavictimes association intends to regroup and defend the victims and families of victims of Covid-19.

In a letter of April 29 to the Prime Minister, she asked that all victims of the coronavirus be compensated by a specially created fund.

She denounces a fault of the state, and even a stack of faults of the state, which did not put in place the necessary protective measures and did not even ensure access to hospital care for all patients and claims a fund modeled after the Asbestos Victim Compensation Fund (FIVA) established in 2001.

The Minister of Health, Olivier Véran, said at the end of April that Covid-19 would be automatically recognized “as an occupational disease for nursing staff”, but not for other categories of workers, who will have to undergo conventional procedures.

This decision was strongly criticized by several unions and associations, including Fnath (accident victims) and Andeva (National Association of Asbestos Victims).


Allianz supervisory boards want a huge increase in salaries

Munich In the middle of the corona crisis, the supervisory board of the alliance with the demand for a 20 percent higher fixed remuneration. The twelve-member committee wants to have it approved at the Annual General Meeting on May 6. This is clear from the insurer’s agenda. Item 6 of the otherwise rather unspectacular agenda states: “Remuneration of the members of the supervisory board of Allianz SE and corresponding amendment to the articles of association”.

The Allianz Supervisory Board is composed of six representatives from the capital side and the employee representative body. Chairman of the Supervisory Board Michael Diekmann would therefore receive an annual fixed remuneration of 300,000 euros, up to now it was 250,000 euros. His two deputies Jim Hagemann-Snabe and Gabriele Burkhardt-Berg would come to 225,000 euros instead of previously 187,500 euros, the nine other supervisory board members to 150,000 euros instead of 125,000 euros.

The clear plus is justified among other things with the payment with other large insurers. “In view of the size, complexity and sustainable performance of Allianz, the amount of compensation for the Supervisory Board is based on the fourth quartile of the compensation of comparable companies,” says the invitation to the Annual General Meeting.

The business and financial situation of Europe’s largest insurer also serves as a justification. Last year the group had the highest at around 11.9 billion euros operating result of its history. Profits bubbled in all three areas – property insurance, life and health, and wealth management.

What is striking is the current wish of the supervisors for more money, however, against the background that the committee had a full 25 percent salary increase approved only two years ago. From a legal perspective, the law implementing the second shareholder rights directive stipulates that the general meeting must deal with the remuneration of the supervisory board every four years.

Back then, with similar reasons, the chairman of the supervisory board, Michael Diekmann, had an annual increase in fixed remuneration from 200,000 euros to 250,000 euros. His deputies got their salary increased from 150,000 euros to 187,500 euros. For regular members of the Supervisory Board, there was 125,000 euros instead of 100,000 euros.

Additional remuneration remains

In contrast, the additional remuneration received by Allianz’s supervisory boards remains unchanged if they serve on other committees. The most important committee, the examination committee, thus receives an additional 50,000 euros for ordinary members and 100,000 euros for the chairman. For all other committees on personnel, risk, technology and the standing committee, the remuneration amounts to 25,000 and 50,000 euros for the chairman. In the newly created nomination committee, the additional earnings are 12,500 and 25,000 euros.

This week, the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board of Allianz also want to decide in which format the Annual General Meeting on May 6th should take place. So far, a face-to-face event has been planned, which, however, is no longer expected at Allianz due to the continuing high risk of infection in the badly affected region of Upper Bavaria.

Over the past few years, well over 3000 shareholders have gathered in the Munich Olympiahalle. The first virtual shareholder meeting in the insurer’s 130-year history could now take place.

The federal government passed a legislative package on Friday that also includes changes to the rules for general meetings. If certain conditions are met, these can now take place without the physical presence of the shareholders and their proxies, in order to avoid the gathering of people.

More: Allianz chief salary has almost halved.


In the footsteps of carbon offset

This February 12, Bernard Looney, the boss of BP, announces a shift of unprecedented scale in its sector. In front of the press, the oil giant declares to commit to the “Carbon neutrality” by 2050, via a reduction in its CO emissions2. The rest, those that cannot be eliminated, explains Bernard Looney, will be “Compensated”.

The idea of “Carbon offset” appeared in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. For a company, this mechanism consists in financing, apart from its main activity, ie actions to reduce CO emissions2 – via renewable energy or energy efficiency projects – either carbon capture (sequestration) actions – tree planting, forest protection and agroforestry, in order to create or preserve natural carbon sinks . In exchange, the company obtains “carbon credits”, allowing it to display a smaller environmental footprint.

Growing craze

Orange, Danone, Total, EasyJet, Shell, BNP, Air France … More and more groups are embarking on compensation, under increasing pressure from regulations but also from consumers, employees and young recruits.

Fabrice Le Saché, founder of the Aera firm which sells carbon credits to companies, observes this growing enthusiasm on the front line. “In 2018, we sold credits equivalent to 400,000 tonnes of CO2 avoided, double in 2019 and we expect 1.4 million in 2020. ”

To find actions to avoid CO emissions2, this firm specializing in Africa works directly with local partners – NGOs, associations, and even businesses – who carry out projects in the field (renewable energy, waste treatment sites, etc.). “We have them certified so that they get carbon credits, that we buy them before reselling them to companies, most often from Europe, North America …”, specifies Fabrice Le Saché.

EcoAct, a specialist in compensation projects, develops both local partnerships and its own actions. Its subsidiary in Kenya has therefore set up, in cooperation with the Livelihoods fund, a project to distribute improved stoves to reduce the consumption of firewood and CO emissions2 that go with it.

International standards

The resale of credits is done on a voluntary and therefore unregulated market. “It lacks transparency, regrets Christophe Schmeitzky, partner at EY, whether it’s volumes traded or prices. ” Or even the margins of intermediaries. Transparency on these subjects, highlighted by EcoAct and Aera, is a way of recognizing the seriousness of intermediaries – consulting firms, brokers, or digital platforms. EcoAct and Aera also emphasize complying with recognized international standards, to ensure that the funded project has seen the light of day, under the conditions and with the promised environmental impacts … “In thirty years, several solid standards have emerged, confirms the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (Ademe), such as the clean development mechanism (CDM) defined by the United Nations, or the Gold Standard and Verified Cabon Standard, developed by NGOs based on UN criteria. “

Globally, most of the compensation is currently made up, worldwide, for plantation, agroforestry or forest conservation projects. It is linked, according to experts, to the strong emotional power of the tree on the collective imagination.

However, “There are few certified forest projects: they are more expensive and more complicated to certify”, summarizes Gérald Maradan, CEO of EcoAct. Planting a tree, caring for it for years … makes the outcome of the project more uncertain than simply financing a solar installation. And all the more so that trees will be more and more sensitive to climate change and therefore to fires, with their share of CO emissions.2, in reverse of the desired effect.

Because the demand for forestry projects exceeds the certified supply, there are drifts. NGOs denounce the existence of “ industrial plantations “Carried out without worrying about the choice of species, biodiversity, or the risk of competition from the use of land with agriculture …


“As for technological innovations to capture CO2 as of its emission, on which the oil tankers bet in particular, they are far from being at the point and at the height of the stake, warns Clément Sénéchal at Greenpeace. For many companies, the compensation is greenwashing, a way to avoid questioning their business model. “

Laure Mandaron, CSR director at La Poste, describes another approach. “From 2011-2012, we started by putting everything in place to reduce emissions directly linked to our activities – training our agents in eco-driving to limit fuel consumption, electrification of vehicles, optimization of loadings… Despite all our efforts we still emit 1.8 million tonnes of CO2 per year, and it is to compensate for all of these “incompressible emissions” that we have been supporting for the past eight years, internationally, forest preservation and renewable energy production projects, helped by EcoAct. We have even decided to overcompensate and we are funding the first projects in France, validated by the “low carbon” label created under the aegis of the Ministry of Transition. “

To start by reducing its emissions to the maximum, it is one of the principles which guarantee the sincerity of a carbon offset, according to the Ademe which specifies that it “We also have to make sure that the project could not have seen the light of day without this funding”.


Good compensation practices

• In a guide from November 2019, the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (Ademe) identifies good practices to guarantee the seriousness of a compensation action.

• Publish a report on its emissions, reductions and compensations initiated, to demonstrate that compensation remains a last resort.

• Choose labeled projects and favor projects with a “sustainable development” approach (with benefits for the local population, biodiversity, conservation of resources, etc.)

• Define the right combination of projects supported on national and international soil.

• Communicate in a responsible, sincere and reliable manner (ISO 14021 standard).


How travelers can best get their compensation

Passenger rights portals on the Internet, which help passengers to enforce their rights, still give them hope that in certain cases they could receive compensation: namely, if the flight was canceled only for business reasons, it should not go to a risk area or it should is a domestic flight, the provider Flightright writes on its website.

In its 4/2020 issue, the consumer magazine “Finanztest” now comes to the conclusion that the online service providers do not always offer the best way of compensation, as the portals themselves promise. The testers advise going to the service providers especially when consumers have been unsuccessful with the other methods available to them.

The background is the EU Passenger Rights Regulation. This states that passengers are entitled to compensation between EUR 250 and EUR 600 in the event of delay, cancellation or overbooking under certain conditions. With the help of the passenger rights portal, passengers can assert their rights against the airline.

The portals work in two ways: The providers EUclaim or Flightright offer a collection model and retain a commission if successful. Compensation2go or EUflight, on the other hand, buy up the claims of the passengers and immediately pay part of the compensation. Fairplane offers immediate compensation and collection procedures.

39 test subjects took part in the financial test investigation. The results were obviously sobering: only 17 people benefited from the help and received money. Even if the portals successfully act against the airline, it can be expensive for the passengers: in the worst case, they would have to give up to 52 percent of their compensation to the portal, Finanztest states.

That did not happen to the test subjects. You paid around 33 percent. Someone who switched on a debt collection portal had to wait a long time: in five of 13 successful cases over a year.

The testers therefore recommend that passengers should first try to assert their claims directly with the airline. This can be done via the online forms of the airlines or via the free flight annoyance app from the NRW consumer center. If that doesn’t work, consumers can also contact the Söp arbitration board.

If this does not lead to the goal, a passenger rights portal can be the right contact. That is by no means hopeless in difficult cases, writes Finanztest. Fairplane and Flightright, in particular, would have brought many cases to the Federal Court of Justice or the European Court of Justice, thereby creating consumer-friendly judgments from which ultimately all passengers would benefit.

More: Entry bans and flight cancellations – when is there any compensation?


CEO Oliver Bäte’s salary almost halved

Munich allianceChief Oliver Bäte had to settle for significantly less money in the past year than a year earlier. For 2018, record earnings of EUR 10.33 million in fixed and variable salary components as well as in pension expenses were recorded, in 2019 it was only EUR 5.949 million.

This emerges from the annual report for the past year, which Europe’s largest insurer put online on Friday. Compared to the 29 other Dax bosses, Bäte is roughly in the middle. The group also provides a reason for the clear difference, albeit in bulky words.

“The inflow is significantly higher for 2018 than for 2019 because it covers a total of three financial years due to the MTB 2016-2018,” says the annual report for the past year. The MTB is the so-called mid-term bonus. In the past, sums of three years were deferred, which were then paid out at one go.

The annual earnings of the Allianz board members were extremely high every three years. Most recently, this was the case in 2018. However, the Allianz remuneration system was reorganized by resolution of the Annual General Meeting last May. The MTB was abolished as one of four salary components so far, which is why there is no longer any separate identification for 2019.

Instead of the previous four components, the remuneration of the Allianz board members now consists of only three areas. The fixed basic salary contributes 30 percent to total earnings, the remaining 70 percent consisting of a 25 percent annual bonus and 45 percent share-based compensation are variable.

Above all, the share-based remuneration was increased significantly, previously it was 25 percent. The Group names this portion of the compensation report as a long-term incentive (LTI). New in this context is a passage with which each board is measured with a so-called individual contribution factor (IBF).

Climate-neutral investment portfolio by 2050

In addition to profitability and productivity, environmental, social and good corporate governance issues are now increasingly in demand. These include diversity and sustainability, which are measured by the reduction of the carbon footprint, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as well as a milestone plan to achieve a “Net Zero compliant capital allocation by 2050 at the latest”.

The alliance joined an initiative of the United Nations last fall at the World Climate Summit in New York. The “Net Zero Asset Owners Alliance” was created under their roof. As a group of well-known major investors, the group had committed itself to making its entire investment portfolio climate-neutral by 2050.

In addition to the alliance, well-known addresses such as Zurich. Swiss Re, Calpers or Nordea there. Meanwhile, among other things, the Munich Re added. Total assets under management are now over $ 4.5 trillion with a rapidly growing trend.
The board members also have to prove themselves in other areas. In the case of serious injuries, for example in behavioral issues or in the absence of supervision, there may even be a reduction up to the complete cancellation of the variable portion. Even the recovery within three years after payment is still possible.

At Allianz CEO Oliver Bäte, the fixed salary component has increased significantly due to the new regulations. After 1.313 million euros in 2018, 1.726 million euros stood in the past year. The annual bonus has also increased to EUR 1.422 million (1.313). Bäte was particularly successful with the bonus, as can be seen from the annual report.

The supervisory board around the chairman Michael Diekmann honored the Quota of 113 percent. No other of the ten Allianz board members met the expectations of the twelve supervisors so much. The record profit of 11.9 billion euros, which the insurer made for the industry last year despite generally troubled times, also contributed to this.

Executive Board Bonus Deviations

At the other end of the bonus scale, however, are the two board members, Niran Peiris and Ivan de la Sota. Both received less than a hundred percent for their services. Among other things, Peiris is responsible for the industrial insurance business, which has suffered losses for years and is currently going through a tough restructuring course.

The Spaniard de la Sota is responsible for the digital transformation of the alliance as well as for the Iberian Peninsula. In the past, there have always been technical problems and failures in his area, most recently when the new hopefuls Allianz Direct was launched at the beginning of the year.

There were also system failures and regular problems with the transfer of data. In the long flourishing business in Spain, incorrect price calculations in property insurance business also meant that the plans were clearly missed.
In total, Bätes board colleagues had to settle for significantly less salary than in 2018.

At Sergio Balbinot, who is responsible for Western and Southern Europe as well as for the Asia / Pacific region, it was still 2.465 million euros (2018: 5.153). Jacqueline Hunt, responsible for asset management and US life insurance, reached EUR 2.416 million (2018: 4.452).

HR manager Helga Jung, who left the company at the end of the year, received EUR 3.641 million (2018: 6.753). For Christoph Mascher, who is responsible for operations and services, it was EUR 3.844 million (2018: 6.421). Niran Peiris, who is responsible for industrial insurance, Africa and the Middle East, among others, achieved 2.143 million euros (2018: 2,980).

CFO Giulio Terzariol earned 2.429 million euros (2018: 2.925), investment director Günter Thallinger 2.4 million euros (2018: 3.963). Axel Theis, who is leaving in April, generated EUR 2.552 million (2018: 5.238). Compared to an average Allianz employee, the salary of CEO Oliver Bäte is 77 times higher, for the other board members the average is 42.

More: In an interview, the Allianz chief adviser tells what he thinks about the corona virus.


Passenger claims airline and travel agent failed to deliver refund after flight cancellation – NBC10 Philadelphia

Sue Ng and her family organize a great vacation every summer. Last year it was Greece and Italy.

Ng booked the trip with Norwegian Air on the third-party booking website, JustFly. When the time came to board the plane, a problem arose.

“They cancel premium cabin seats for the economy,” Ng said of the outbound flight.

A family of three arrived in Italy.

But when it was time to go home, the airline canceled the flight. Ng said Norwegian Air hadn’t had another flight for four days, so he gave her another option. He could rebook with another airline and get a refund for the original fare, according to Ng.

After the trip, Ng got in touch with Norwegian Air to request two things: a refund for the downgrade of her outbound seat and a refund for the return flight which was canceled.

He received a response stating, Unfortunately we cannot help you with a refund for this type of ticket. Please contact your travel agency. “

Ng told NBC10 Responds: I contacted Justfly and Justfly said ‘no, no Norwegians had all your funds.’ ”

Trying to sort it all out, Ng called Norwegian Air and JustFly five times. He filed a dispute with his credit card company, but only got a refund for the downgrade of the seat. Among the options, she turned to NBC10 Responds.

NBC10 contacted Norwegian Air and JustFly to see what was hindering the refund process.

Norwegian Air asked Ng to contact JustFly once again, which he did. Ng said JustFly then called Norwegian Air and Norwegian Air asked her to resubmit the complaint. He got a refund of $ 2,620.

Norwegian Air told us in part: “Delays in compensation were due to complications with working with an external online travel agent (OTA),, which unfortunately created confusion and further postponements due to policies and procedures. conflicting refund. “

We brought this explanation to JustFly. The airline told us in part: “It was the airline’s responsibility to process the refund …” and “… the airline can refund a ticket without involving travel agents.”

Passenger rights group Airhelp tells us that the airline is generally responsible for refunds unless the flight was part of a travel package.

If you can’t get anywhere with the airline or travel agent, you can file a complaint with Airhelp. They will work as third parties to support on your behalf. The organization can handle the complaint and take legal action if necessary. It works without winnings, without costs.