THE board meeting of Golden Vale plc held to consider the compensation package for dismissed chief executive Jim O'Mahony is understood to have been told that a wide gulf exists between the Golden Vale offer to Mr O'Mahony and his claim on the company.
No statement was issued alter yesterday's board meeting in Charleville, but it is understood that the board endorsed the compensation package proposed by the remuneration committee. This offer is understood to be in line with Mr O'Mahony's terms of employment and has been rejected by the dismissed chief executive. The meeting is understood to have dealt solely with the compensation issue and did not discuss Mr O'Mahony's actual removal.
Mr O'Mahony is understood to have made a claim for exemplary damages against Golden Vale to reflect the damage he feels has been done to his reputation by his unceremonious dismissal a week and a half ago. This exemplary damages claim is in addition to his claim for compensation for loss of office and is likely to mean that the former chief executive is claiming close on £1 million from the plc.
Earlier this week, the board of Golden Vale Co op asked the plc and Mr O'Mahony to negotiate an acceptable compensation package for his dismissal. Since no agreement has been reached, the between the co op and the plc and indeed between a plc board almost equally divided on his dismissal, may deteriorate.
Mr O'Mahony still enjoys strong support among Golden Vale farmers, and there has been growing anger among local farmers at what is perceived as the role of the plc's outside director, Dublin solicitor James Osborne, and financial advisers IBI Corporate Finance, in his dismissal. Mr Osborne proposed Mr O'Mahony's dismissal after the chief executive refused to resign, a proposal that was carried by the narrowest possible margin eight votes to seven.
Mr O'Mahony has already been publicly defended by a former vice chairman of the co op, Mr P.J. McGuane and it is understood that committee has expressed its concern over what it believes is "outside interference" in the dismissal of Mr O'Mahony.
The next step in the affair will be for the full 76 member board of the co op to consider the inability of the plc and Mr O'Mahony to reach an acceptable settlement. If there is a view among the board that Mr O Mahony has been unjustly blamed for Golden Vale's recent problems and is being denied a reasonable financial settlement, then relations between Golden Vale farmers and outside investors will undoubtedly deteriorate further.
