Landsvirkjun board denies exceeding its legal authority

Landsvirkjun’s board says a review found no evidence that it exceeded its legal role or powers, rejecting claims made by former chief executive Hörður Arnarson. The board issued the statement in response to continued discussion of his departure and concerns about the company’s governance, mbl.is reported.

Arnarson submitted his concerns to the board in a memorandum last June. The board says it took them seriously, reviewed the incidents he cited and obtained an independent legal opinion. It also considered a separate legal opinion commissioned by Arnarson.

The board acknowledged disagreements over working methods and the respective roles of the board, its chair and the chief executive.

Since the current board took office in April 2025, it has held nine meetings with the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, according to the statement. Minutes are available for the meetings, which mainly covered profitability, dividend payments, the company’s capital structure and the board’s work. The chief executive or his deputy attended meetings where Landsvirkjun’s operations were discussed.

The board said changes to how it communicated with the ministry had caused friction with the chief executive in some cases. It rejected claims that the state had exerted undue influence over the company, saying its decisions were made on commercial grounds.

The board also denied excluding Arnarson from discussions about the company’s operations. During its roughly 18 months in office, it met without him twice to discuss his concerns about its work. At two other meetings, Arnarson left while matters concerning him were discussed. The board said it was appropriate to discuss oversight of the chief executive’s work without him present.

It said it had not interfered in Landsvirkjun’s day-to-day operations and that contact with employees or outside parties had taken place in consultation with and with the approval of Arnarson. The board added that it had acted on his request to leave the role.

“It is not correct to claim that laws or good governance practices were breached,” the board said, adding that such claims did not accord with the documents in the case.