Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05PORTAUPRINCE1667
2005-06-16 14:06:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Port Au Prince
Cable title:  

HAITI: 2005 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND

Tags:  CASC EFIN EINV KIDE HA OPIC POGV 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 PORT AU PRINCE 001667 

SIPDIS

WHA/CAR
WHA/EPSC
INR/IAA (BEN-YEHUDA)
TREASURY FOR ALLEL RODRIGUEZ, GERGORY BERGER, WILLIAM
BALDRIDGE, LARRY MCDONALD
USDOC FOR 4322/ITA/MAN/WH/OLAC (SMITH, S.)
EB/IFD/OIA/JPROSELI
L/CID/JNICOL

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CASC EFIN EINV KIDE HA OPIC POGV
SUBJECT: HAITI: 2005 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND
EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS

REF: STATE 70014

The Embassy is aware of ten (10) investment disputes against
private citizens and expropriation claims against the
Government of Haiti by U.S. citizens. In addition to these
cases, the Embassy has provided assistance to a number of
other U.S. citizens that have investment disputes with
private persons or entities in Haiti. In all cases,
especially those involving occupation of land by squatters,
satisfactory resolution has been hindered by problems in
Haiti's legal system and compounded by the political crisis
of 2004, which resulted in the formation of the Interim
Government of Haiti (IGOH). The IGOH, supported by the
international community, has worked to establish a credible,
effective judiciary and police force. However, progress has
been minimal, especially with respect to civil/commercial
cases. Many claimants opt to settle their disputes out of
court rather than rely on the justice system, which has
traditionally been marred by incompetence, corruption, and a
lack of resources.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 PORT AU PRINCE 001667

SIPDIS

WHA/CAR
WHA/EPSC
INR/IAA (BEN-YEHUDA)
TREASURY FOR ALLEL RODRIGUEZ, GERGORY BERGER, WILLIAM
BALDRIDGE, LARRY MCDONALD
USDOC FOR 4322/ITA/MAN/WH/OLAC (SMITH, S.)
EB/IFD/OIA/JPROSELI
L/CID/JNICOL

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CASC EFIN EINV KIDE HA OPIC POGV
SUBJECT: HAITI: 2005 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND
EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS

REF: STATE 70014

The Embassy is aware of ten (10) investment disputes against
private citizens and expropriation claims against the
Government of Haiti by U.S. citizens. In addition to these
cases, the Embassy has provided assistance to a number of
other U.S. citizens that have investment disputes with
private persons or entities in Haiti. In all cases,
especially those involving occupation of land by squatters,
satisfactory resolution has been hindered by problems in
Haiti's legal system and compounded by the political crisis
of 2004, which resulted in the formation of the Interim
Government of Haiti (IGOH). The IGOH, supported by the
international community, has worked to establish a credible,
effective judiciary and police force. However, progress has
been minimal, especially with respect to civil/commercial
cases. Many claimants opt to settle their disputes out of
court rather than rely on the justice system, which has
traditionally been marred by incompetence, corruption, and a
lack of resources.


1. (A) Claimant A

(B) 1973

(C) According to information provided by Claimant A (a U.S.
citizen who has not signed a Privacy Act Waiver),in 1970
Claimant signed a 99 year agreement with the GOH to establish
a privately financed, privately administered free enterprise
zone on the Haitian island of Tortuga. Under the agreement,
the GOH would halve the profits of the zone but full
management authority would rest with the Free Port Authority,
under the control of Claimant A.

Prospective investors would obtain all necessary permits and
other administrative needs from the Free Port Authority, not
the GOH. The contract waived the jurisdiction of Haitian
courts over the project. Under pressure from the GOH, the
agreement was renegotiated in 1972 but remained substantively
the same. By 1973, Claimant A claims to have invested
approximately $2.5 million in the project.

Claimant A reports that in February 1973 the GOH effectively

seized Claimant's investment and nullified the contract,
asserting the jurisdiction of Haitian courts despite the
provisions in the contract. Claimant A asserts that the GOH
legitimized the contract nullification through illegitimate
proceedings in the Haitian courts. Claimant A further
alleges that attempts to resolve the claim were frustrated by
many short-lived and illegitimate governments in Haiti.

The U.S. Embassy has intervened on several occasions with the
GOH on Claimant A's behalf, urging that the case be resolved
promptly and equitably. In March 1997, the U.S. Ambassador
wrote President Preval, asking him to meet with Claimant A's
attorney to discuss a plan for an out-of-court settlement.
In December 1997, Claimant A met with representatives of
President Preval in an effort to revitalize discussions
regarding the future of the project. The U.S. Embassy
further called the matter to the attention of President
Preval in an invitation to meet with Claimant A. The GOH
agreed to send a delegation, including the State Secretary
for Tourism and two members of the President's personal
staff, to Texas to meet with Claimant A in June 1998.

Most recently, in June 2002, Claimant again contacted the
Embassy for assistance in re-opening negotiations with the
Government of Haiti. The Embassy contacted Martine Deverson,
then Minister of Tourism, regarding the status of Claimant
A's request for negotiations. She informed the Embassy that
the Haitian court had indeed revoked the claimant's
concession. She assured the Embassy that the Ministry of
Justice was prepared to reconsider any proof Claimant A has
of justification for a decision to the contrary, including
original supporting documents or a new proposal for review.
In 2005, the Embassy attempted, but was unable, to contact
Claimant A.



2. (A) Claimant B

(B) 1996

(C) Property belonging to Claimant B's family (U.S.
citizens, who have not signed Privacy Act Waivers) in the
Delmas area of Port-au Prince, was invaded by persons who
cleared the land and began constructing homes on it. The
squatters acted with overt encouragement from the Deputy
Mayor of Delmas, who made public statements to the effect
that the Municipality was expropriating the land. Claimant
B's family secured court orders affirming their clear title
to the land and sought GOH enforcement of the orders. In
1998, the Ambassador sought the intervention of the
Ministries of the Interior and Justice, wrote the Mayor of
Delmas regarding the matter, and raised the matter with
President Preval. Pursuant to court order, the Haitian
National Police cleared the land of squatters on two
occasions, but the matter is not yet resolved. In 2005,
Claimant B told the Embassy that the last change in the case
occurred in 2002, when Claimant B attempted to retake
possession of the disputed property, but was shot at and
chased away by the squatters.



3. (A) Claimant C

(B) 1996

(C) Claimant C is an American-held company (that has not
signed a Privacy Act Waiver) with a copper mining concession
in the Artibonite region of Haiti, near the northern city of
Gonaives. Since 1985, the U.S. company has invested USD 9
million in the operation. In 1996, local Haitian government
authorities challenged Claimant C's right to the concession,
and the property was seized and held from September 1996
until the spring of 1998. The company successfully defended
its claim in district court of Gonaives and again in appeals
court in Gonaives when the government appealed the ruling in
favor of the company.

Claimant C regained control of the disputed mining property
subsequent to the appeals court decision. The case was
appealed by the government to the Supreme Court, which ruled
in favor of Claimant C in 1998. The Embassy considers the
case closed.



4. (A) Claimant D

(B) 1983

(C) Claimant D (a U.S. citizen who has not signed a Privacy
Act Waiver) alleges that land purchased by his company in
Grand Godet in the south of Haiti in 1972 was illegally
confiscated by the GOH in 1983. Jean Marie Chanoine, a
member of Jean Claude Duvalier's cabinet, allegedly gave the
order to confiscate the property. The Administration General
des Contributions occupied the land and then sold it to
Chanoine. Claimant D's attorney obtained a favorable court
judgment in 1990, but Claimant D has not been able to retake
possession of the property. Claimant D is currently seeking
additional judicial intervention. The Embassy has repeatedly
raised the issue with GOH officials, most recently in a
letter to President Preval in 1998. However, since then, the
claimant has not sought further assistance, and the Embassy
has attempted, but been unable, to contact Claimant D.



5. (A) Claimant E

(B) 1988

(C) Claimant E's (a U.S. Citizen who has not signed a
Privacy Act Waiver) father purchased property in 1978, which
was originally part of the estate of former President Paul
Magloire. After Magloire left office in 1957, the land was
nationalized by executive order. The Magloire family
disputes the original seizure and purchase of the land and
filed suit against both Claimant E and the GOH to reclaim the
land. Haiti's Supreme Court ruled for the Magloires and
ordered the eviction of Claimant E. The court subsequently
ordered a stay of the eviction. The matter now rests in the
political realm; Claimant E is seeking to have the GOH
reconfirm the original sale. The U.S. Ambassador called this
matter to the attention of President Preval in a January 1998
letter. As of 2005, this case has not been settled and
Claimant E is still attempting to have the original sale
recognized. However, Claimant E is living on the property
purchased in the sale.



6. (A) Claimant F

(B) 1996

(C) Claimant F (a U.S. citizen who has not signed a privacy
act waiver) owns a building in the Delmas section of Port au
Prince that has been used as a GOH public secondary school
for the past four years. Despite a court judgment against
the mayor of Delmas in 1996 and a promise from the Ministry
of Education to vacate the property, classes in the building
continued. The Embassy wrote to the Ministry of Education in
May 1999 to ask that the school vacate the property at the
end of the current term. According to Claimant F,s lawyer,
who the Embassy contacted in 2005, Claimant F and the GOH
reached an agreement and the GOH has signed a contract to
rent Claimant F,s property thereby settling the dispute.
The Embassy considers this case closed.



7. (A) Claimant G

(B) 2000

(C) Claimant G, a U.S. company operated in Haiti by two U.S.
citizens (who have not signed Privacy Act Waivers),is
involved in court cases pending in both Texas and Haitian
courts against another Texas-based U.S. company, over
ownership of Claimant G's assets. In February 2000, the GOH
imposed a large fine on Claimant G for customs violations and
temporarily shut down Claimant G's operations. Claimant G
protested this move as an expropriation. Claimant G and the
GOH settled on a fine and payment schedule shortly
thereafter, and Claimant G's business reopened.

When Claimant G ceased making the agreed upon payments in
June 2000, the GOH moved to take all proceeds from sales at
the company, effectively taking control of the company's
operations. Embassy officers met frequently with GOH
officials to urge them to give Claimant G all due
consideration under Haitian and international law, and to
ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens affiliated with
Claimant G. However, due to the ongoing U.S. and Haitian
court cases, the USG has not taken a position on the merits
of either Claimant G or the other U.S. company's claims.

On October 6 2004, Claimant G was found guilty of violating
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by authorizing the payment
of over USD 500,000 to Haitian customs officials in 1998 and
1999 to avoid more than USD 1.5 million in customs duties.
According to Claimant G,s lawyer, who the Embassy contacted
in 2005, Claimant G,s conviction in the United States
effectively ended the Claimant G,s dispute in Haiti. The
Embassy considers the case closed.



8. (A) Claimant H

(B) 2002

(C) In 1956, Claimant H's (a U.S. citizen who has not signed
a Privacy Act Waiver) father began to build an experimental
farm and ecological reserve on land he bought from several
smallholders in Kenskoff, west of Port-au-Prince. On
approximately 30 acres, the reserve protects plant species
indigenous to Haiti, Central and South America, Asia and
Africa. After his death in 1992, his daughter, Claimant H,
continued to use the Farm for ecological and agricultural
education.

Between 1998 and 2002, Claimant H's family experienced
increasing difficulties with neighbors including theft and
poaching, and police protection has been inadequate. A
well-organized, well-funded group with alleged ties to
several government officials built a large road through
Claimant H's property and prepared to build buildings, all
without approval from Claimant H. The group also advertised
pieces of the land for sale to the public.

Claimant H obtained a court order to stop construction while
the land ownership issue was settled, but the order was not
enforced and construction continued. The claimant and
Claimant H's family say that their lives were threatened and
they were denied access to their property. Embassy officers
met with various Haitian officials and Ministers to request a
response to Claimant H's complaints and enforcement of the
court order. Claimant H also appealed to members of the
international community in Port-au-Prince, including NGO and
international organization workers, to frequent the site and
show an interest. Finally, Embassy officers approached the
owner of the property neighboring the claimant's, and through
whose property the access road had been cut (with the
property owner's consent),and noted to the neighbor that he
could be held liable on racketeering charges if he abetted
the activities of the group seeking to seize claimant's land.
The neighbor agreed to close access to the group, and
construction activities ceased.

In 2005, Claimant H,s lawyer informed the Embassy that the
courts ruled in the claimant's favor. However, the paperwork
to execute the decision has not yet been executed. Claimant
H's lawyer expects that the dispute may continue until the
results are part of the public record.



9. (A) Claimant I

(B) 2004

(C) Claimant I (a U.S. corporation that has not signed a
Privacy Act Waiver) operates a cellular network in Haiti.
Claimant J's contract dispute with the Interim Government of
Haiti (IGOH) about its proposed upgrade to GSM technology
began in mid-2004. Claimant J started negotiations with the
IGOH from the position that their contact would require only
a small amendment to accommodate an upgrade to GSM. The
IGOH, on the other hand, argued that Claimant I would need to
negotiate a new contract.

Throughout the dispute, the Embassy has advocated on behalf
of Claimant I, arguing that the government should take a
technology-neutral position. The Embassy has also encouraged
both sides to negotiate in good faith and settle the matter
as quickly as possible. On behalf of Claimant I, the
Ambassador brought the Embassy,s technology neutrality
position to the attention of the Prime Minister, and the
Economic Counselor discussed Claimant I,s situation with the
Minister of Transportation and Public Works on several
occasions. Both the IGOH and Claimant I say they are close
to signing a renegotiated contract, which is a compromise
between their original positions. The Embassy will continue
to monitor the negotiations, and push for a speedy and
equitable resolution.



10. (A) Claimant J

(B) 2004

(C) Claimant J (a U.S. Citizen who has not signed a Privacy
Act Waiver) asserts that in 2000, the SONAPI industrial park
took possession of his machinery, worth approximately USD 6.5
million, because of rental debt variously described as USD
35,000 or 100,000. After the departure of President Aristide
in February 2004, Claimant J attempted to get his equipment
back, however he was told that it had been destroyed in the
rioting that took place around the time of Aristide,s
departure. Claimant J says he knows this assertion is false.
He claims that in October 2002, SONAPI sold his equipment to
well connected businessmen and gave the profits to members of
the Aristide government.

Since December 2004, Claimant J has asked for indemnification
by the IGOH. His case was recently transferred from SONAPI
to the Minister of Finance for a final decision. The Embassy
has not taken a position on the details of the case, but has
pushed the Ministry to provide Claimant J with a timely
response. The Ambassador wrote a letter supporting the
timely adjudication of Claimant J,s case and the Economic
Counselor met with the Minister of Finance several times to
discuss Claimant J's case. In June 2005, the Interim
Government of Haiti (IGOH) and Claimant J entered into
negotiations to settle the dispute. The Embassy will
continue to monitor Claimant J,s case.



Claimant Names

Claimant A: Greg Peterson, Dupont Caribbean Development
Claimant B: Roy Benjamin Family
Claimant C: First City Development Corporation of Haiti S.A.
Claimant D: Tomar Industries of Haiti
Claimant E: Monnin Family
Claimant F: Jules Moliere
Claimant G: Rice Corporation of Haiti
Claimant H: Jane Wynne and Family
Claimant I: Comcel
Claimant J: Antoine Medard, A&M Industries
FOLEY