2006 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND

UNCLAS GEORGETOWN 000547

SIPDIS

EB/IFD/OIA - James Roseli
L/CID - Emily Daughtry

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS



E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV CASC KIDE OPIC PGOV GY
SUBJECT: 2006 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND
EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS (GUYANA)

REF: STATE 60294


1. In response to reftel, the following is Post's submission
for the 2006 Report on Investment Disputes and Expropriation
Claims. Post is aware of five (5) claims of United States
persons that may be outstanding against the Government of
Guyana (GOG),all of which were detailed in the 2005 report.
Claimants from the 2005 report retain
their identifying letter below.


2. (SBU) (a) Claimant A
(b) 2002
(c) CASE UPDATE: Claimant A is a U.S. company that owns 80
percent of Guyana's telephone monopoly, Guyana Telecom and
Telegraph (GT&T),and obtained an agreement with the GOG in
1990 to be the exclusive provider of land telephony and
national and international voice and data transmission. In
February 2006 President Bharrat Jagdeo stated that he
intends to break Claimant A's telecommunications monopoly
"in one way or another." The CEO of Claimant A responded by
reiterating the firm's willingness to negotiate the
exclusivity terms of its license and called on the GOG to
produce a Memorandum of Understanding as a catalyst for
discussions that have been stalled since 2002. Claimant A
also criticized the GOG for failing to take action against
unlicensed operators, some of whom service government
agencies in spite of the agreement giving Claimant A
exclusive rights to provide telephone service in Guyana. In
a related matter, the Public Utilities Commission ordered
Claimant A to cease sales of cellular service on February
24, 2006, citing network congestion and complaints of
unreliable service. Claimant A countered that it cannot
comply with the request until service quality standards are
established. The CEO of Claimant A has also said that
obstacles to orderly telecommunications development have
continued to be displayed by the GOG by asking Claimant A to
accept uneconomic rates, permitting a breach of those
sections of the license which protect Claimant A and
dividing the spectrum in a way that reduces the rate of
Claimant A's cellular network development.


3. (SBU) a) Claimant B
b) 1998
c) CASE UPDATE: Claimant B was the U.S. parent company
for the Linden Power Company, with a contract to supply
electricity to the Linden area and to the Linmine bauxite
mine operations. The failure of Linmine and the GOG to pay
power bills led to Claimant B defaulting on a loan,
resulting in LPC going into receivership with Royal Bank of
Trinidad and Tobago. Multiple cross-cutting lawsuits
stemming from the case have been consolidated into a binding
arbitration that was heard in New York. Arbitration
hearings were scheduled for July 2004. Claimant B claimed
$27 million in the arbitration. Linmine ceased operations
in Guyana in May 2005. Post has been unable to contact
Claimant B to verify that the issue has been settled. END
UPDATE.


4. (SBU) a) Claimant C
b) 1998
c) CASE UPDATE: Claimant C is a U.S. registered
company licensed to provide cellular service in Guyana.
Claimant C alleges that the PUC frustrated its efforts to
achieve interconnection with the dominant telephone service
provider, which is 80 percent owned by an American company.
Claimant C took legal action to force an interconnection
agreement. Although victorious, the telephone service
provider has appealed that decision. Claimant C intended to
expand its service, including introducing call centers, but
has been frustrated by the GOG's reluctance to finalize a
memorandum of understanding with them. According to news
reports, the dispute is ongoing. Post has been unable to
contact anyone from Claimant C to update the status of the
claim since it was initially reported in the 2004 report.


5. (SBU) a) Claimant D
b) 1998
c) CASE UPDATE: Claimant D, owned by a U.S. citizen,
is also licensed to provide cellular service in Guyana.
Claimant D also alleges that the PUC frustrated their
efforts to achieve full interconnection with the monopoly
provider for landline telephone service. Claimant was also
victorious in legal action to enforce interconnection, but
has not yet been able to enforce the judgment. Claimant D
has petitioned for an extension of its 10 year license to
match 15 year licenses granted to other providers. They are
also seeking licenses granted to other providers. They are

also seeking tax concessions to match those granted other
providers. Post has had no contact with the claimant in the
last year. END UPDATE.


6. (SBU) a) Claimant E
b) 1995
c) CASE UPDATE: The 2002 report stated that Claimant E
intended to pursue a lawsuit against the GOG related to a
land dispute. Claimant E contacted post in early 2006
saying the suit is ongoing and listing various conditions by
which the claimant will accept a settlement with the GOG.
END UPDATE.


7. (SBU) The list of claimant names follows, all of who are
believed to be U.S. citizens or companies controlled by
U.S. citizens. None of the claimants has signed a privacy
act waiver at Post.

Claimant A: Atlantic Tele-Network (ATN). U.S. registered
company.

Claimant B: Texas Ohio Energy (TOE). U.S. registered
company.

Claimant C: Caribbean Wireless Ltd. U.S. registered
company.

Claimant D: Caribbean Telecommunications Ltd. Guyanese
registered company with U.S. citizen owner.

Claimant E: Mr. Keshwar Ramlal, United States Citizen.

BULLEN