Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07GUATEMALA1177
2007-06-15 16:50:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Guatemala
Cable title:
2007 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES - GUATEMALA
how-toVZCZCXYZ0035 RR RUEHWEB DE RUEHGT #1177 1661650 ZNR UUUUU ZZH R 151650Z JUN 07 FM AMEMBASSY GUATEMALA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3006 INFO RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC RUEHZA/WHA CENTRAL AMERICAN COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS GUATEMALA 001177
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV KIDE PGOV ECON CASC OPIC GT
SUBJECT: 2007 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES - GUATEMALA
Ref: A) 06 Guatemala 1087, B) State 55422
In response to ref B this message updates information outlined in
last year's report (ref A)
UNCLAS GUATEMALA 001177
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV KIDE PGOV ECON CASC OPIC GT
SUBJECT: 2007 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES - GUATEMALA
Ref: A) 06 Guatemala 1087, B) State 55422
In response to ref B this message updates information outlined in
last year's report (ref A)
1. Claimant A: Embassy has not been contacted by claimant A during
2006 and first semester of 2007 on the status of evicting illegal
settlers from her farm. This case appears to be resolved or
inactive.
2. Claimant B: Claimant B's disputes with the railroad regulator
continue, with no short term resolution in sight. On August 11,
2006, the Guatemalan Government declared injurious to the interests
of the state the contract with Claimant B. On March 13, 2007,
Claimant B filed its Notice of Intent to Submit Claims for
Arbitration under CAFTA against the Republic of Guatemala. Claimant
B alleges the Injurious Resolution had been an indirect
expropriation of the company's assets and for that reason demands
US$65 million in compensation and damages from the Guatemalan
Government. However, Guatemala's Attorney General claims the
company got ahead of itself as domestic legal appeals have not been
exhausted. The Embassy continues its advocacy with GOG authorities
on behalf of claimant.
3. Claimant C: Claimants contacted the Embassy in March 2007 as
their farms have been invaded again by illegal settlers since
January 2007.
4. There are no other investment disputes that meet the criteria of
ref B. However, four majority US owned electricity producers had
various disputes with the regulator in 2006. The regulator at one
point threatened to renegotiate their contracts; however, a
voluntary solution on cutting prices was found in 2006. One of
these firms, Duke Energy, was also in discussions with the
government about its contract, which it could not fulfill since it
had lost its source of cheap fuel (Orimulsion from Venezuela).
However, Duke Energy's contract was terminated by mutual agreement
in 2006. Embassy will continue to track the cases of these companies
and advocate on their behalf when appropriate.
5. Claimant A: Margaret Argudo
Claimant B: Ferrovias Guatemala
Claimant C: Carlos Ardebol and Roger Perez Ardebol
6. Recommendation: Only claimant B should be listed in the Section
527 report, should this case meet Department's criteria.
DERHAM
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV KIDE PGOV ECON CASC OPIC GT
SUBJECT: 2007 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES - GUATEMALA
Ref: A) 06 Guatemala 1087, B) State 55422
In response to ref B this message updates information outlined in
last year's report (ref A)
1. Claimant A: Embassy has not been contacted by claimant A during
2006 and first semester of 2007 on the status of evicting illegal
settlers from her farm. This case appears to be resolved or
inactive.
2. Claimant B: Claimant B's disputes with the railroad regulator
continue, with no short term resolution in sight. On August 11,
2006, the Guatemalan Government declared injurious to the interests
of the state the contract with Claimant B. On March 13, 2007,
Claimant B filed its Notice of Intent to Submit Claims for
Arbitration under CAFTA against the Republic of Guatemala. Claimant
B alleges the Injurious Resolution had been an indirect
expropriation of the company's assets and for that reason demands
US$65 million in compensation and damages from the Guatemalan
Government. However, Guatemala's Attorney General claims the
company got ahead of itself as domestic legal appeals have not been
exhausted. The Embassy continues its advocacy with GOG authorities
on behalf of claimant.
3. Claimant C: Claimants contacted the Embassy in March 2007 as
their farms have been invaded again by illegal settlers since
January 2007.
4. There are no other investment disputes that meet the criteria of
ref B. However, four majority US owned electricity producers had
various disputes with the regulator in 2006. The regulator at one
point threatened to renegotiate their contracts; however, a
voluntary solution on cutting prices was found in 2006. One of
these firms, Duke Energy, was also in discussions with the
government about its contract, which it could not fulfill since it
had lost its source of cheap fuel (Orimulsion from Venezuela).
However, Duke Energy's contract was terminated by mutual agreement
in 2006. Embassy will continue to track the cases of these companies
and advocate on their behalf when appropriate.
5. Claimant A: Margaret Argudo
Claimant B: Ferrovias Guatemala
Claimant C: Carlos Ardebol and Roger Perez Ardebol
6. Recommendation: Only claimant B should be listed in the Section
527 report, should this case meet Department's criteria.
DERHAM