Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07SANTODOMINGO1424
2007-06-15 11:31:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Santo Domingo
Cable title:  

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 2007 REPORT ON INVESTMENT

Tags:  EINV KIDE DR 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0003
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHDG #1424/01 1661131
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 151131Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY SANTO DOMINGO
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8521
UNCLAS SANTO DOMINGO 001424 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EB/IFD/OIA H. GOETHERT; L/CID S. MCDONALD

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV KIDE DR
SUBJECT: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 2007 REPORT ON INVESTMENT
DISPUTES AND EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS

REF: STATE 55422

The United States Government is presently aware of twenty-one
(21) outstanding claims (including five new claims for 2006,
one in 2007, and one claim closed as of 2006) by US
persons/entities against the Government of the Dominican
Republic (government). In mid-2005 a USAID-sponsored
consultant finished working with the Dominican Government on
implementing a system for evaluating and resolving claims
through the use of bonds. In 1999, Law 104-99 was passed,
offering to claimants whose disputes arose on or before
August 16, 1996, the option of circumventing the traditional
method of claim resolution (at the "Bienes Nacionales"),and
instead to seek compensation from a specially appointed
Commission, provided the claimants are willing to accept
payment in bonds. A total of 247 claims were solved under
Law 104-99 with USAID assistance. This law expired on
November 9, 2005.

Government action on resolution of claims slowed when the
Fernandez administration took office in August 2004. The
Office of Public Credit within the Ministry of Finance is
responsible for expropriations and investment disputes. The
current Director has maintained his position for less than a
year. The office has had four directors in two years. This
high turnover rate with the change in administration has
delayed consideration of claims. The Office of Public Credit
states that several claimants have either never registered
their claim formally with the Office of Public Credit or the
claims have not been passed to the Office of Public Credit
from other Government offices. The Embassy raises these
expropriation and investor dispute cases with the Government
on a regular basis. In addition to visits to the Ministry of
Finance, the Ambassador sent letters to the Minister of
Finance and the legal advisor to the President requesting
resolution of these U.S. claims. All information provided
herein was last updated on June 1, 2007.

UNCLAS SANTO DOMINGO 001424

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EB/IFD/OIA H. GOETHERT; L/CID S. MCDONALD

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV KIDE DR
SUBJECT: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 2007 REPORT ON INVESTMENT
DISPUTES AND EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS

REF: STATE 55422

The United States Government is presently aware of twenty-one
(21) outstanding claims (including five new claims for 2006,
one in 2007, and one claim closed as of 2006) by US
persons/entities against the Government of the Dominican
Republic (government). In mid-2005 a USAID-sponsored
consultant finished working with the Dominican Government on
implementing a system for evaluating and resolving claims
through the use of bonds. In 1999, Law 104-99 was passed,
offering to claimants whose disputes arose on or before
August 16, 1996, the option of circumventing the traditional
method of claim resolution (at the "Bienes Nacionales"),and
instead to seek compensation from a specially appointed
Commission, provided the claimants are willing to accept
payment in bonds. A total of 247 claims were solved under
Law 104-99 with USAID assistance. This law expired on
November 9, 2005.

Government action on resolution of claims slowed when the
Fernandez administration took office in August 2004. The
Office of Public Credit within the Ministry of Finance is
responsible for expropriations and investment disputes. The
current Director has maintained his position for less than a
year. The office has had four directors in two years. This
high turnover rate with the change in administration has
delayed consideration of claims. The Office of Public Credit
states that several claimants have either never registered
their claim formally with the Office of Public Credit or the
claims have not been passed to the Office of Public Credit
from other Government offices. The Embassy raises these
expropriation and investor dispute cases with the Government
on a regular basis. In addition to visits to the Ministry of
Finance, the Ambassador sent letters to the Minister of
Finance and the legal advisor to the President requesting
resolution of these U.S. claims. All information provided
herein was last updated on June 1, 2007.


1. a. Claimant A
b. 1999
c. Eight independent power producers (IPPs),four of which
are US-owned, provide approximately 30 percent of the
Dominican Republic's electricity. In 1999, the IPPs entered
into a "Definitive Agreement" with the government under which

an escrow account was to have been established to permit the
capitalization of the State electricity company,s
(Corporacion Dominicana de Empresas Electricas Estatales
(CDEEE)) power generation and distribution facilities. This
escrow account was intended to receive payments from the new
distribution companies and proceeds were to have been used to
pay the IPPs for both current invoices and accumulated
arrears. The government did not live up to its commitment to
implement this escrow arrangement; CDEEE failed to keep its
payments current to the IPPs; and the government breached
several agreements to make up the shortfall, which exceeded
$100 million.

In September 2002, the government announced that seven of the
eight IPP,s had agreed in principle to give up their
existing long-term contracts. To date, the government has
successfully renegotiated only one new contract with these
IPP's. In February 2004, the government and CDEEE signed a
short-term agreement with two of the Claimants whereby the
government agreed to increase tariff rates, make payments on
current invoices and negotiate accumulated arrears. Although
tariff rates were increased CDEEE and the government have
continuously failed to make timely payments to Claimants A,
resulting in cash flow problems and credit difficulties, and
they are presently in default to Claimants A, and other
generating companies in the sector, in excess of $400
million. Of additional concern, the contracts with Claimants
A are backed, in part, by guarantees. Should Claimant A's
lenders call those guarantees, the government faces liability
of more than $425 million. The Embassy has made repeated
approaches to high government officials in an effort to
resolve this ongoing problem. Although Embassy officers have
met on various occasions with Claimants A, they have not
requested Embassy advocacy in the last year. CDEEE has
initiated renegotiation talks with each claimant. The
renegotiation talks involve debt owed to the claimants.


2. a. Claimant B
b. 1998
c. Claimant B purchased land located on the access road to
Santo Domingo's Las Americas Airport. In 1998, the Public
Works Department built the ramp for a highway overpass on
Claimant B,s land. Embassy contacted Public Works on behalf
of Claimant B and was informed that Claimant B will be
included in whatever settlement (i.e., cash payment or
relocation) was to have been offered to Dominican landowners
affected by this construction. The government has yet to

authorize funding to settle Claimant B,s claim, and it fell
too late to be included in the original bond issuance
program. A possible government initial settlement offer will
likely be in the form of bonds. No time has been set for a
decision. Although the Embassy continues to discuss this
claim with the Dominican government, the claimant has not
contacted the Embassy in over a year. Embassy personnel have
tried to contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be
reached.


3. a. Claimant C
b. 1994 and various
c. In 1996, Claimant C discovered that various components of
the government had, over time, built facilities (including an
airport runway extension) on a parcel of land near the town
of Barahona that Claimant C,s company had owned since the
1920s. The Embassy raised this case on numerous occasions
with senior Dominican officials and facilitated meetings
between Claimant C and the government. In 1999, Claimant C
accepted an offer of settlement in partial payment of the
claim of approximately $1.5 million, which the government
paid in three equal payments. Efforts by Claimant to recoup
the remainder of its claim have been rebuffed by the
government, which takes the position that the claim has been
satisfied in full. Although the Embassy continues to discuss
this claim with the Dominican government, the claimant has
not contacted the Embassy in over a year. Embassy personnel
have tried to contact the claimant, but the claimant could
not be reached.


4. a. Claimant D
b. 1991
c. In 1988, the government asked Claimant D to build 1,000
homes for sugar cane workers. Claimant D never signed a
contract with the government. Materials were shipped to the
Dominican Republic for the first phase of construction (30
homes) and Claimant D had invoices showing that the materials
arrived. In 1989, Claimant D was informed that, due to heavy
rains and a bad crop, construction of the homes would be
delayed. Claimant D arranged with port authorities to have
the materials remain in the port until construction could
begin. In 1991, Claimant D discovered that all of the
materials had disappeared. Claimant D alleged that some of
the materials were auctioned off, and some given to
government entities. Claimant D estimates losses at $1.3
million. Claimant D,s case was disqualified under Law No.
104-99. Claimant D has since initiated legal action in a
Dominican court.

Embassy officials have been in direct contact with Claimant D
and his lawyer. On May 7, 2007, the Director for Public
Credit told emboff that he has prepared a letter for Claimant
D,s lawyer that lists the documents needed to process the
case. Emboff relayed this information to Claimant D.


5. a. Claimant E (case closed as of December 2006)
b. 1990
c. In 1989, Claimant E purchased a 75 percent interest in
beachfront property near Barahona. Claimant E,s Dominican
partners owned the remaining 25 percent. Claimant E,s
interest in the land had an estimated value of $112,000. On
September 18, 1989, the government seized the land, stating
that it intended to use it for the construction of a power
plant. Following this action, Claimant E entered into a new
agreement with its Dominican partners, under which Claimant E
would cease payments on the land and would reduce its
interest in the property to 15 percent. It was agreed that
&legal actions would be undertaken jointly, the proceeds of
which would be distributed between the co-owners in the same
proportion as their interest in the property.8 Claimant E
and its Dominican partners have sought compensation in
Dominican courts, and reported to the Embassy in 1994 that
the courts had ruled in their favor. No compensation was
received so in January 2000, Claimant E applied for bonds
under Law No. 104-99. The Embassy has made repeated
approaches to high government officials in an effort to
resolve this ongoing problem.

Subsequnetly, Claimant E informed the Embassy that they
received payment, valued at $30,000, from the Dominican
government in December 2006.


6. a. Claimant F
b. 1983
c. Claimant F is the owner of land with an assessed value of
approximately $1 million in the Puerto Plata area of the
Dominican Republic. In 1983, the government seized the land,
which is now part of the &Isabel de Torres Scientific
Preserve.8 Claimant F sought compensation, but none was
approved. According to Claimant F, the government previously
valued the land at $330,000. Claimant F reported that it has

an assessment valuing the land at approximately $990,000.
Claimant F is willing to negotiate. The Embassy raised this
matter in all discussions of investment disputes with the
government. To date there has been no resolution, and the
matter continues to experience payment opposition on behalf
of Claimant F.

Although the Embassy continues to discuss this claim with the
Dominican government, the claimant has not contacted the
Embassy in over a year. Embassy personnel have tried to
contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be reached.


7. a. Claimant G
b. 1980,s
c. The government expropriated Claimant G,s property in the
1980,s, which Claimant G valued at several million dollars.
To date there has been no resolution. Although the Embassy
continues to include the matter in all discussions of
investment disputes with the government, the claimant has not
contacted the Embassy in over a year. Embassy personnel have
tried to contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be
reached.


8. a. Claimant H
b. 1986
c. Pursuant to a presidential decree in 1986, the government
expropriated 823,495.70 square meters of land belonging to
Claimant H for use in the construction of the Maria Montez
Airport in Barahona. Claimant H has sought compensation for
the land, improvements to the land, crops located thereon,
and for three million cubic meters of raw materials extracted
from the land. The claim was brought to the attention of the
Embassy in May 2001, and has been included in all discussion
of investment disputes with the government since that time.
To date there has been no resolution. The matter continues
to be considered for settlement.

Although the Embassy continues to discuss this claim with the
Dominican government, the claimant has not contacted the
Embassy in over a year. Embassy personnel have tried to
contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be reached.



9. a. Claimant I
b. 1987
c. Claimant I,s contract claim involves the unpaid
commission for loan guarantees on a real estate transaction
brokered in 1976. Claimant I asserts he is entitled to 2% of
$12 million, the loan guarantee amount. Claimant I has a
default judgment from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, entered in 1987, for $240,000. Claimant I asserts
that with interest, the claim is now valued at approximately
$2 million. Embassy has raised this issue with government
officials and facilitated a meeting between Claimant I and
government officials, and the parties are presently in
discussion. The government provided the loan guarantees.

Embassy personnel have tried to contact the claimant, but the
claimant could not be reached.


10. a. Claimant J
b. 2003
c. In 1998 Claimant J and family responded to advertisements
by the Dominican Republic seeking US investment by purchasing
two adjacent parcels of land located in Cumayasa, San Pedro
de Macoris. In March of 2003 Claimant J, while visiting his
property, discovered that almost 700 mature coconut trees had
been bulldozed and other property destroyed by the Dominican
Consejo Estatal de Azucar (CEA). When Claimant J contacted
the CEA office in Santo Domingo to request an immediate
evacuation of the area a CEA engineer recommended that
Claimant J instead request that the properties be replaced
with other unspecified parcels in unspecified areas, citing
the CEA had incurred expenses in grading the land and
uprooting the fruit trees. Claimant J immediately contacted
a local attorney and initiated legal action in a Dominican
Court. The Embassy contacted government officials in regard
to this claim. The matter is currently pending a judicial
decision.

Although the Embassy continues to discuss this claim with the
Dominican government, the claimant has not contacted the
Embassy in over a year. Embassy personnel have tried to
contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be reached.


11. a. Claimant K
b. 1992
c. In 1991 as an insurer to an international company with a
contract to provide the sale of power station spare parts for
the Dominican Corporacion Dominicana de Empresas Electricas
Estatales (CDEEE),Claimant K paid $2,829,112.63 to the


insured and accepted transfer of all rights to settlement in
the dispute with the Dominican government. On May 12, 1992
an Italian court ruled in favor of Claimant K and ordered the
payment of approximately $5,369,781 (original sum plus
accrued interest and expenses) by the CDEEE/government. In
early 2003, government officials sought to retain a law firm
in the US to negotiate a final settlement with Claimant K.
The retainer was never completed. On May 27, 2004 the
Ministry of Finance,s Legal Department issued its opinion on
the issue. The Embassy had been in repeated contact with
government officials in regard to this claim and brought it
to the specific attention of the Ministry of Finance. In
2006 the government issued an offer of $3,758,275 dollars.
The Claimant has decided to wait for the interest to be
calculated by CDEEE. Once this interest amount is calculated
and sent to the Ministry of Finance, the claimant will seek a
reimbursement that includes the interest (roughly $6 million)
and the initial offering of $3,758,275 dollars. At the end
of May 2007, the Minister of Finance requested Claimant K to
negotiate the interest payment directly with CDEEE. The
claimant views this motion as a positive step to resolving
the interest payment.


12. a. Claimant L
b. 1992
c. Claimant L owned 400 square meters of land bordering the
road to the Santo Domingo Las Americas Airport. The land was
expropriated by the government in the 1990,s for highway
expansion. Claimant L,s claim is being held up in the
Ministry of Finance's Legal Department. In order for
Claimant L to receive compensation, the Legal Department must
correct an error, which it committed at the time of the first
disbursement. The original disbursement incorrectly
included the entire property instead of just the back-lot.
Although Mr. Langa received reimbursement for his back-lot
property, valued at RD 2,051,724, (paid in bonds) he has yet
to receive payment for the front lot of his property valued
at RD 360,000. The Embassy spoke at length to the Director
of Public Credit regarding this issue. On May 7, 2007, the
Director assured the Embassy that this error will be resolved
immediately and that Mr. Langa will receive his payment in
June 2007. Mr. Langa states that the legal department of the
Ministry of Finance and the Director,s assistant has
contacted him to resolve this matter.


13. a. Claimant M
b. 2003
c. Claimant M is involved in a contractual dispute with the
Dominican Procuraderia Nacional (Attorney General) concerning
a telephone system for Dominican prisons. Claimant M,s
company, in partnership with a California-based equipment
maker, is having trouble activating the system in the prisons
due to bureaucratic delay in the Dominican Procuraderia. His
telephone equipment has already been installed in the central
offices of the Procuraderia General and the Najayo, Puerto
Plata and La Victoria prisons. In 2004, when representatives
of Claimant M went to activate the equipment at the central
office, they were informed they could not operate the
equipment until they had a letter of authorization from the
Procuraderia,s office. Claimant M has invested over
$150,000 and is currently losing $7,000 a month waiting for
the Procuraderia to sign the appropriate letter. Claimant M
signed a contract with the government on Sept 4, 2003. A new
presidential administration began on August 16, 2004 and
appears reluctant to honor the agreements of the previous
administration. The Embassy has met with the Deputy Attorney
General for Prisons and the Dominican telecommunications
regulating agency of behalf of Claimant M.

Although the Embassy continues to discuss this claim with the
Dominican government, the claimant has not contacted the
Embassy in over a year. Embassy personnel have tried to
contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be reached.



14. a. Claimant N
b. 2005
c. On May 7, 2004, Claimant N and the company he represents
signed a contract with the government agency, (Corporacion
Dominicana de Empresas Estatales - CORDE),granting Claimant
N and his company Agregados del Lago the right to exploit a
government-owned salt mine in the area of Las Salinas,
Province of Barahona, for a period of 25 years. Claimant N
alleges the government is not honoring the contract and is
denying his company access to the area.

In February 2005, CORDE took back the mine, claiming that the
contract was invalid. Two weeks later, CORDE gave the mine
back to Claimant N. In March 2005, however, the Comision de
Reforma de la Empressa Publica (CREP) took the mine from
Claimant N and did not permit him or his company access to

the mine. CREP, which is responsible for handing over state
companies to private enterprises, stated to Claimant N that
his contract was invalid because no public concession
occurred and because Claimant N had an active Dominican
Senator on Claimant N,s payroll at the time the contract was
signed. CREP has since then maintained control of the mine.

Claimant N asserts that he has invested $650,000 in equipment
and other investments including contractual payments and tax
payments to the government. The contract requires Claimant N
to invest $1.5 million in the mine over the first five years
of the contract and then $150,000 every year thereafter. The
Embassy has contacted CREP, CORDE, as well as the General
Director of Mining, to seek a resolution on the behalf of
Claimant N. CREP provided the Embassy their legal case as to
why Claimant N,s contract is not valid.

The Embassy discussed this case with the Department,s L
Bureau and recommended to Claimant N that he should exhaust
all channels to include legal channels to resolve this case.
Claimant N asserts that he plans to take his case to court.


15. a. Claimant O
b. 2002
c. Claimant O entered a contract with Unidad Corporativa
Minera (UCM, a government-owned entity closed in 2004) to
determine the economic viability of sulphate based gold
reserves at the Pueblo Viejo mine. UCM contracted Claimant O
to conduct an environmental study, fish assessment, tailings
dam sitings and an overall technical review. The job was
finished in June 2002, but UCM failed to pay Claimant O more
than $125,629. Embassy officials have been in contact with
UCM and the Director General de Mineria. Obtaining payment
from the government has been difficult in part because the
UCM no longer exists and changes at the Office of Public
Credit have slowed processing.

Although the Embassy continues to discuss this claim with the
Dominican government, the claimant has not contacted the
Embassy in over a year. Embassy personnel have tried to
contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be reached.


16. a. Claimant P
b. 2002
c.Claimant P is currently involved in a legal dispute with
the Anabalca Shipyard Company (50% owned by the Dominican
Navy),the company he contracted to repair his tugboat.
Anabalca is holding his tugboat as collateral for $40,000 in
repairs performed after the tugboat experienced transmission
problems. Claimant P claims Anabalca did not correctly align
the shaft, which caused the transmission to break. Claimant
P refuses to pay for the services Anabalca has provided. For
the last three years the case has been before the Dominican
Court in Bani. Claimant P,s tugboat has been in the Port of
Las Calderas, Province of Peravia, since June 2001. Embassy
officials have raised this issue with the managers of the
Anabalca Shipyard and the Dominican Armed Forces. The
Dominican Navy does not operate the shipyard and has no
authority over the operations of Anabalca and its repair
shop. It appears that this dispute is purely a commercial
dispute.


17. a. Claimant Q
b. 2004 (Claimant contacted the Embassy in 2006)
c. Claimant Q had approximately 251 acres in the Bayahibe
area expropriated by the Ministry of Environment in 2003.
Claimant Q had a real estate company value the expropriated
property at about $24 million dollars. The Dominican
authorities, however, valued the land at about $7 million
dollars. Claimant Q objects to this pricing and has since
brought legal action to defend the true value of their
property. As of 5/22/2007, the Director of Public Credit,
Edgar Victoria, told embassy officials that he has requested
the Ministry of Environment to verify if Claimant Q,s land
was expropriated in the 1970's for Parque del Este. If the
land was expropriated at that time, the value of the claim
would reflect the value of the land at the time of
expropriation, which is considerably less than Amcit's claim,
which values the land in 2003-the time the Amcit believes
that the land had been expropriated.


18. a. Claimant R (Claimant contacted the Embassy in 2006)
b. 2003
c. Claimant R states that the land their family owned in
Santo Domingo was expropriated by the government of the
Dominican Republic. The file is located at the Tribunal de
Tierra. Since 2003, cClaimant R has tried to get reimbursed
for the expropriated property. Mr. Edgar Victoria, The
Director of Public Credit /Deuda-Credito Public of the
Secretaria de Haciendas told embassy officials in late May

SIPDIS
2007, that he has all the documets, but that he and is

awaiting for a letter from the cClaimant R to requestthat
outlines the total amount and includes a check and the newly
printed property titles from Rosa Abel Castillo from the
Registro de Titulo at la Feria.


19. a. Claimant S (Claimant contacted the Embassy in 2006)
b. 2000
c. Claimant S states that the land their family owned near La
Ruina was expropriated by the government of the Dominican
Republic to build a road. The government also dumped
landfill on Claimant S,s property. Claimant S states that
the government promised to give them a check, but they never
received this check. These claimants have not signed privacy
act waiversmet with the office of Public Credit to
substantiate their claims.


20. a. Claimant T (Claimant reinitiated contact with the
Embassy in 2006)
b. 1974 (Claimant reinitiated contact with the Embassy
in 2006)
c. Claimant T states that the land and their businesses their
family owned were expropriated by the government of the
Dominican Republic in the early 1960,s. The following is a
list of the companies that were operated by Claimant T:
Industria Nacional del Vidrio, Sisal Dominicano, Consorcio
Algodonero, Sacos y Tejidos Dominicanos, Fabrica de Sacos y
Corderleria, Sal y Yeso Dominicanos. A Supreme Court
decision was made in 1970 in favor of Claimant T. The
government reimbursed Claimant T for a portion of the land
but did not reimburse the family for their businesses and
other properties. Claimant T states that the only
reimbursement the family has received amounts to roughly 10
percent of the estate that was expropriated. The Supreme
Court decision estimated the amount of investment for the
businesses at USD 34 million at the time of confiscation,
which was over 30 years ago.

Although Claimant T is new to this list, Claimant T has
sought Embassy assistance in the past. Claimant T
reinitiated contact with the Embassy in the fall of 2006.
Embassy officials have repeatedly discussed this issue with
the Director of Public Credit and have sent official notices
to the Minister of Finance regarding this claim.

According to the Director of Public Credit and the
President,s counsel, only President Fernandez can authorize
reimbursement, even though a Supreme Court decision has
demanded this action over 35 years ago.

Claimant T was not a U.S. citizen at the time of
expropriation. His children are U.S. citizens and have
pursued this case with the Embassy, the State Department, and
U.S. congressmen after the death of their father in 1989.


21. a. Claimant U
b. 2003 (Claimant contacted the Embassy in 2006)
c. Two U.S. citizen firms, Skol Associates and Manchester
Trade,Claimants V have reported an outstanding debt with the
Dominican government since 2003. These firms claimants
report that they performed advocacy work for the Dominican
Republic, including advocating for your the country's
inclusion in the Dominican Republic-Central America Free
Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). These firms claimants also
report that, after years of advances and setbacks in seeking
payment of their claim, the latest problem preventing payment
has been that the Dominican Comptroller never certified the
second contract signed by President Mejia in 2003, though the
Dominican government has already made partial payments on
that contract. The firms claimants believe that the
Dominican Government should not withhold payments for what
the claimants firms see as an internal error on the part of
the Government of the Dominican Republic subsequent to the
signing of an otherwise valid contract, particularly since
these claimants firms say they were expected to honor the
contract immediately following its signing. Finally, these
firms are concerned that the change of the calendar year will
affect the current progress in advancing their claim.
Embassy officials have met numerous times with government
officials regarding this case. In late May of 2007, the
Director of Public Credit sent a letter to Claimant U asking
for more information to settle the claim.



22. a. Claimant V
b. 2002 (Claimant contacted the Embassy in 2007)
c. Claimant V had invested in the &Cayman8 power barge
that sold power to CDEEE in the 1990s. In 2000, CDEEE and the
government of the Dominican Republic (GoDR) stopped paying
the bill. Claimant V went into arbitration for the unpaid
bill with the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) in

2001. Claimant V won an arbitral award ($6 million) in 2005

and notified the Dominican government and CDEEE. Since 2005,
Claimant V has failed to receive the arbitral award from
CDEEE. Claimant V has therefore gone to the federal district
court in Washington D.C. in order to seize Dominican assets
in the U.S. against the arbitral award. Embassy officials
met with both the Director of Public Credit and CDEEE to
determine a quick resolution. Subsequently, Claimant V met
with CDEEE. CDEEE,s vice-chair agreed to the principal
amount of the arbitral award and requested to negotiate with
Claimant V the interest payment. Claimant V plans to meet
with CDEEE to negotiate the final settlement in June 2007.


===============================
The list of claimant names follows, all of whom are believed
to be either U.S. citizens or companies with significant U.S.
citizen investment. These claimants have not signed privacy
act waivers.

Claimant A: AES Dominican Power Partners, Coastal
Corporation, Seaboard Corporation, and Maxon Engineering
Services Inc.

Claimant B: Boyd Hernandez Collazo

Claimant C: Hunt Marckwald, Habanero Land Company

Claimant D: Bob Weidner (Chilott/Prefabicados Linda)

Claimant E: Ronald Blisset, Blisset Enterprises

Claimant F: Luis M. Bordas and Neyda Lopez Bordas

Claimant G: Mercedes Colwin

Claimant H: Miguel Angel Fuentes Vasallo

Claimant I: Charles V. Meadows

Claimant J: Dante Llacuna

Claiment K: New Hampshire Insurance Company

Claimant L: Carlos Langa

Claiment M: Gabelle Prison Telephones- Ruben Cerezo

Claimant N: Pedro Antonio Martinez, Agregados del Lago,
S.A

Claimant O: Pincock, Allen & Holt, subsidiary of
HartCrowser

Claimant P: Tugboat Linda W- Gene Martin

Claimant Q: Carlos Diaz

Claimant R: Rosario Ginebra vd. Del Castillo and Succesores
de Jesus B. Del Castillo

Claimant S: Maria Rojas

Claimant T: Gadala Maria

Claimant U: Skol Associates and Manchester Trade

Claimant V: Elliott Management Corporation &Cayman
Power Barge8
BULLEN