Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07TASHKENT1139
2007-06-15 10:29:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Tashkent
Cable title:  

2007 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND

Tags:  CASC PGOV EINV KIDE UZ 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNT #1139/01 1661029
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 151029Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY TASHKENT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8015
INFO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC
UNCLAS TASHKENT 001139 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EB/IFD/OIA (HEATHER GOETHERT) AND L/CID (SAM
MCDONALD)

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CASC PGOV EINV KIDE UZ
SUBJECT: 2007 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND
EXPROPRIATION CASES: EMBASSY TASHKENT SUBMISSION

REF: STATE 55422

UNCLAS TASHKENT 001139

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EB/IFD/OIA (HEATHER GOETHERT) AND L/CID (SAM
MCDONALD)

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CASC PGOV EINV KIDE UZ
SUBJECT: 2007 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND
EXPROPRIATION CASES: EMBASSY TASHKENT SUBMISSION

REF: STATE 55422


1. The United States Government is aware of fifteen (15)
claims of United States persons against the Government of
Uzbekistan, seven (7) of which have been resolved.


2. a. Claimant B

b. 1998

c. Claimant B is a US trading company that exported alcohol
to Uzbekistan. In 1998, customs authorities seized Claimant
B's shipment of ethyl alcohol after a Presidential decree
changed the requirements for permissible imports of ethyl
alcohol. At the time of seizure, the shipment was not
destined for Uzbekistan. Claimant B had redirected it to
Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan after the decree was announced, but
it was seized while transiting Uzbekistan. Although the
shipment was already in the country before the decree took
effect, customs agents seized it for failing to comply with
the new rules. Claimant B's shipment was worth approximately
$500,000. Claimant B's legal representative in Uzbekistan
was unable to convince the Prosecutor's Office to take action
in the case. To date, Claimant B remains uncompensated for
the seizure. Post last had contact with Claimant B in 2000.
Claimant shortly thereafter voluntarily abandoned resolving
case.


3. a. Claimant D

b. 2002

c. An American trading company based in New Jersey, was the
chief operator of a soft drink manufacturing plant in
Uzbekistan since independence in 1991. However, Claimant D
alleges that following a personal dispute between one of the
owners of Claimant D and the daughter of a high official of
the Government, Claimant D executives were all forced to
leave the country and have not been allowed to return or to
conduct business in Uzbekistan. Following prolonged
proceedings in the Tashkent Economic Court and Supreme Court,
Claimant D's shares were reduced, making a large U.S. soft
drink corporation the major shareholder and operator of the
bottling plant rather than Claimant D. In addition, the GOU
confiscated many assets of Claimant D, including 600,000 tons
of sugar, 120 cars, and 70 computers. Moreover, they
confiscated the Scegeli wholesale supermarket, which had been

a large investment of Claimant D. The GOU has explained
these confiscations as the result of convictions for tax
violations. Finally, a number of employees of Claimant D
were arrested. The US Government has made representations to
the GOU to ensure fair treatment for Claimant D. Claimant
D's commercial dispute has been overshadowed by personal
events resulting from his relationship with high-level
government officials. Post's last contact with Claimant D
was in 2003. Claimant D abandoned the case and left
Uzbekistan.


4. a. Claimant F (resolved)

b. 2001

c. Claimant F has been in Uzbekistan since 1997. The
company's investment is partially funded by the World Bank.
The Seed Law of Uzbekistan guaranteed it the right to export
its product, but since 1999 it has been forced to surrender
all or part of its hard currency earnings for exchange to
soum at the official rate. In addition, Customs officials
have often detained cotton export shipments and disregarded
agreements reached under the Seed Law of Uzbekistan. The GOU
has reduced the acreage Claimant F is allowed to plant in
high-yield seed varieties from just over 10,000 hectares in
1999, to 8,000 hectares in 2001 and then to 5,700 hectares in

2003. Local GOU authorities are interfering in the
management of Claimant F's farms by keeping farmers under
state production plans, even though the original business
plan, approved by the GOU, states the company's farms are
exempt from state orders.

Claimant F is responsible for repayment on loans totaling
roughly $17 million. This includes $10 million to the World
Bank and Ministry of Finance. The remaining $7 million debt
is held by a private bank, which is now demanding payment on
the principal. However, as a result of the aforementioned
problems, Claimant F has only been able to pay interest on
the $7 million loan. Continued obstruction by the GOU will
lead to the financial collapse of Claimant F.

The Embassy successfully utilized the visit of US Senator
Shelby in January 2002 to force the GOU to focus on a
resolution of problems for Claimant F. The Embassy arranged
a meeting between Senator Shelby and Elyor Ganiev, Deputy
Prime Minister for the Agency for Foreign Economic Relations.
Claimant F's Managing Director and Ganiev also met to
determine a way for Claimant F to pay back the $4.3 million
it owes to an Alabama bank. The US Government has advocated
as appropriate on behalf of Claimant F, and the claimant has
been able to repay the Alabama bank and continue its cotton
project. Also, the surrender requirement is not the
punishment it once was, as the unification of currency rates
has diminished the negative impact of this requirement.
Through US Government engagement, Claimant F was able to
negotiate additional cotton acreage to use in its business
and continue payment on its outstanding loan.

In May 2005 the Government of Uzbekistan sent a team of
inspectors, headed by the National Security Service, to
investigate Claimant F's company. Despite the inability of
the first team of investigators to find any possible charges,
the inspection continues. The inspection team has told
Claimant F that they have been instructed to find criminal
wrongdoing, even if none exists. This renewed interested in
Claimant F stems from the familial ties of his local partner
to Uzbek opposition politicians.

The Embassy sent a letter on Claimant F's behalf requesting a
meeting with GOU officials. In addition, Embassy officers
were sent as observers during the National Security Service
Investigation to make clear that we believe this
investigation is against Uzbek law. In June 2005, the
Prosecutor's Office brought criminal charges against the
company, freezing its operations and accounts. The GOU
physically blocked the factory from receiving raw cotton.
However, in early 2006, Claimant F's fortunes turned when
they merged with a local company. While some problems
continue, the situation seems to have improved. Post
continues to monitor the situation and has regular contact
with Claimant F.


5. a. Claimant H (resolved)

b. 2002

c. Claimant H is a large American oil and gas company that
had a dispute with the GOU involving a road tax which
resulted in the GOU tax committee freezing Claimant H's bank
account for approximately six weeks. The Ambassador met with
Prime Minister Sultanov to resolve this dispute as well as
other disputes involving Claimant H's joint venture partner,
the state-owned oil and gas company.

Claimant H was also involved in a tax dispute regarding the
enactment of new legislation that contradicts previous
agreements for a permanent tax holiday. Claimant H's tax
disputes were resolved; however, a new dispute has arisen
concerning the amount of inputs required under the contract
agreement. Since 2003, the GOU has not fulfilled the
agreement with claimant H concerning the amount of inputs
required to make refined petroleum products.

The claimant has recently renegotiated the agreement with the
GOU, and in March 2005, the claimant's JV began receiving the
proper inputs for the first time in several years. However,
these inputs are delayed each month by two weeks. This
dispute was resolved in 2004.


6. a. Claimant J

b. 2002

c. Claimant J provided agriculture chemicals to the GOU in
2001 in accordance with a government-issued tender in the
amount of $340,000. However, claimant J has never been paid
for the products. In February 2003, the Ambassador sent a
letter to PM Sultanov regarding this case. In 2004, the US
Government pressed this issue with the GOU, by approaching
high-level GOU officials and again asking for payment. The
Embassy continues to push the GOU regarding outstanding
payment and have pointed out on numerous occasions, that if
the Uzbeks do not resolve this issue other companies will not
invest in the agricultural sector. Assistant Secretary of
Commerce William Lash III raised Claimant J's dispute with
Deputy Prime Minister Rustam Azimov in November 2004,
advising the DPM that refusing to meet commercial obligations
will lead other businesses to avoid Uzbekistan. Payment has
yet to be rendered. Last contact with Claimant J was in


2005.


7. a. Claimant K

b. 2003

c. Similar to the issue faced by Claimant J, Claimant K
provided agricultural chemicals to the GOU in 2001 in the
amount of $245,000 and has not been paid to date. In
February 2003, the Ambassador sent a letter to PM Sultanov
regarding this case. In 2004, the US Government pressed this
issue with the GOU, most recently, by approaching high-level
GOU officials and again asking for payment. The Embassy has
raised this issue with GOU officials, pointing out that it
hampers their ability to attract investment to the
agricultural sector. Assistant Secretary of Commerce William
Lash III raised Claimant J's dispute with Deputy Prime
Minister Rustam Azimov in November 2004, advising the DPM
that refusing to meet commercial obligations will lead other
businesses to avoid Uzbekistan. Payment has yet to be
rendered. Last contact with Claimant J was in 2004.


8. a. Claimant L (resolved)

b. 1999

c. Claimant L, an American firm previously involved in a
joint venture with an Uzbek company, contributed equipment to
build an ice-cream plant in Samarkand. After a conflict with
the Uzbek partner and an unsuccessful attempt to retrieve
their equipment from the plant, an Uzbek regional court ruled
in favor of Claimant L. However, the GOU is not enforcing
the ruling. To date, claimant L has not received its
equipment and in February 2003, the Ambassador wrote a letter
to PM Sultanov regarding this case, requesting support from
the GOU in enforcing the ruling. Claimant L has dropped its
interest in the case and left follow-up to its former local
partner. This claim is resolved. Post last had contact with
Claimant L in 2004


9. a. Claimant M

b. 2003

c. Claimant M purchased 51 percent of shares in an Uzbek
fruit processing plant in May 2002 from the GOU state
property committee. Claimant M made an initial investment
payment of approximately $30,000 in June 2002 and a second
payment of approximately $54,000 in October 2002. In
November 2002, GKI returned claimant K's second payment and
declared that they had cancelled the contract.

Because the Tashkent Court found in favor of GKI following
appeals by claimant K, the claimant will lose its initial
investment. The claimant finds no reason for GKI to cancel
the contract and believes that its contract was cancelled so
that GKI could alternatively sell the plant to the Russian
company "UGMK AGRO".

Separately, claimant K is involved in a JV having purchased
33.3 percent of the shares of another American company. Due
to a privatization decree, the GOU is now selling the
government's portion of the venture, including the property
on which the company operates. Claimant K has offered to
purchase the building with a purchasing price based on
previous investments. However, the GKI is requesting double
the amount of the independently assessed value of the
building at $208,000.

In April 2003, the Ambassador sent a letter to PM Sultanov
requesting that his staff investigate this issue. The
company has since partially resolved some issues, but
continues to battle the GOU. Post's last contact with the
Claimant was in 2005.


10. a. Claimant N (resolved)

b. 2003

c. The company has been working in Uzbekistan since 1995 as
consulting engineers designing water supply projects and
supervising the construction of the projects near the Aral
Sea. Claimant N has not received payments for ongoing
contract services from the GOU since June 2002. In late
2003, the Ministry of Economy signed extensions on their
contract, but the company has been waiting since December
2003 for the registration of their contract with the Agency
for Foreign Economic Relations. The government of Uzbekistan

currently owes the company over $400,000.

In early 2005, the GOU agreed to begin payment to claimant N
on a monthly basis for contractual arrears in return for
claimant N finishing the project. Ongoing contracts have
also been signed for 2005. During his visit in November 2004,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce William Lash pushed Deputy
Prime Minister Azimov on this outstanding case, encouraging
quick payment to resolve a commercial dispute that continues
to diminish Uzbekistan's commercial reputation. This dispute
was resolved in 2005.


11. a. Claimant O (resolved)

b. 2003

c. Claimant O received a contract to complete consulting
services on the GOU-financed Shurtan Gas Chemical Complex.
More than a year after completing their services, the
claimant has still not been paid a sum of over $7.4 million.
The company renegotiated with the GOU to invoice them on a
monthly basis at approximately $400,000 per month. More than
three years after completing their services, the Claimant was
paid the last amount on January 5, 2007.


12. a. Claimant P (resolved)

b. 2003

c. Claimant P is a joint venture that was established in
1994 and provides paging services in Uzbekistan. In 2003 the
company applied for an ISP (internet service provider)
license. However, the Uzbek Agency for Communication and
Information refused to issue a license and permission for an
international Internet channel. The GOU wants to keep an
exclusive monopoly of international Internet channels for
state-owned UzbekTelekom. In the end, Claimant P decided to
sign a contract with UzbekTelekom to use their services in
order to continue operations. This dispute has been resolved
and will be omitted from next year,s report barring new
developments.


13. a. Claimant Q (resolved)

b. 2004

c. Claimant Q purchased shares of an Uzbek telecom joint
venture in 2004 worth over $17 million. In late December
2004, the GOU told claimant Q that it could no longer operate
cellular services in Tashkent, the company's primary market.
In March 2005, the government shut down the company's
frequencies, ending Claimant Q's operations in total. The
GOU claimed that the frequency was shut down due to technical
problems. The only alternative presented to Claimant Q by
the government was to allow the GOU to buy back the company's
equipment at an extremely discounted rate - about $9 million.
The Ambassador raised this issue throughout with numerous
government officials, including in a letter and conversations
with Deputy Prime Minister Azimov. This dispute was resolved
in 2005.


14. a. Claimant R

b. 1996

c. Claimant R entered into a written contract with a
state-owned enterprise to deliver 50,000 metric tons of
Kazakh wheat. The wheat was delivered, but the Uzbek party
never remitted payment. Despite repeated attempts by
Claimant R and the US Government on its behalf, payment was
not forthcoming. In 1997, Claimant R, a Swiss company with a
US subsidiary, brought their case to the Grain and Feed Trade
Association (GAFTA) under an arbitration proceeding required
by the written contract controlling the grain purchase.
GAFTA ruled on this matter, and order the Uzbek enterprise to
pay Claimant R for the value of the shipment plus interest.
An appeal of this ruling was denied in July 1998. The Uzbek
side now owes Claimant R approximately $18 million. The
Embassy continues to receive correspondence on this issue and
the Ambassador has raised it with government officials up to
and including the Deputy Prime Minister. Post last had
contact with Claimant R in 2004.


15. a. Claimant S

b. 2006

c. From March 2006 to August 2006, Claimant S was under



increasing pressure from the Government of Uzbekistan,
resulting in the de facto expropriation of the company and
its departure from Uzbekistan. During this time, Claimant S
suffered repeated audits, removal of its beneficial tax
status, a fine of $60 million for alleged non-payment of back
taxes, a government declaration of bankruptcy, and media
criticism for damaging the environment. Additionally, the
government revoked the presidential decree establishing the
joint venture, resulting in the loss of Claimant S's
benefits, including protection from new taxes and regulations
adopted after the initial investment.

Claimant S has filed for arbitration with two organizations:
the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of
Investment Disputes and the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
Court. The Uzbek Constitutional Court ruled on November 20,
2006, that Uzbek law, as written, does not presume the
consent of all parties to international arbitration. Under
the reinterpretation of the law, the Uzbek justice system
will not recognize the attempts of foreign businesses to seek
international arbitration without the written consent of all
involved parties, separate of a contract. Claimant S's
contract with the local partners provides for international
arbitration in Stockholm. While Post continues to monitor
the dispute, Claimant S is no longer in Uzbekistan.


16. a. Claimant T

b. 2006

c. Claimant T, a leading mobile communications provider, was
formed in 1996 as a U.S.-Uzbek joint venture. In 2000, the
U.S. partner purchased the Uzbek Government's share of the
venture. In late 2006, the U.S. partner entered negotiations
aimed at selling its stake in Claimant T to a Qatari firm.
The Uzbekistan Agency for Telecommunications and Information
Technology (the Telecom Agency) pressured the U.S. partner to
sell the firm instead to a Russian investor, an option which
the U.S. partner rejected.

The Telecom Agency proceeded to employ a series of legal and
regulatory measures against Claimant T. In 2006, the state
tax authority sued Claimant T for allegedly evading taxes on
income from international roaming charges, the charge was
resolved in Claimant T's favor in Uzbek courts. The Telecom
Agency repeatedly denied approval for Claimant T to establish
transmission stations to expand its service network. The
Agency sued Claimant T alleging that the firm illegally
changed its name, and that the U.S. partner in 2000 illegally
purchased the Uzbek Government's share of the firm for a
price far below fair market value.

After a two-hour service outage across much of Claimant T's
network in January 2007 caused by a power surge, the Telecom
Agency suspended Claimant T's operations for 10 days. After
the suspension ended, the agency only permitted restoration
of service gradually over a two month period. The service
interruption led to a substantial loss of customers. The
Department raised the issue with the Uzbek Embassy in
Washington, and the Embassy raised it with the Foreign
Ministry in Tashkent. South Central Asian Deputy Assistant
Secretary Evan Feigenbaum raised it in Tashkent with Telecom

SIPDIS
Agency Chairman Abdulla Aripov in March 2007. Subsequently,
the U.S. partner entered into talks with a Turkey-based
investor on the possible sale of Claimant T. The Uzbek
Government signaled its preliminary approval of the sale, and
Claimant T has since noted no irregularities in its relations
with the government. The Embassy continues to have periodic
contact with Claimant T and continues to follow its case.


17. None of the claimants have signed privacy waivers. The
claimants are:

Claimant B: Empire United Lines
Claimant D: Ross Trading
Claimant F: Central Asia Seed Company (CASC)
Claimant H: Chevron/Texaco
Claimant J: Dow AgroSciences
Claimant K: Troy BioSciences Inc.
Claimant L: SD&G International Inc.
Claimant M: Vergest Ltd. and JV Uzbek Xerox Systems
Claimant N: Black & Veatch
Claimant O: ABB Lummus
Claimant P: Radio-Page, Joint Ventyre
Claimant Q: NCI Projects International
Claimant R: ROMAK
Claimant S: Newmont Mining, Joint Ventyre
Claimant T: Coscom, Joint Venture

HANSON