2008 EXPROPRIATION REPORT: ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

UNCLAS BRIDGETOWN 000357 SIPDIS STATE FOR WHA/CAR AND EB/IFD/OIA E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: CASC EINV KIDE OPIC PGOV AC XL SUBJECT: 2008 EXPROPRIATION REPORT: ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA REF: STATE 43784 -------------- Antigua and Barbuda -------------- The United States Government is aware of one (1) claim of a United States person that may be outstanding against the Government of Antigua and Barbuda (GOAB). ¶1. a. Claimant A b. 2002 c. In December 2001, Claimant A (a holding company comprised of 98 percent U.S. and 2 per cent Canadian shareholders) requested that Embassy Bridgetown intervene with the GOAB to halt the expropriation of a 110-acre beachfront property. Despite Post interventions with the GOAB Prime Minister (PM),the Permanent Secretary, and the Minister of Tourism, the expropriation was approved by Parliament on January 11, 2002. According to the GOAB, the owner's failure to re-open the resort property, which had been severely damaged by Hurricane Luis in 1995, was depriving Antiguans of badly needed tourism revenue. The GOAB also alleged that Claimant A owed back taxes to the GOAB, and severance pay to 150 workers when the hotel was closed in 1995. Claimant A acknowledged liabilities, totaling less than $200,000 on a property estimated by Claimant A to be worth over $32 million, but alleged that the GOAB obstructed its repeated efforts to finance the restoration of the property since 1995, and refused to meet with lenders since 1999. Claimant A alleged that its prospective lenders required a letter from the GOAB confirming that the government did not intend to expropriate the property. Claimant A filed an injunction in January 2002 alleging abuse of power on the part of the GOAB. Although the courts denied the GOAB's application to strike out the judicial review, the GOAB appealed this decision. The GOAB also stated on the record that Claimant A would not be evicted from the property until the court proceedings were finalized. The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision that refused to bar the GOAB from expropriating the resort. Claimant A subsequently requested and was granted leave to appeal to the Privy Council (the final court of appeal) on May 26, 2003. On June 5, 2007, the Privy Council rejected Claimant A's challenge and upheld the taking. The GOAB has assured Claimant A, as well as Assistant Secretary Shannon, that it intends to provide prompt, adequate, and effective compensation to Claimant. State Department officials at Post and in Washington have been actively engaged in assisting Claimant A throughout the duration of this dispute. In 2006, Claimant A's attorney met several times with State Department officials in Washington to discuss a proposed settlement agreement based on a proposal previously made by the GOAB. Claimant A's attorney met with Attorney General Simon, along with officials from Post, in September 2006 to discuss the proposed agreement. Negotiations broke down, however, after another law firm claiming to represent Claimant A began negotiating different terms with the GOAB. In January 2007, Claimant A's attorney confirmed to the GOAB his reresentation of Claimant A, but n further progress toward a settlement was made. On December 6, 2006, Claimant A's attorney wrote letter to U.S. Ambassador Mary Ourisman, Assistnt Secretary Shannon and the Department of Commerce, describing alleged acts of harassment against Claimant A and requesting USG intervention. On January 22, 2007, an Embassy Bridgetown Officer traveled to Antigua and Barbuda to meet with Claimant A and obtain an update regarding the situation faced by Claimant A. Claimant A alleged that the majority shareholder recently was subject to incidents of harassment and threats, which Claimant A believes were the GOAB's retaliatory measures for the lawsuits against the government. Claimant A described the incidents as damaged property, illegal break-ins, denied access to the Internet, and excessive charges for electricity usage by the GOAB utility company. On February 6, 2007, Claimant A's attorney contacted the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser to convey his frustration over several unsuccessful attempts to communicate with GOAB Attorney General Simon. On April 2, Claimant A's attorney sent a letter requesting that the State Department intervene to help Claimant A obtain the return of the property at issue. Claimant A's attorney described in his letter what he believed to be the GOAB's failure to negotiate in good faith with Claimant A, Claimant A's supposed inability to obtain justice in Antiguan courts because of alleged interference by the GOAB in judicial proceedings, and the need for the USG to take action against the GOAB. Claimant A's attorney also informed the Embassy that a hearing on a related issue concerning a change in the identification of the owner of the property in the Land Register had been scheduled to be held in Antigua on March 6, but that GOAB Attorney General Simon allegedly prevented Claimant A's U.K. counsel from appearing on its behalf. Now that the Privy Council has ruled against Claimant A's challenge to the taking itself, Claimant A's attorney has requested that the Department of State ensure that the GOAB meet its obligation to provide prompt, adequate, and effective compensation. In July, 2007, the Privy Council proposed to the GOAB that the parties submit the issue of compensation to an arbitral tribunal under the auspices of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Both the Embassy and Washington will continue to follow this matter closely. Embassy officials contacted Claimant A on May 12, 2008, and were informed that no action had been taken yet to provide compensation. Claimant A also stated that the GOAB has made no attempt to inform her of any its plans or actions up to the present or plans to compensate her in the future. On May 14, the court of first instance issued an Order of mandaemus, compelling the Government of Antigua to follow the process laid out by law -- and confirmed by the Privy Council -- and deal with the matter of compensation for Claimant A. The Governor General was given two weeks to take the steps necessary for convening an Assessment Board, which will then proceed to establish the value of the property. d. Claimant A: Natalia Querard. Querard is an American citizen, and has signed a Privacy Act Waiver. OURISMAN