Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08TASHKENT694
2008-06-18 12:52:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Tashkent
Cable title:  

2008 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND EXPROPRIATION

Tags:  EINV CASC PGOV KIDE UZ 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNT #0694/01 1701252
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 181252Z JUN 08
FM AMEMBASSY TASHKENT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9819
INFO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC
UNCLAS TASHKENT 000694 

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR EEB/IFD/OIA (HEATHER GOETHERT AND KIMBERLY BUTLER)
AND L/CID (GABRIEL SWINEY AND CAMERON HOLLAND)

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV CASC PGOV KIDE UZ
SUBJECT: 2008 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND EXPROPRIATION
CASES: EMBASSY TASHKENT SUBMISSION

REF: STATE 43784

UNCLAS TASHKENT 000694

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR EEB/IFD/OIA (HEATHER GOETHERT AND KIMBERLY BUTLER)
AND L/CID (GABRIEL SWINEY AND CAMERON HOLLAND)

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV CASC PGOV KIDE UZ
SUBJECT: 2008 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND EXPROPRIATION
CASES: EMBASSY TASHKENT SUBMISSION

REF: STATE 43784


1. (U) The United States Government is aware of nine (9) claims of
United States persons against the Government of Uzbekistan, two (2)
of which have been resolved.


2. (U) a. Claimant A

b. 1998

c. Claimant A is a U.S. trading company that exported alcohol to
Uzbekistan. According to the Claimant, in 1998, customs authorities
seized Claimant A'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 A 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 A's shipment was
worth approximately USD 500,000. Claimant A's legal representative
in Uzbekistan was unable to convince the Prosecutor's office to take
action in the case. The U.S. Embassy last had contact with Claimant
A in 2000, at which time Claimant A informed the Embassy they had
voluntarily abandoned resolving the case.


3. (U) a. Claimant B

b. 2002

c. Claimant B was the chief operator of a soft drink manufacturing
plant in Uzbekistan after its independence in 1991. However,
Claimant B alleges that following a personal dispute between one of
the owners of Claimant B and the daughter of a high official of the
Government, Claimant B 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 B's shares in the
bottling plant were reduced, making a large U.S. soft drink
corporation the major shareholder and operator of the bottling plant
rather than Claimant B. In addition, the GOU confiscated many
assets of Claimant B, including 600,000 tons of sugar, 120 cars, 70
computers, and the Sergeli wholesale supermarket, which had been
another large investment of Claimant B. The GOU has explained these

confiscations as the result of convictions for tax violations.
Finally, a number of employees of Claimant B were arrested. The
U.S. Government has made representations to the GOU to ensure fair
treatment for Claimant B. The U.S. Embassy's last contact with
Claimant B was in 2003. Claimant B has left Uzbekistan.


4. (U) a. Claimant C

b. 2001

c. Claimant C has been growing and exporting cotton 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 according to the Claimant, it has been
forced to surrender all or part of its hard currency earnings for
exchange to soum at the official rate since 1999. 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 C 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 C'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. According to the
Claimant, continued obstruction by the GOU has made it impossible
for it to pay off millions of dollars in loans and will lead to its
financial collapse.

The U.S. Embassy successfully utilized the visit of U.S. Senator
Shelby in January 2002 to force the GOU to focus on a resolution of
problems for Claimant C. The Embassy arranged a meeting between
Senator Shelby and Elyor Ganiev, Deputy Prime Minister for the
Agency for Foreign Economic Relations. Claimant C's Managing
Director and Ganiev also met to determine a way for Claimant C to
pay back the USD 4.3 million it owes to an Alabama bank. The U.S.
Government has assisted Claimant C as appropriate, 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. At that time, Claimant C was
able with U.S. government assistance to negotiate additional cotton
acreage to use in its business and continue payment on its
outstanding loan.


Unfortunately, in May 2005 the Government of Uzbekistan sent a team
of inspectors, headed by the National Security Service, to
investigate Claimant C's company. Claimant C perceived this as
unwarranted harassment stemming from familial ties with Uzbek
opposition politicians. The Embassy assisted Claimant in addressing
this issue by requesting a meeting with GOU officials and sending
Embassy officers as observers during the National Security Service
Investigation. The Prosecutor's Office nonetheless subsequently
brought criminal charges against the company, freezing its
operations and accounts and the GOU physically blocked the factory
from receiving raw cotton. However, in early 2006, Claimant C's
fortunes turned when it partnered with a local company. While the
Claimant alleges that there is an outstanding GOU debt of three
million USD to the Claimant, it says that the situation has
improved. The Embassy continues to monitor the situation and has
regular contact with Claimant C.


5. (U) a. Claimant D

b. 2002

c. Claimant D provided agriculture chemicals to the GOU in 2001 in
accordance with a government-issued tender in the amount of USD
340,000. Claimant D asserts that it has never been paid for the
products. In February 2003, the Ambassador sent a letter to PM
Sultanov regarding this case and in 2004 the U.S. Government
approached high-level GOU officials to assist Claimant D in
resolving the payment dispute. The U.S. Embassy pointed out on
numerous occasions that if the GOU does not resolve this issue other
companies will not invest in the agricultural sector. Assistant
Secretary of Commerce William Lash III raised Claimant D'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. As of the Embassy's last contact
with Claimant D in 2005, payment had yet to be rendered. Claimant D
has since been purchased by a European company.


6. (U) a. Claimant E

b. 2003

c. Similar to the issue faced by Claimant D, Claimant E provided
agricultural chemicals to the GOU in 2001 in the amount of USD
245,000 and asserted that it had not been paid. In February 2003,
the Ambassador sent a letter to PM Sultanov regarding this case and
in 2004 the US Government approached high-level GOU officials to
assist Claimant E in resolving the payment dispute. The U.S.
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 E'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. As of
the Embassy's last contact with the Claimant in 2004, payment had
yet to be rendered. Claimant E is no longer present in the
country.


7. (U) a. Claimant F

b. 2003

c. Claimant F purchased 51 percent of shares in an Uzbek fruit
processing plant in May 2002 from the GOU state property committee
(GKI). According to Claimant F, it made an initial investment
payment of approximately USD 30,000 in June 2002 and a second
payment of approximately USD 54,000 in October 2002. In November
2002, GKI returned Claimant F's second payment and declared that it
had cancelled the contract. This action, which Claimant F believes
was motivated by GKI's desire to sell the plant to a Russian
company, was compounded by a ruling on the matter against the
claimant by a Tashkent court, causing the claimant to lose its
initial investment.

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

In April 2003, the Ambassador sent a letter to PM Sultanov
requesting that his staff investigate this issue. As of the U.S.
Embassy's last contact with the Claimant in 2005, the company had
partially resolved some issues, but continued to battle the GOU.
Claimant F is still present in the country.



8. (U) a. Claimant G

b. 1996

c. Claimant G, a Swiss company with a U.S.-owned subsidiary entered
into a written contract with a state-owned enterprise to deliver
50,000 metric tons of Kazakh wheat. According to the Claimant, the
wheat was delivered, but the Uzbek party never remitted payment.
Despite repeated inquiries by Claimant G, at times facilitated by
the U.S. Government, payment was not forthcoming. In 1997, Claimant
G brought its 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
ordered the Uzbek enterprise to pay Claimant G for the value of the
shipment plus interest, or approximately USD 18 million. An appeal
of this ruling was denied in July 1998. The U.S. Embassy raised the
issue with senior government officials, including the Deputy Prime
Minister. As of the Embassy's last contact with the Claimant in
2004, payment had not been rendered. Claimant G is no longer
present in the country.



9. (U) a. Claimant H -- Resolved

b. 2006

c. According to Claimant H, a mining company, from March 2006 to
August 2006, it was under increasing pressure from the GOU, which
effectively took over the company's assets and caused the Claimant
to depart Uzbekistan. During this time, the Claimant suffered
repeated audits, removal of permanent beneficial tax status, a fine
of USD 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 a joint venture in which the
Claimant was involved, resulting in the loss of the Claimant's
benefits, including protection from new taxes and regulations
adopted after the initial investment.

Claimant H filed for arbitration with two organizations: the World
Bank's International Center for the Settlement of Investment
Disputes and the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of
Commerce. In late June 2007, Claimant H informed the U.S. Embassy
that it had reached an agreement with the Government of Uzbekistan
resolving the dispute. In a subsequent filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the Claimant reported that under the terms
of the agreement, the Government of Uzbekistan agreed to pay the
company USD 80 million and also agreed to pay outstanding
obligations to the Claimant's suppliers and creditors. On August
27, 2007 the Claimant informed the Department of State that the
final agreement had been signed. The Claimant has since received
four separate payments of USD 20 million.


10. (U) a. Claimant I -- Resolved

b. 2006

c. Claimant I, a leading mobile communications provider, started a
U.S.-Uzbek joint venture in 1996. 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 Claiment I to a Qatari firm. According to the Claimant,
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 that the U.S.
partner rejected.

The Telecom Agency proceeded to employ a series of legal and
regulatory measures against Claiment I. In 2006, the state tax
authority sued the Claimant for allegedly evading taxes on income
from international roaming charges, but the charge was resolved in
the Claimant's favor in Uzbek courts. In addition, the Telecom
Agency repeatedly denied approval for the Claimant to establish
transmission stations to expand its service network. The Agency
also sued the Claimant 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 the Claimant's
network in January 2007 caused by a power surge, the Telecom
Agency suspended the Claimant'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 of State raised the
issue with the Uzbek Embassy in Washington, and the U.S. Embassy
raised it with the Foreign Ministry in Tashkent. South Central

Asian Deputy Assistant Secretary Evan Feigenbaum raised it in
Tashkent with Telecom Agency Chairman Abdulla Aripov in March 2007.
As a direct result of this meeting, the Agency permitted full
restoration of the Claimant's operations on April 1, 2007.

On July 16, 2007, TeliaSonera AB, a leading telecommunications
company in the Nordic and Baltic region, acquired 100 percent of the
shares of Claiment I, including all its operations in Central Asia.
Claiment I's joint venture continues to provide mobile phone service
in Uzbekistan under the new ownership.


11. (U) None of the claimants have signed privacy waivers. The
claimants are:

Claimant A: Empire United Lines
Claimant B: Ross Trading
Claimant C: Central Asia Seed Company (CASC)
Claimant D: Dow AgroSciences
Claimant E: Troy BioSciences Inc.
Claimant F: Vergest Ltd. and JV Uzbek Xerox Systems
Claimant G: ROMAK
Claimant H: Newmont Mining, Joint Venture
Claimant I: MCT Corp., Coscom Joint Venture
NORLAND