2008 INVESTMENT DISPUTES REPORT FOR GEORGIA

UNCLAS TBILISI 000972

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/CARC, EEB/IFD/OIA AND L/CID

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV PREL PGOV KIDE OPIC CASC GG
SUBJECT: 2008 INVESTMENT DISPUTES REPORT FOR GEORGIA

REF: STATE 43784


1. Post submits the following information in response to
reftel request for information on investment disputes.


2. A. Claimant A


B. Year dispute arose: 2006.


C. Case History: Claimant A and his partners purchased
the shares of a company that owns a defunct garment factory
in Tbilisi. Claimant A intends to redevelop the factory
building and real estate to create a shopping complex. The
factory was privatized by the state and a private Georgian
company was set up to own it in 1998. After that, the shares
were sold to a Georgian investor. Claimant A's partnership
purchased the shares of the company in 2005 from the Georgian
investor. According to the claimant, the Georgian government
now claims that the company was privatized with the help of
bribes paid to corrupt ministry officials in 1998. It also
claims that the company owes an undetermined amount of back
taxes. Because of the problems with the original
privatization, the shares of the company were attached by
attorneys representing the government in 2006. Claimant A
succeeded in having that attachment released. However, as a
result of the tax problem, the assets of the company were
frozen by order of the Prosecutor General of Georgia in 2007.
Claimant A asserts that the freezing of the assets is
wrongful and estimates damages as USD 1 million. In October
2007, Embassy Tbilisi arranged and attended a meeting between
Claimant A and the Deputy Minister of Economic Development.
Subsequently, the Ministry and Claimant A reached an
agreement that released the assets of the company and
permitted development of the property to proceed. In April
2008, Claimant A informed the Embassy that the Tax Department
of the Ministry of Finance had refused to issue a routine
extract of the corporate register that Claimant A's company
needed to support its appearance in court in the tax dispute.
Embassy Tbilisi discussed the matter with the First Deputy
Minister of Finance in May 2008 and as of the date of this
report is waiting for an explanation of why the extract
cannot be issued.


3. A. Claimant B


B. Year dispute arose: 2004.


C. Case History: Claimant B asserts that she is the owner
of 4.5% of a Georgian cigarette manufacturer ("the company").
According to the claimant, in September 2004 the owner of
another 10 percent of the shares of the company (a private
citizen) obtained control of the remaining 90 percent of the
shares of its shares, including those owned by Claimant B, by
using an allegedly forged power of attorney. A civil case
was filed in 2004 to reverse the transactions that resulted
in the loss of the loss of Claimant B's interest in the
company. Claimant B states that no final judgment has been
rendered in the civil case, after repeated postponements of
hearings. Georgian prosecutors have refused to prosecute the
alleged forgers of the power of attorney. According to the
claimant, a conviction in the criminal case is essential
under Georgian law for proof of the fact of forgery in the
civil case. Claimant B states that judges and prosecutors
involved in the civil and criminal cases are being
manipulated by Georgian Government officials, to Claimant B's
detriment and for the benefit of the private party who now
controls the company. In spring 2007, Embassy sought
guidance from the Department. Because the company is 95.5
percent owned by a Canadian citizen, the company was advised
to contact the Canadian Embassy in Ankara. Claimant B was
advised of this in May 2007.


4. A. Claimant C


B. Year dispute arose: 2008


C. Case History: Claimant C is the part owner of a
Georgian corporation that owns an office building and land in
Tbilisi. In August 2007, the Georgian corporation signed an
agreement to sell the property to a company controlled by
another foreign investor. The agreement was terminated by
Claimant C and the other company brought suit for damages in
the Tbilisi City Court. The plaintiff obtained a pre-trial
lien on Claimant C's property for USD 10 million. Claimant C
has been unable to convince the trial court to release the
lien, and judgment in the case has been delayed since August

2007. Claimant C alleges that its opponent has admitted
having undue influence over the judge in the case that allows
him to delay the proceedings indefinately. Claimant C states
that it has other evidence of corruption or undue influence
over the judge. Embassy Tbilisi has assisted Claimant C to
bring its allegations of corruption to the attention of the
Prosecutor General. Claimant C and the Embassy are working
to secure a meeting with the Prosecutor to discuss the case
and request an appropriate investigation.


5. A. Claimant D (note: post does not believe the investor
in this case meets the definition of a "U.S. investor"
contained reftel, because it is not at least 50 percent owned
by U.S. citizens, but is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a
Netherlands corporation. Facts of the case are provided for
the department's information.)


B. Year dispute arose: 2005


C. Case History: Claimant D is a corporation incorporated
in Florida. Claimant D states that it is wholly owned by a
Netherlands corporation, and post believes that Claimant D is
not, repeat not, at least 50 percent owned by U.S. citizens,
per the definition of U.S. person in para 13 of reftel.
Claimant D alleges that in 2002 it was owed USD 26 million
for deliveries of natural gas from Russia to Georgian
state-owned entities. It states that in 2003 it assigned
its claims to a Georgian state-owned company in return for
USD 13 million, with a guarantee of payment from the Georgian
government. It alleges that the USD 13 million was not paid
by the debtor and that the GOG has failed to honor the
guarantee. It also alleges that the GOG failed to fulfill
all the terms of a purchase agreement for a state-owned
chemical company. Claimant D states that it has filed an
arbitration on May 7 at the International Center for the
Settlement of Investment Disputes under the U.S.-Georgia
bilateral investment treaty (BIT) and the Netherlands-Georgia
BIT, based on claims arising from the purchase of the
chemical company.


6. Claimant A: Francis Hunnewell, an American citzen, who is
a partner in the U.S. partnership Eljan Holdings, Ltd., which
is owner of Gibraltar registered Lanner Holdings, Ltd., which
is owner of the shares of the Maudi company. Post has no
privacy act waiver signed by claimant.

Claimant B: Muna Pirrin, an American citizen. Post has no
privacy act waiver signed by claimant.

Claimant C: Joel Golevensky, an American citizen and
shareholder in the Georgian company Basel Group, LLC. Post
has no privacy act waiver signed by claimant.

Claimant D: Itera International Energy LLC, incorporated
under Florida law, a wholly owned subsidiary of Itera Group,
NV, incorporated in the Netherlands.
TEFFT