Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09KOLONIA42
2009-04-03 06:16:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Kolonia
Cable title:  

AMCIT INVESTMENT DISPUTE SPARKS HOUSE ARREST, POSSIBLE SUIT

Tags:  ECON EAID CPAS FM 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO8412
PP RUEHKN
DE RUEHKN #0042/01 0930616
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P R 030616Z APR 09
FM AMEMBASSY KOLONIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2245
INFO RUEHC/DEPT OF INTERIOR WASHINGTON DC
RUEHKN/AMEMBASSY KOLONIA 2608
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 KOLONIA 000042 

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON EAID CPAS FM
SUBJECT: AMCIT INVESTMENT DISPUTE SPARKS HOUSE ARREST, POSSIBLE SUIT
IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT SUIT

REF: A. A) KOLONIA 41

B. B) KOLONIA 40

C. C) E-MAIL WEMHOENER-CUITE/KORFF 4-01-09 AND PREVIOUS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 KOLONIA 000042

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON EAID CPAS FM
SUBJECT: AMCIT INVESTMENT DISPUTE SPARKS HOUSE ARREST, POSSIBLE SUIT
IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT SUIT

REF: A. A) KOLONIA 41

B. B) KOLONIA 40

C. C) E-MAIL WEMHOENER-CUITE/KORFF 4-01-09 AND PREVIOUS


1. (U) SUMMARY: On March 27, the FSM Supreme Court ordered
house arrest, which commenced April 1, for Patricia and Robert
Arthur for Contempt of Court. This is the latest and most
disturbing development in a commercial dispute that is well over
a decade old. The court also continues to impound the Arthurs'
U.S. passports. From the initial dispute over repayment of
loans that originated from U.S. Compact Investment Development
Funds (IDF),the Arthurs entered into two separate trials. The
first case focused on the role of the Pohnpei State Government
in driving the Arthurs out of business, while the second case
centers on a loan repayment. The Arthurs won a monetary claim
against the state, which has not fully paid the Arthurs. The
loan repayment case continues. END SUMMARY.

The March 27 Hearing
--------------


2. (U) On March 27, Econ/ConOff accompanied Robert and Patricia
Arthur to a hearing on a Contempt of Court charge. Mike Sepos,
the Attorney representing the Federated States of Micronesia
Development Bank (FSMDB),argued that following a June 2, 2008
decision by the FSM Supreme Court ordering the Arthurs to
deposit $10,000 and repay their loan from the FSMDB, the Arthurs
had taken no further moves to repay the loan. Sepos continued
that the Court should punish the Arthurs for contempt through
additional fines, travel limitations, or incarceration at the
Courts discretion. The total loan repayment, including
interest, is close to $1 million.


3. (U) Attorney Douglas Cushnie, representing the Arthurs,
contended that the Arthurs were not in contempt and were trying
to adhere to the Courts rulings. For example, the Arthurs made
the initial $10,000 deposit, but had appealed an earlier
decision by the Supreme Court to permit pursuit of the case and
were awaiting a determination. The Arthurs filed an appeal over
one year ago and it remains pending in the FSM Supreme Court
system. After approximately 20 minutes the Judge ended the
hearing and informed both attorneys that he would inform them of
his decision. That evening, a bailiff hand carried a court
order to the Arthurs, which stated that the Court was placing

them under house arrest for a period of three months beginning
April 1. They may only leave their property with proof of
medical appointments.

Long History
--------------


4. (U) The Arthurs are well established investors in the
Pohnpei community, with over 30 years invested in Pohnpei. They
own and operate The Village Hotel, an eco resort that has won a
number of international prizes and wide recognition for its
positive role in the FSM. By the early 1990s the Arthurs also
invested in two other companies, Pohnpei Pepper and a trocas
shell button factory. Both companies employed Micronesians and
exported to the international market. Pohnpei Pepper earned a
positive reputation as a gourmet pepper, which commanded
equivalent prices on the world market. The trocas shell buttons
also catered to a small but well paying market, for example one
client was the Ralph Lauren Company.


5. (U) The Arthurs contend that to start the companies they
took out a business loan from Pohnpei State, which the FSMDB
administered. The funds for the loan originated from the United
States through the Compact of Free Association provisions for
Investment Development Funds (IDF),which were intended to spur
private enterprise. A Federal Development Agency at the FSM
national level allocated a portion of the funds to Pohnpei
State, which then lent the money to the Arthurs, using the FSMDB
as an administrative conduit. Any loan repayment would return
funds to Pohnpei State's coffers. So long as the two businesses
thrived, the Arthurs complied with regular loan repayments, at
one point earning a distinction as the best FSMDB borrower.


6. (U) By the late 1990s, however, both business ventures
failed allegedly owing to the direct actions of Pohnpei State
Governors who supposedly resented the competition. After the
success of the Arthurs Pohnpei Pepper, the State subsidized a
state operation to export pepper. The Arthurs allege that the
state then offered payment for pepper crops well beyond anything
that they could pay or that international clients would pay.
The decline of pepper exports from the FSM when the state was
operating the business seems to confirm their assessment. As to
the shells for the button business, the Arthurs say it was a
simple matter of the State's passing new laws that limited
trocas shell harvesting after the state previously approved the
business. Robert and Patricia Arthur believe that when a new
Governor was elected he pushed to change the trocas shell
harvesting laws based on personal ties he had with others.

KOLONIA 00000042 002 OF 003




7. (U) The Arthurs subsequently argued in court that Pohnpei
State should reimburse them for their lost profits and the FSMDB
should drop all liens against the businesses as the businesses
no longer existed. Early in the proceedings, the court
separated the complaints. One court case focused on the
Arthurs' plea for compensation from Pohnpei State and the second
was the FSMDB demand for repayment of the loan. The Arthurs won
the first case and lost the second. The FSM Supreme Court as
well as the State have conceded that the State drove the Arthurs
out of business. However, other than one initial payment, the
Pohnpei Legislature has refused to fulfill the court order and
pay the vast majority owed to the Arthurs. Meanwhile, the
Arthurs have separately appealed the decision to hear the loan
case. To date, they have refused to comply with the courts
order to pay back the loan (at least as much as they are
financial able to do through the sale of their personal stocks).

The Embassy's Role
--------------


8. (SBU) Ambassador and Econ/ConOff have regularly met with the
Arthurs to discuss the commercial dispute and to advocate for
their well being and fair treatment. Although the case has a
long history, hearings in the past 12 months have taken on
disturbingly punitive overtones. Robert Arthur is 77 and
Patricia Arthur is 71. Both have signed full Privacy Act
Waivers (Reftels A and B).


9. (SBU) While refraining from offering personal or legal
advice, the Ambassador and Economic/Consular Officer have
repeatedly met with the Arthurs and kept them informed of the
steps that Post has taken to advocate for their fair treatment.
Post has also consulted closely with CA/OCS in this process.
The Ambassador has raised concerns directly with FSM President
Mori, critical members of his cabinet, and senior state
officials. At one point, Secretary Robert personally intervened
to help return the Arthurs' U.S. passports for the purpose of
traveling to Hawaii for medical consultations. The Arthurs were
required to return their passports to the Supreme Court when
they arrived back in the FSM.


10. (SBU) While expressing concern about the non-transparent
and unequal treatment of Amcit investors in general, the Embassy
has particularly focused on the Arthurs' case, seeking host
government support for resolution, including through possible
mediation. Recently, Pohnpei State, through the FSMDB, offered
to drop the loan repayment demand in exchange for not requiring
the State to pay its debt to the Arthurs. The Arthurs, through
their attorney, rejected the proposed offset.


11. (SBU) Post has also expressed strong concern about the
decision by the Court to impose house arrest. In Post's
knowledge, there is no other civil case in the FSM in which the
Court placed a person under house arrest. This is of particular
note because the FSM in general has a high rate of default on
loans given to its citizens, including loans provided from U.S.
funds.


12. (U) Econ/ConOff also accompanied the Arthurs to the Supreme
Court on December 11, 2008 when they surrendered their passports
to the Court. After consulting with CA/OCS Post informed the
Arthurs about options for new passports and possible
implications within the FSM. Robert Arthur suffers from a
number of medical conditions that require intermittent travel to
the United States. Subsequent to the telephone call from
Foreign Secretary Robert (para 9),the Supreme Court Justice
agreed that the Arthurs could use their passports for medical
travel, if they provided thorough documentation on appointments
with the court.

Federal Suit May Name Departments of State and Interior
Departments as Defendants
--------------


13. (SBU) Separate from the continuing legal battles in the
FSM, Attorney Cushnie is also preparing to submit a case in the
U.S. Federal Court system, although jurisdiction is unclear.
The primary contention in the draft suit is that due to the past
and continued mistreatment of the Arthurs as American investors
in Pohnpei, the FSM and Pohnpei State have failed to adhere to
the terms in the Compact of Free Association and should no
longer receive Compact related funds. The case is likely to
name all USG offices involved in Compact funded projects or
programs in Pohnpei, including the Secretaries of the
Departments of State and the Interior.

Comment
--------------


14. (SBU) All parties involved agree that former Pohnpei State

KOLONIA 00000042 003 OF 003


Governors took deliberate actions to undermine the two
businesses that the Arthurs opened and successfully operated in
the 1990s. The Embassy has repeatedly raised the issue of
Pohnpei State's restrictive investment climate. The Ambassador
continues to advocate for a resolution of this case with key
Micronesian officials, who concur that the legal impasse has
assumed the proportions of a bilateral commercial and
humanitarian issue. Current options under possible
consideration include invocation of the Compact Dispute
Mechanism, suspension of the loan repayment, or dismissal of the
loan by the Pohnpei Governor. However, all these suggestions
have come from the U.S. side, and the Micronesians are clearly
less motivated than the Americans to find a satisfactory
resolution. End Comment.
HUGHES