This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 SANTO DOMINGO 003312 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE TO EB/IFD/OIA/ATBRYAN AND L/CID/JNICOL 
STATE ALSO TO WHA/CAR (MCISAAC) 
STATE PASS TO TREASURY FOR LLAMONICA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: DR ECON KIDE EINV
SUBJECT: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: 2004 INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND 
EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS REPORT 
 
REF: SECSTATE 78697 
 
¶1. This cable provides the 2004 Investment Disputes and 
Expropriation Claims Report for the Dominican Republic per 
reftel. 
 
¶2. The United States Government is presently aware of 13 
claims of U.S. persons that may be outstanding against the 
Government of the Dominican Republic (GODR), down from 22 
claims a year ago.  Though there has been a considerable 
effort to resolve the many cases that have languished for 
years, the recently negotiated Free Trade Agreement with the 
United States has made the resolution of outstanding disputes 
a priority for the GODR.  A USAID-sponsored consultant has 
been working with the GODR to develop a system for evaluating 
and resolving claims through the use of bonds.  In 1999, Law 
104-99 was passed, offering the opportunity for claimants 
whose disputes arose on or before August 16, 1996, to 
circumvent the traditional method of claim resolution (at the 
"Bienes Nacional"), and seek compensation from a specially 
appointed Commission, provided the claimants are willing to 
accept payment in bonds.  Recent legislation has made the 
Commission a permanent fixture of the Ministry of Finance and 
has opened the opportunity for claimants with cases 
post-August 16, 1996, who filed their claims prior to the 
August 16 cut-off, to bring their cases before the 
Commission.  The Embassy raises these expropriation and 
investor dispute cases with the GODR on a regular basis, and 
all information provided herein was last updated in May 2004. 
 
¶1. a) Claimant A 
 
    b)      1999 
 
    c)      Eight independent power producers (IPPs), six of 
which are U.S.-owned, provide approximately 30 percent of the 
Dominican Republic's electricity.  In 1999, the IPPs entered 
into a "Definitive Agreement" with the GODR under which an 
escrow account would be established in order to permit the 
capitalization of the State electricity company,s 
(Corporacion Dominicana de Electricidad (CDE)) power 
generation and distribution facilities.  This escrow account 
would receive payments from the new distribution companies 
that would be used to pay the IPPs for both current invoices 
and accumulated arrears.  The GODR did not live up to its 
commitment to implement this escrow arrangement; CDE failed 
to keep its payments current to the IPPs; and the GODR 
breached several agreements to make up the shortfall, which 
exceeded $100 million dollars. 
 
In September 2002, the GODR announced that seven of the eight 
IPP's had agreed in principle to give up their existing 
long-term contracts.  To date, the GODR has successfully 
renegotiated only one new contract with these IPP's.  In 
February 2004, the GODR and CDE signed a short-term agreement 
with two of the Claimants whereby the GODR agreed to increase 
tariff rates, make payments on current invoices and negotiate 
accumulated arrears.  Although tariff rates were increased 
CDE and the GODR have continuously failed to make timely 
payments to Claimants A, resulting in cash flow problems and 
credit difficulties, and they are presently in default to 
Claimants A, and other generating companies in the sector, in 
excess of $400 million dollars.  Of additional concern, the 
contracts with Claimants A are backed, in part, by 
guarantees.  Should Claimants A's lenders call those 
guarantees, the GODR faces liability of more than $425 
million dollars.  The Embassy has made repeated approaches to 
high government officials in an effort to resolve this 
ongoing problem. 
 
¶2. a) Claimant B 
 
    b)      1998 
 
    c)      Claimant B purchased land located on the access 
road to Santo Domingo's Las Americas Airport.  In 1998, the 
Public Works Department built the ramp for a highway overpass 
on Claimant B,s land.  Embassy contacted Public Works on 
behalf of Claimant B and was informed that Claimant B will be 
included in whatever settlement (i.e., cash payment or 
relocation) was to be offered to Dominican landowners 
affected by this construction. The GODR has yet to authorize 
funding to settle Claimant B,s claim, and it fell too late 
to be included in the original bond issuance program.  A 
possible GODR initial settlement offer will likely be in the 
form of bonds.  No time has been set for a decision. 
 
¶3. a) Claimant C 
 
    b)      1994 and various 
 
    c)      In 1996, Claimant C discovered that various 
components of the GODR had, over time, built facilities 
(including an airport runway extension) on a parcel of land 
near the town of Barahona that Claimant C's company had owned 
since the 1920s.  The Embassy raised this case on numerous 
occasions with senior Dominican officials and facilitated 
meetings between Claimant C and the GODR.  In 1999, Claimant 
C accepted an offer of settlement in partial payment of the 
claim of approximately $1.5 million dollars, which the GODR 
paid in three equal payments.  Efforts by Claimant to recoup 
the remainder of its claim have been rebuffed by the GODR, 
which takes the position that the claim has been satisfied in 
full.  The matter is presently in litigation. 
 
¶4. a) Claimant D 
 
    b)      1994 
 
    c)      Claimant D performed construction and asphalt 
paving services for the Dominican Department of Public Works 
at the Maria Montez International Airport, as well as other 
asphalt paving services in other locations in Barahona 
Province.  At the time the work was completed (1996), the 
Dominican Department of Public Works owed Claimant D 
approximately $2 million dollars. 
 
The Embassy facilitated meetings between Claimant D and the 
Secretariats of Public Works and Finance in December 1998. 
 
SIPDIS 
At that time, Claimant was informed that the GODR was 
considering the issuance of bonds to cover such public-works 
debts.  Claimant D was not satisfied with this response and 
initiated legal action against the GODR in the U.S. District 
Court for Puerto Rico; however the action was dismissed for 
lack of standing in July 2000.  In January 2000, Claimant D 
applied for bonds under Law No. 104-99, which was designed to 
liquidate a variety of claims inherited from previous 
governments.  In July 2000, Claimant D was awarded government 
bonds equal to about $1 million dollars.  According to 
representatives of the GODR, the claim has been fully 
satisfied.  This case has been concluded. 
 
¶5. a) Claimant E 
 
    b)      1992 
 
    c)      Claimant E owned land bordering the road to the 
Santo Domingo airport, which was expropriated by the GODR in 
1992 for highway expansion.  The Embassy repeatedly contacted 
GODR officials urging resolution of this case.  On January 
31, 2003, the case was settled with bonds provided under Law 
No. 104-99, with claimant receiving 2,051,724 pesos in bonds 
at today's rate of exchange the equivalent of just over 
$45,593.  In January 2004, Claimant E notified the Embassy 
that the GODR had been eight months behind on its scheduled 
payments.  According to Claimant E, the GODR had also been 
paying every six months instead of every three months as 
agreed in the settlement.  The Embassy requested the GODR to 
look into the matter and payments have resumed.  This case 
has been concluded. 
 
¶6. a) Claimant F 
 
    b)      1992 
 
    c)      In 1992, Claimants F purchased 20,000 square 
meters of land near Santo Domingo, valued at $40,000.  Six 
months after Claimants F occupied the land and planted crops, 
the GODR's Agrarian Institute (IAD) cut down the fence and 
permitted Dominican peasants to occupy the land. 
 
Claimants F reported they held legal title to the land, and 
provided the Embassy with copies of documents supporting 
their claim.  The IAD maintained that since the original 
owner was prevented by Dominican law from selling this parcel 
of "agrarian reform land," their land seizure was legal. 
According to Claimants F, IAD officials have admitted that 
they made a mistake when they cut the fences and permitted 
the occupation of the land. 
 
The Embassy raised this case repeatedly with IAD and GODR 
officials, and as a result, police removed some squatters 
from the property.  Others remained however, and continue to 
occupy part of the property.  In January 2000, Claimants F 
applied for bonds under Law No. 104-99, and received a 
settlement from the Commission for 3 million pesos ($66,670). 
 This case has been concluded. 
 
¶7. a) Claimant G 
 
    b)      1991 
 
    c)      In 1988, the GODR asked Claimant G to build 1,000 
homes for sugar cane workers.  Claimant G never signed a 
contract with the GODR.  Materials were shipped to the 
Dominican Republic for the first phase of construction (30 
homes) and Claimant G had invoices showing that the materials 
arrived.  In 1989, Claimant G was informed that, due to heavy 
rains and a bad crop, construction of the homes would be 
delayed.  Claimant G arranged with port authorities to have 
the materials remain in the port until construction could 
begin.  In 1991, Claimant G discovered that all of the 
materials had disappeared.  Claimant G alleged that some of 
the materials were auctioned off, and some given to GODR 
entities.  Claimant G estimates losses at $1.3 million. 
Claimant G,s case was disqualified under Law No. 104-99. 
Claimant G has since initiated legal action in a Dominican 
court. 
 
¶8. a) Claimant H 
 
    b)      1991 
 
    c)      In 1991, the GODR's Agrarian Institute (IAD) 
expropriated approximately seven hectares of land in 
Esperanza belonging to Claimant H's mother. Claimant H 
claimed to have obtained several Dominican court orders 
requiring the peasant squatters who occupied the land to 
leave, but these orders were not enforced. 
 
In September 1997, the IAD made a settlement offer, which 
Claimant H refused.  Claimant H requested Embassy assistance 
in negotiating a better offer from the GODR, which in 
Claimant H's view, should include not only payment for the 
land, but also payment for lost economic use of the land. 
The Embassy repeatedly explained to Claimant that it could 
not negotiate on behalf of U.S. claimants.  The IAD 
maintained that, having forwarded its offer of compensation 
to higher authorities, it had no further role to play.  In 
January 2000, Claimant H applied for bonds under Law No. 
104-99. 
 
In January 2003, the GODR's bond Commission concluded their 
evaluation of Claimant H's case, and offered a settlement of 
413,160 pesos or roughly $9,181 dollars.  Claimant H refused 
this offer and was seeking approximately ten times this 
amount.  Dominican officials advised Claimant H to withdraw 
his claim from consideration under the Ministry of Finance's 
bond program, and pursue it through the "Bienes Nacionales," 
the organization normally charged with the resolution of 
expropriation cases.  Embassy has been advised that a 
settlement in Claimant H,s matter has been reached but that 
payments have not begun.  This case has been concluded. 
 
¶9. a) Claimant I 
 
    b)      1990 
 
    c)      In 1989, Claimant I purchased a 75 percent 
interest in beachfront property near Barahona.  Claimant I's 
Dominican partners owned the remaining 25 percent.  Claimant 
I's interest in the land had an estimated value of $112,000. 
 
On September 18, 1989, the GODR seized the land, stating that 
it intended to use it for the construction of a power plant. 
Following this action, Claimant I entered into a new 
agreement with its Dominican partners, under which Claimant I 
would cease payments on the land and would reduce its 
interest in the property to 15 percent.  It was agreed, 
"legal actions would be undertaken jointly, the proceeds of 
which would be distributed between the co-owners in the same 
proportion as their interest in the property." 
 
Claimant I and its Dominican partners have sought 
compensation in Dominican courts, and reported to the Embassy 
in 1994 that the courts had ruled in their favor.  No 
compensation was received so in January 2000, Claimant I 
applied for bonds under Law No. 104-99.  The Embassy was 
advised in 2003 that the GODR was reevaluating the matter. 
No time has been set for a decision. 
 
¶10. a)      Claimant J 
 
      b)    1990 
 
      c)    In 1989, Claimant J, and a number of U.S. and 
Dominican partners, signed a 20-year lease with the GODR's 
State Sugar Council for the use of some 200 acres of farmland 
at a site known as La Esperanza in the Northwestern Dominican 
Republic.  Claimant J claimed to have started significantly 
improving the land when, in 1990, the GODR took control and 
turned it over to peasant squatters.  Claimant J sought 
compensation from the GODR for damages suffered as a result 
of that seizure. 
 
In July 1992, the government of President Balaguer reportedly 
accepted Claimant J's claim of 4.1 million pesos (then 
$303,000).  Claimant J received approximately 2 million pesos 
as part of this settlement offer from the GODR, but continued 
to seek payment for the outstanding 2.1 million pesos 
(presently approximately  $44,450).  The Embassy repeatedly 
raised this case with senior GODR officials, and in April 
2003, the GODR awarded Claimant J bonds to cover the 
outstanding $2.1 million peso debt balance, redeemable in 
¶2005.  This case has been concluded. 
 
¶11. a)      Claimant K 
 
      b)    1983 
 
      c)    Claimant K is the owner of land with an assessed 
value of approximately $1 million in the Puerto Plata area of 
the Dominican Republic.  In 1983, the GODR seized the land, 
which is now part of the "Isabel de Torres Scientific 
Preserve."  Claimant K sought compensation, but none was 
approved. 
 
According to Claimant K, the GODR previously valued the land 
at $330,000.  Claimant K reported that it has an assessment 
valuing the land at approximately $990,000. 
Claimant K is willing to negotiate.  The Embassy raised this 
matter in all discussions of investment disputes with the 
GODR.  To date there has been no resolution, and the matter 
continues to experience payment opposition on behalf of 
Claimant K. 
 
 
¶12. a)      Claimant L 
 
      b)    1972 
 
      c)    Claimant L's family invested in land just east of 
Santo Domingo with the intent of building a hotel.  The GODR 
seized the land to help create what is today a public park. 
Claimant L had documents verifying the GODR debt to the 
family.  Embassy is not aware of any official estimate of 
value, but has been advised that a settlement has been 
reached and payment received.  This case has been concluded. 
 
¶13. a)      Claimant M 
 
      b)    1980's 
 
      c)    The GODR expropriated Claimant M's property in 
the 1980's, which Claimant M valued at several million 
dollars.  The Embassy continues to include the matter in all 
discussions of investment disputes with the GODR.  To date 
there has been no resolution. 
 
¶14. a)      Claimant N 
 
      b)    1986 
 
      c)    Pursuant to a presidential decree in 1986, the 
GODR expropriated 823,495.70 square meters of land belonging 
to Claimant N for use in the construction of the 
Maria Montez Airport in Barahona.  Claimant N has sought 
compensation for the land, improvements to the land, crops 
located thereon, and for three million cubic meters of raw 
materials extracted from the land.  The claim was brought to 
the attention of the Embassy in May 2001, and has been 
included in all discussion of investment disputes with the 
GODR since that time.  To date there has been no resolution. 
The matter continues to be considered for settlement. 
 
¶15. a)      Claimant O 
 
      b)    1998 
 
      c)    Claimant's land was expropriated in 1998 to 
permit highway expansion on the road from Santo Domingo to 
Bavaro.  The matter was initially presented to the Commission 
for possible resolution with bonds, however the Commission 
lacked the legal authority to offer settlement, as the 
expropriation occurred after August 16, 1996.  Claimant O 
requested the case be withdrawn from consideration without 
prejudice.  The initial settlement offer was for 15,540,000 
pesos (approximately $345,333.) 
 
¶16. a)      Claimant P 
 
      b)    1994 
 
      c)    Government expropriation occurred in Moncion by 
INDRHI ("Instituto Nacional de Recursos Hydroelectricos") for 
purposes of dam construction.  Parties initially resolved the 
dispute by contract, agreeing to compensation in the amount 
of 1,053,971 pesos.  GODR assigned this matter to INDRHI for 
resolution and that agency has handled all payments to date. 
This case has been concluded. 
 
¶17. a)      Claimant Q 
 
      b)    1992 
 
      c)    Claimant Q's land was expropriated in Santo 
Domingo to permit highway expansion.  Claimant Q signed a 
settlement contract with the GODR in 1999, but was not paid. 
Claimant received bonds for payment in 2003 in the amount of 
141,840 pesos (approximately $3,152.) and the case has been 
concluded. 
 
¶18. a)      Claimant R 
 
      b)    1971 
 
      c)    Claimant R sold land in Santo Domingo to the GODR 
in 1971.  Terms of the contract provided for partial payment 
at the time of sale, and final payment shortly thereafter. 
Claimant R received the initial payment, but never the final 
payment.  The outstanding amount is 22,696 pesos 
(approximately $504).  Claimant is not interested in bonds, 
and has requested removal from consideration by the 
Commission.  Embassy has been advised that payment has been 
approved but not yet disbursed.  This case has been concluded. 
 
¶19. a)      Claimant S 
 
      b)    1998 
 
      c)    Claimant S signed a contract with the GODR in 
1999 to receive compensation for expropriated property.  The 
contract was silent regarding specific terms or timing of 
payments, and Claimant S was never paid.  The total amount 
owed to Claimant S was 948,087 pesos (approximately $21,070). 
 Embassy has been advised that payment has been made.  This 
case has been concluded. 
 
¶20. a)      Claimant T 
 
      b)    1998 
 
      c)    Claimant T's land was expropriated in 1998 for 
highway expansion in Santo Domingo.  The claim is for 
15,342,840 pesos (approximately $340,950), but as it arose 
after August 16, 1996, Claimant T was not eligible for the 
bond program under Law 104-99. 
 
¶21. a)      Claimant U 
 
      b)    1987 
 
      c)    Claimant U's contract claim involves the unpaid 
commission for loan guarantees on a real estate transaction 
brokered in 1976.  Claimant U asserts he is entitled to 2% of 
12 million dollars, the loan guarantee amount.   Claimant has 
a default judgment from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit, entered in 1987, for $240,000.  Claimant U 
asserts that with interest, the claim is now valued at 
approximately two million dollars.  Embassy has raised this 
issue with GODR officials and facilitated a meeting between 
Claimant U and GODR officials, and the parties are presently 
in discussion. 
 
¶22. a)      Claimant V 
 
      b)    1995 and various 
 
      c)    Claim involves non-payment for the major repair 
of a power plant located in Haina, which began in March 1993. 
 After a number of delays, the unit was operational in April 
1994, and final invoices from 1995 indicate $1,956,858, and 
8,878,485 pesos owed for goods and services rendered.  At a 
1997 meeting between the parties, Claimant V asserted that 
the GODR acknowledged interest on the debt of 8,380,624 pesos. 
 
Embassy repeatedly contacted GODR officials in regard to this 
claim.  On April 30, 2003, Claimant V was presented with a 
settlement check, for cash, in the amount of 19,250,000 pesos 
(approximately $427,780).  GODR officials have stated that 
the money represents final settlement of Claimant V's claim. 
This case has been concluded. 
 
¶23. a)      Claimant W (NEW) 
 
    b)      2003 
 
    c)      In 1998 Claimant W and family responded to 
advertisements by the Dominican Republic seeking U.S. 
investment by purchasing two adjacent parcels of land located 
in Cumayasa, San Pedro de Marcoris.  In March of 2003 
Claimant W, while visiting his property, discovered that 
almost 700 mature coconut trees had been bulldozed and other 
property destroyed by the Dominican Consejo Estatal de Azucar 
(CEA).  When Claimant W contacted the CEA office in Santo 
Domingo to request an immediate evacuation of the area a CEA 
engineer recommended that Claimant W instead request that the 
properties be replaced with other unspecified parcels in 
unspecified areas, citing the CEA had incurred expenses in 
grading the land and uprooting the fruit trees. 
 
Claimant W immediately contacted a local attorney and 
initiated legal action in a Dominican Court.  The Embassy 
contacted GODR officials in regard to this claim.  The matter 
is currently pending a judicial decision. 
 
¶24. a)      Claimant X (NEW) 
 
    b)      1992 
 
    c)      In 1991 as an insurer to an international company 
with a contract to provide the sale of power station spare 
parts for the Dominican Corporacion Dominicana de 
Electricidad (CDE), Claimant X paid approximately 
$2,829,112.63 to the insured and accepted transfer of all 
rights to settlement in the dispute with the Dominican 
government.  On May 12, 1992 an Italian court ruled in favor 
of Claimant X and ordered the payment of approximately 
$5,369,781 (original sum plus accrued interest and expenses) 
by the CDE/GODR.  In early 2003, GODR officials sought to 
retain a law firm in the United States to negotiate a final 
settlement with Claimant X.  The retainer was never 
completed.  On May 27, the Ministry of Finance,s Legal 
Department issued its opinion on the issue and it is expected 
that negotiations will begin on a final settlement within the 
next few months. 
 
The Embassy had been in repeated contact with GODR officials 
in regard to this claim and brought it to the specific 
attention of the Ministry of Finance at every available 
opportunity.  Claimant X will continue to engage GODR 
officials through their local attorney.  The estimated amount 
owed by the GODR is now approximately $10 million. 
 
 
¶3. The list of claimant names follows, all of whom are 
believed to be either U.S. citizens or companies with 
significant U.S. citizen investment.  No privacy act waivers 
have been signed by these claimants. 
 
Claimant A:       Smith-Enron CLP, AES Dominican Power 
Partners, 
Coastal Corporation, Seaboard Corporation, 
Maxon Engineering Services Inc., and Cogentrix Corporation 
Claimant B:       Boyd Hernandez Collazo 
Claimant C:       Hunt Marckwald, Habanero Land Company 
Claimant D:       Betteroads Asphalt 
Claimant E:       Carlos Langa 
Claimant F:       Daniel and Lorrie Taveras 
Claimant G:       Warner Chilcott 
Claimant H:       Juan Dominguez 
Claimant I:       Ronald Blisset, Blisset Enterprises 
Claimant J:       Craig Frederickson 
Claimant K:       Luis M. Bordas and Neyda Lopez Bordas 
Claimant L:       Andrew Abdo and Family 
Claimant M:       Mercedes Colwin 
Claimant N:       Miguel Angel Fuentes Vasallo 
Claimant O:       Immobilaria ANATOLE, S.A. 
Claimant P:       Successors of Martin Gomez 
Claimant Q:       Silvio Eusebio Diaz Infante 
Claimant R:       Successors of Ricardo Molinari Diaz 
Claimant S:       Sergio M. Francisco 
Claimant T:       Matia de los Angeles Barcelo Salas 
Claimant U:       Charles V. Meadows 
Claimant V:             Besco Inc. 
Claimant W:       Dante Llacuna 
Claimant X:       New Hampshire Insurance Company 
HERTELL