VZCZCXRO1584
RR RUEHRG
DE RUEHBU #1362/01 1671419
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 161419Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4939
INFO RUEHAC/AMEMBASSY ASUNCION 5573
RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO 5624
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 5185
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 5375
RUEHGL/AMCONSUL GUAYAQUIL 0092
RUEHRG/AMCONSUL RECIFE 0153
RUEHRI/AMCONSUL RIO DE JANEIRO 2003
RUEHSO/AMCONSUL SAO PAULO 2916
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC 2214
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 BUENOS AIRES 001362 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
WHA/BSC, WHA/EPSC, WHA, EB/IFD/OIA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON EFIN ETRD EINV PGOV KIDE PREL OPIC AR
SUBJECT: 2006 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND 
EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS: ARGENTINA 
 
REF: A. SECSTATE 60294 
 
     ¶B. 05 BUENOS AIRES 1519 
     ¶C. 04 BUENOS AIRES 1725 
 
¶1.    The following report outlines new and ongoing 
investment disputes between the GOA and US investors, 
updating Post,s 2004 Investment Disputes Report (reftel C) 
and its 2005 update (reftel B).  Post is aware of 21 disputes 
involving 19 claimants against the GOA, of which 12 are 
active.  Since 2004, two cases -- Claimants J and M -- have 
been settled.  Three cases -- Claimants D,s second case, 
Claimant I and Claimat K -- have been suspended, pending 
completion of settlement negotiations.  Another claimant -- 
Claimant L -- has requested a discontinuance of its claim. 
Post also recommends the removal of three other cases -- 
Claimants B, C and H -- from the report.  Claimants C and H 
have not pursued their claims during the past four years, and 
Claimant B sold its interests to a non-US company.  Of the 
remaining 12 cases, two -- Claimants R and S -- have been 
added to the report since 2004. 
 
¶2.  Many of these claims arise in whole or in part from the 
GOA's implementation of Emergency Law 25,561 on January 6, 
¶2002.  This law (among other things) converted contract 
provisions denominated in US dollars into Argentine pesos at 
a 1:1 rate and rescinded previously-sanctioned indexation of 
contracts to US inflation indices.  US investors contend that 
such measures unilaterally derogate contractual agreements 
and effectively expropriate US investor capital. 
 
¶3. In addition to the claims below, post is aware of other 
potential US claimants whose disputes are in administrative 
or informal negotiation stages, or who believe their 
investments are threatened with expropriation. 
 
¶4.    (a)  Claimant A 
 
(b)   2002 
 
(c)   Claimant A is a US energy sector utility with gas 
distribution assets in Argentina.  Its dollar-based gas 
distribution contracts in Argentina were linked to the US 
producer price index.  In March 2002, Claimant A initiated 
consultations under ICSID, claiming that various provisions 
of Emergency Law 25,561 voided its distribution contracts and 
effectively expropriated its capital investment.  Claimant A 
also charged that the GOA had failed to pay contractually 
mandated subsidy payments in compensation for pricing its gas 
at below market rates.  Claimant A filed for ICSID 
arbitration on September 10, 2002.  Its request for 
arbitration was accepted on December 6, 2002.  On February 
27, 2003, Claimant A,s business partner filed an arbitration 
claim under a bilateral investment treaty between Luxembourg 
and Argentina.  The two claims will be treated jointly. 
ICSID ruled against GOA's objections to its jurisdiction. 
The final hearing was held in February, and the panel 
appointed an independent damages expert.  Both parties filed 
post-hearing briefings on April 3, 2006.  An award is 
expected by the end of the year. 
 
¶5.    (a)  Claimant B 
 
(b)   2002 
 
(c)   Claimant B is a US energy sector holding company that 
had electrical generation and distribution assets in Entre 
Rios, Buenos Aires and Rio Negro Provinces of Argentina.  In 
March 2002, Claimant B initiated consultations under ICSID, 
claiming that various provisions of Emergency Law 25,561 
voided its distribution contracts and effectively 
expropriated its capital investment.  Claimant B participated 
in various informal meetings with GOA officials following the 
initiation of consultations, but we are not aware of any 
further action on its claim.  Claimant B sold its interests 
to a British-based investment company, which is pursuing the 
case under the UK-Argentina bilateral investment treaty. 
Post therefore recommends that this claim be removed from the 
report. 
 
 
BUENOS AIR 00001362  002 OF 007 
 
 
¶6.    (a)  Claimant C 
 
(b)   2002 
 
(c)   Claimant C is a US diversified insurance company with 
specialized property and liability coverage assets in 
Argentina.  In March 2002, Claimant C initiated preliminary 
consultations under ICSID arbitration guidelines, claiming 
that numerous provisions of Emergency Law 25,561 unilaterally 
derogated contractual agreements and effectively expropriated 
Claimant C's capital investment.  Its original investment was 
$8 million.  As four years have passed without any further 
pursuit of this claim, post recommends that it be removed 
from the report. 
 
¶7.    (a)  Claimant D, first case 
 
(b)   2001 
 
(c)   Claimant D, a US energy sector firm, has a substantial 
minority investment in an Argentine gas pipeline whose 
dollar-based transmission contract was linked to the US 
producer price index.  Claimant D initiated preliminary 
consultations under ICSID arbitration guidelines in September 
2001 following a GOA decision to cease approving 
index-related increases in gas transmission fees.  In May 
2002, Claimant D began a process to expand its ICSID claim to 
address certain provisions of Emergency Law 25,561.  Claimant 
D filed for ICSID arbitration on March 19, 2003.  ICSID 
agreed that this dispute would be heard by the same 
arbitration panel hearing Claimant D's second arbitration 
claim against the GOA (see below).  ICSID issued a ruling on 
jurisdiction in January 2004 in favor of Claimant.  The 
tribunal held a final hearing on the merits in November 2005. 
 The arbitrator selected by the GOA resigned in May, and the 
case has been suspended pending the appointment of a new 
arbitrator. 
 
 
¶8.    (a)  Claimant D, Second Case 
 
(b)  1996 
 
(c)  Six western Argentine provinces are attempting to 
collect over $3 billion in retroactive stamp tax and gross 
receipts tax duties from international energy companies 
operating in their jurisdictions.  Claimant D registered its 
claim with ICSID on April 11, 2001.  Because Claimant D 
asserts that it does not have any stamp tax liability, there 
is no information on the amount of this claim.  In April, 
2004, the Argentine Supreme Court ruled that the stamp tax 
levies imposed by another province were invalid.  Claimant D 
and the GOA have agreed to suspend the case, pending a final 
ruling by the Supreme Court. 
 
¶9.    (a)  Claimant E 
 
(b)   2000 
 
(c)   Claimant E is a US energy sector infrastructure firm, 
which operates natural gas pipelines in Argentina through a 
local company, under a licensed granted to the local company 
by the GOA.  The Argentine gas legal framework and the local 
company's license linked the tariffs for gas transmission 
services to the US producer price index.  On October 20, 
2000, following a decision by the GOA to cease approving 
index-related increases in gas transmission tariffs, Claimant 
E initiated preliminary consultations with the GOA under the 
US-Argentine Bilateral Investment Treaty.  On July 24, 2001, 
Claimant E filed for ICSID arbitration, claiming over $100 
million in compensation. 
 
On January 6, 2002, the GOA passed Emergency Law 25, 561, 
which abolished adjustments and indexation clauses in 
contracts contained in licenses, and converted all 
dollar-denominated tariffs into pesos at the mandatory rate 
of 1 peso per USD.  On February 13, 2002, Claimant E wrote to 
the GOA, saying these measures further affected Claimant E's 
proerty rights and were tantamount to an expropriation.  On 
 
BUENOS AIR 00001362  003 OF 007 
 
 
July 5, 2002, Claimant E submitted its Memorial seeking 
$261.1 million in damages from the GOA for expropriation of 
its investment.  On May 12, 2005, Claimant E received an 
award of $133.2 million from the ICSID tribunal, with 
interest to date of payment, and granting a right to the GOA 
to purchase Claimant E's interest in the local subsidiary for 
an additional payment.  On September 27, 2005, the GOA filed 
an application for institution of annulment proceedings.  An 
annulment panel has been formed and the first hearing in the 
annulment process was held June 5, 2006.  A final hearing is 
expected in March 2007. 
 
¶10.   (a)  Claimant F 
 
(b)   2000 
 
(c)   Claimant F is a diversified US energy sector firm with 
gas transmission assets in Argentina, whose dollar-based 
transmission contract was linked to the US producer price 
index.  In October 2000, following a GOA decision to no 
longer approve index-related increases in gas transmission 
fees, Claimant F initiated preliminary consultations under 
ICSID arbitration guidelines.  It formally filed for ICSID 
arbitration in March 2001.  In May 2002, Claimant F began a 
process to expand its ICSID claim to include provisions of 
Emergency Law 25,561.  On April 30, 2004, the arbitral panel 
issued its decision on jurisdiction, ruling in favor of 
Claimant F on all jurisdictional issues.  The panel held a 
hearing on the merits in January 2005, and both parties 
submitted post-hearing briefs in February 2005.  Claimant is 
awaiting a decision from the tribunal. 
 
¶11.   (a)  Claimant G, First Claim 
 
(b)   2001 
 
(c)   Claimant G is a water resource management company that 
through a local subsidiary won a 30-year concession in 1999 
to manage a significant share of Buenos Aires province's 
water and wastewater management facilities.  Many of its 
tariff rights under the Concession Contract were effectively 
repudiated by the Province when the water in one city turned 
sour in April 2000 because of algae in the local reservoir, 
which was under the Province's exclusive control.  According 
to Claimant G, provincial officials blamed Claimant G for the 
problems, refused to allow the company to bill for its 
services, required the company to provide bottled water to 
the town at the company's expense, and publicly announced 
that people should not pay their water bills.  The Province 
also allegedly repudiated Claimant G's right to amortize its 
bid payment.  In January 2001, Claimant G filed for ICSID 
arbitration.  Following unsuccessful settlement efforts, an 
ICSID panel was constituted in July 2001, and the case was 
formally accepted by the panel in September 2001.  While the 
arbitration case remains in process, Claimant G filed for 
bankruptcy in December 2001 and returned operation of all its 
water and wastewater management facilities to provincial 
authorities in March 2002.  The final hearing on the merits 
was held in March 2005, and an award on the merits is 
expected by the end of June 2006. 
 
¶12.   (a)  Claimant G, second claim 
 
(b)   2003 
 
(c)   Claimant G held, through a local subsidiary, a 
concession to manage a significant share of Mendoza 
province's water and wastewater management facilities. 
Claimant G filed for ICSID arbitration in 2003, alleging that 
by interfering with Claimant G,s contractual rights, the 
province effectively repudiated its concession.  ICSID 
registered the claim on December 8, 2003.  Each side has 
appointed an arbitrator, but a panel president has not yet 
been selected. 
 
¶13.   (a)  Claimant H 
 
(b)   2000 
 
 
BUENOS AIR 00001362  004 OF 007 
 
 
(c)   In early 1998, Claimant H purchased a 40 percent 
interest in Provincia de Salud S.A.  ("Provincia de Salud") 
and a 20 percent interest in Provincia Aseguradora de Riesgos 
del Trabajo, S.A.  ("Provincia ART"), whose parent is the 
Banco de la Provincia de Buenos Aires ("Provincia"), which is 
owned by the Buenos Aires provincial government.  Claimant H 
alleged that its $28 million investment in Provincia Salud 
had been depleted through mismanagement and waste of 
corporate assets, compounded and overseen by irresponsible 
governance processes under the overall control of Provincia. 
 
Claimant H also alleged that its partner abused its position 
as a majority shareholder and violated the shareholder's 
agreement by allowing Provincia Salud to incur unauthorized 
obligations (many to other subsidiaries of Provincia).  In 
May 2000, Provincia forced an increase in the capital of 
Provincia Salud upon terms and under circumstances that 
Claimant H describes as an effective confiscation of its 
investment.  Claimant H began both local legal action and 
arbitration under the BIT, but in March 2002, Claimant H sold 
its shares in Provincia Salud and abandoned its arbitration 
claim and legal action.  Claimant has not pursued this claim 
further during the past four years, and post recommends that 
this case be removed from the report. 
 
¶14.   (a)  Claimant I 
 
(b)   2002 
 
(c)   Claimant I owns and operates several hydrocarbon and 
hydroelectric power plants in Argentina.  It has invested $1 
billion in equity and $1 billion in debt in these projects. 
In March 2002, Claimant I pursued informal negotiations, 
claiming that the pesification of its dollar-denominated 
distribution contracts, and the devaluation of the peso, have 
resulted in the effective expropriation of a large portion of 
the value of Claimant I's investment.  In April 2005, one of 
Claimant I's subsidiaries signed a definitive agreement on 
re-negotiation of its concession agreement with the GOA.  The 
agreement was ratified by the Argentine Congress in May, and 
Claimant I expected the GOA to sign and publish the agreement 
in the near future.  As part of that agreement, Claimant I 
agreed to suspend the portion of its claim related to this 
subsidiary, and to definitively drop its claimonce a near 
tariff agreement is approved.  Negotiations continued between 
the GOA on agreements and Claimant's other two distribution 
subsidiaries and its generation business.  On January 23, 
2006, ISCID suspended proceedings upon the request of both 
parties, pending a final settlement agreement. 
 
¶15.   (a)  Claimant J 
 
(b)   2001 
 
(c)   Claimant owned an interest in an oil and gas company 
involved in the exploration for and production of 
hydrocarbons in Neuquen, Rio Negro, Santa Cruz, Tierra del 
Fuego and Mendoza Provinces of Argentina.  On February 25, 
2002, Claimant J requested consultations, claiming over $100 
million in damages allegedly resulting from the pesification 
of its contracts, the dilution of fiscal credits, the 
imposition of export taxes, the losses on sales due to the 
exchange rate, and the imposition of an oil export tax in 
alleged violation of 1992 decrees guaranteeing export tax 
stability.  On October 16, 2002, Claimant J filed notice of 
its intention to negotiate before beginning formal ICSID 
arbitration.  ICSID formally registered the claim on June 5, 
¶2003.  On April 4, 2005, both sides filed a request with 
ICSID for the discontinuance of proceedings based on a final 
settlement agreement between the parties, but has not yet 
been accepted formally by ICSID. 
 
¶16.   (a)  Claimant K 
 
(b)   2001 
 
(c)   Claimant K is an information systems provider that won 
a $37 million public bid contract to provide information 
services to the judicial branch.  The contract amount was 
 
BUENOS AIR 00001362  005 OF 007 
 
 
payable in 36 equal, monthly installments beginning when the 
system was completed.  Work started in early 1998.  85 
percent of the work had been completed by November 1999, and 
the remaining 15 percent was completed in December 2000. 
During work on the contract, Claimant K agreed to do $30 
million in additional information systems work for the GOA. 
It also provided the GOA with $3.5 million in postal 
machinery.  In January 2001, the GOA began paying for the 85 
percent work completed in November 1999, and in February 
2001, on the remaining 15 percent.  In December 2001, the 
contract was pesified by law when Argentina did away with its 
fixed, 1-to-1 conversion system with the US dollar.  From 
January 2002 through April 2003, the GOA made no payments 
under the contract, even after it had been pesified.  The GOA 
has recognized the $3.5 million debt for the postal 
machinery, but it allegedly refuses to recognize the $30 
million in additional work. 
 
Claimant K filed notice of its intention to pursue ICSID 
arbitration in October 2002.  It held friendly consultations 
with the GOA in February 2003 without success.  ICSID 
formally registered Claimant K's claim on October 15, 2003. 
The claim is based on allegations of the pesification of the 
original contract, the refusal to recognize the additional 
work done under the contract, and the non-payment from 
February 2002 through April 2003.  Total claim amount is 
approximately $55 million.  According to Claimant K, it did 
not include a claim for the value of the postal machinery 
because the GOA has recognized that debt and repeatedly 
promised to pay it.  Before an arbitral panel was constituted 
to hear the claim, the parties signed an agreement in August 
2005 to postpone the case and jointly appointed  accounting 
and technical experts to examine the facts.  A report from 
the accounting expert is expected by the end of June 2006, 
and the technical expert will begin work once that report is 
completed.  These reports will be used as the basis for 
settlement negotiations. 
 
¶17.   (a)  Claimant L 
 
(b)   2004 
 
(c)   Claimant L is a US reinsurance company that underwrote 
Argentina's privatized pension system between 1994 and 2001. 
Claimant L,s liability is based upon the market value of the 
pension system's assets.  In 2002, the GOA implemented 
measures that fix the price of certain pension fund assets 
(Argentine Government bonds) at above-market prices.  Because 
reinsurance contract benefits are linked to the value of 
these assets, this regulatory measure has allegedly increased 
Claimant L's financial obligations by 45 percent.  The 
Claimant contends that it is entitled to compensation for the 
substantial losses suffered because of the manipulation of 
asset values and has filed a request for ICSID arbitration. 
After holding a hearing on witnesses in September 2005, the 
ICSID held its first session on November 22, 2005.  In March 
2006, Claimant presented a letter of discontinuance to ICSID 
because it had mitigated damages through negotiations with 
local insurance companies. 
 
¶18.   (a)  Claimants M 
 
(b)   2004 
 
(c)   Claimants M are US citizens who own real property in 
Bucharest, Romania.  The communist government of Romania had 
confiscated the property from Claimants M,s family but 
returned it to the family in June 2003.  According to 
Claimants M, however, Argentine diplomatic personnel in 
Romania occupied the property as a residence.  Claimants M 
notified the GOA that the Romanian government had returned 
the property to them, and that they wanted to re-negotiate 
the lease on the property.  In response, the GOA allegedly 
asserted that it would continue to occupy the property and 
pay a rent of its choosing that was below market rates.  On 
April 1, 2004, Claimants notified the GOA of the pendency of 
an investment dispute under the US-Argentina BIT, claiming 
that the continued occupation of the property constituted an 
expropriation.  The GOA subsequently agreed to leave the 
 
BUENOS AIR 00001362  006 OF 007 
 
 
property, and Claimants now have recovered occupancy of their 
property.  Post therefore recommends that this case be 
removed from the report. 
 
¶19.   (a)  Claimant N 
 
(b)   2003 
 
(c)   Claimant N owned an interest in electrical generating 
plants and in an oil and gas company operating in Argentina. 
In January 2002, Argentina pesified dollar-denominated oil 
and gas supply contracts, imposed an oil export tax in 
alleged violation of decrees from 1992 that guaranteed export 
tax stability, and changed the electrical generation 
regulatory and legal framework based on which the company 
invested.  Claimant filed for ICSID arbitration in June 2003. 
 On April 27, 2006, the panel issued a decision on 
jurisdiction in favor of Claimant N.  The arbitration process 
continues on the merits of the claim. 
 
¶20.   (a)  Claimant O 
 
(b)   2003 
 
(c)   Claimant O is a provider of leasing services in 
Argentina.  Claimant O's claim was registered with ICSID on 
February 27, 2004.  The claim asserts that that various 
actions by the Government of Argentina effectively 
expropriated the value of its investment.  On October 13, 
2005, Claimant filed a memorial on the merits of the case. 
On December 28, 2005, the GOA filed its objections to 
jurisdiction.  Claimant O was expected to file a 
counter-memorial on jurisdiction on March 2, 2006.  A hearing 
is expected to take place later this year. 
 
¶21.   (a)  Claimant P 
 
(b)   2003 
 
(c)   Claimant is an insurance company with operations in 
Argentina.  ICSID registered Claimant P's complaint on May 
22, 2003.  Post has not been able to obtain details about the 
substance of Claimant's dispute.  An arbitration panel has 
been selected, and the Claimant filed its Memorial on the 
Merits on April 28, 2004.  According to the ICSID website, 
the panel held a hearing on jurisdiction in February 2005 and 
that it had jurisdiction over the claim.  Argentina has filed 
a counter-memorial, and a hearing is expected to be held in 
late 2006. 
 
¶22.   (a)  Claimant Q 
 
(b)   2003 
 
(c)   Claimants Q are two companies with very similar 
shareholders who owned an interest in both electrical 
generating plants and an oil and gas company doing business 
in Argentina.  In January 2002, Argentina pesified 
dollar-denominated oil and gas supply contracts, imposed an 
oil export tax in violation of decrees from 1992 that 
guaranteed export tax stability, and changed the electrical 
generation regulatory and legal framework on which the 
company was induced to invest by pesifying dollar-denominated 
capacity payments and regulating the previously unregulated 
electrical generation industry in a way that does not allow 
it to be profitable.  Claimants filed their claim with ICSID 
in June 2003, and the two claims are being heard jointly by 
one arbitration panel.  The panel held a hearing on 
jurisdiction in March 2005, and a decision is expected in 
July 2006. 
 
¶23.   (a)  Claimant R 
 
(b)   2004 
 
(c)   Claimant R is an oil and gas exploration and 
development company.  Claimant R contends that its investment 
was effectively expropriated following the 2002 pesification 
of its dollar-denominated oil and gas supply contracts. 
 
BUENOS AIR 00001362  007 OF 007 
 
 
Claimant R also complains that the imposition of export taxes 
in 2002 violated the decrees that were in force at the time 
of its investment.  Claimant R's claim was formally 
registered August 5, 2004.  A panel has not yet been 
constituted; both sides have named an arbitrator, but a 
president has not yet been chosen. 
 
¶24.   (a)  Claimant S 
 
(b)   2005 
 
(c)   Claimant S is an Argentina-based company with US and 
German investors.  It formally registered its claim on June 
23, 2005.  Claimant has sought $20 million from the GOA, 
claiming that a local bank illegally canceled a contract in 
2003 and expropriated its funds.  An arbitral panel was 
constituted on March 27, 2006, and the case is still pending. 
 
¶25.  Identification of claimants 
 
Claimant A = Sempra 
 
Claimant B = PSEG 
 
Claimant C = Chubb insurance 
 
Claimant D = Enron-TGS 
 
Claimant E = CMS - TGN 
 
Claimant F = Louisville Gas and Electricity 
 
Claimant G = Enron Azurix 
 
Claimant H = Capital Z Partners 
 
Claimant I = AES 
 
Claimant J = Pioneer 
 
Claimant K = Unisys 
 
Claimant L = RGA Reinsurance 
 
Claimants M = Steven and Robert Ausnit 
 
Claimant N = El Paso Energy 
 
Claimant O = CIT Group 
 
Claimant P = Continental Casualty Company 
 
Claimant Q = Pan American Energy/BP America 
 
Claimant R = Mobil Oil Company 
 
Claimant S = Asset Recovery Trust 
 
¶26.   To see more Buenos Aires reporting visit our classified 
website at: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/buenosaires 
GUTIERREZ