VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGE #0547/01 1601925
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 091925Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY GEORGETOWN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3625
INFO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC

UNCLAS GEORGETOWN 000547 
 
SIPDIS 
 
EB/IFD/OIA - James Roseli 
L/CID - Emily Daughtry 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EINV CASC KIDE OPIC PGOV GY
SUBJECT: 2006 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND 
EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS (GUYANA) 
 
REF: STATE 60294 
 
¶1. In response to reftel, the following is Post's submission 
for the 2006 Report on Investment Disputes and Expropriation 
Claims.  Post is aware of five (5) claims of United States 
persons that may be outstanding against the Government of 
Guyana (GOG), all of which were detailed in the 2005 report. 
Claimants from the 2005 report retain 
their identifying letter below. 
 
¶2. (SBU) (a) Claimant A 
(b) 2002 
(c) CASE UPDATE: Claimant A is a U.S. company that owns 80 
percent of Guyana's telephone monopoly, Guyana Telecom and 
Telegraph (GT&T), and obtained an agreement with the GOG in 
1990 to be the exclusive provider of land telephony and 
national and international voice and data transmission.  In 
February 2006 President Bharrat Jagdeo stated that he 
intends to break Claimant A's telecommunications monopoly 
"in one way or another." The CEO of Claimant A responded by 
reiterating the firm's willingness to negotiate the 
exclusivity terms of its license and called on the GOG to 
produce a Memorandum of Understanding as a catalyst for 
discussions that have been stalled since 2002. Claimant A 
also criticized the GOG for failing to take action against 
unlicensed operators, some of whom service government 
agencies in spite of the agreement giving Claimant A 
exclusive rights to provide telephone service in Guyana. In 
a related matter, the Public Utilities Commission ordered 
Claimant A to cease sales of cellular service on February 
24, 2006, citing network congestion and complaints of 
unreliable service. Claimant A countered that it cannot 
comply with the request until service quality standards are 
established. The CEO of Claimant A has also said that 
obstacles to orderly telecommunications development have 
continued to be displayed by the GOG by asking Claimant A to 
accept uneconomic rates, permitting a breach of those 
sections of the license which protect Claimant A and 
dividing the spectrum in a way that reduces the rate of 
Claimant A's cellular network development. 
 
¶3. (SBU)  a) Claimant B 
     b) 1998 
     c) CASE UPDATE: Claimant B was the U.S. parent company 
for the Linden Power Company, with a contract to supply 
electricity to the Linden area and to the Linmine bauxite 
mine operations.  The failure of Linmine and the GOG to pay 
power bills led to Claimant B defaulting on a loan, 
resulting in LPC going into receivership with Royal Bank of 
Trinidad and Tobago.  Multiple cross-cutting lawsuits 
stemming from the case have been consolidated into a binding 
arbitration that was heard in New York.  Arbitration 
hearings were scheduled for July 2004.  Claimant B claimed 
$27 million in the arbitration.  Linmine ceased operations 
in Guyana in May 2005.  Post has been unable to contact 
Claimant B to verify that the issue has been settled.  END 
UPDATE. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) a) Claimant C 
     b) 1998 
     c)  CASE UPDATE:  Claimant C is a U.S. registered 
company licensed to provide cellular service in Guyana. 
Claimant C alleges that the PUC frustrated its efforts to 
achieve interconnection with the dominant telephone service 
provider, which is 80 percent owned by an American company. 
Claimant C took legal action to force an interconnection 
agreement. Although victorious, the telephone service 
provider has appealed that decision.  Claimant C intended to 
expand its service, including introducing call centers, but 
has been frustrated by the GOG's reluctance to finalize a 
memorandum of understanding with them.  According to news 
reports, the dispute is ongoing.  Post has been unable to 
contact anyone from Claimant C to update the status of the 
claim since it was initially reported in the 2004 report. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) a) Claimant D 
     b) 1998 
     c)  CASE UPDATE:  Claimant D, owned by a U.S. citizen, 
is also licensed to provide cellular service in Guyana. 
Claimant D also alleges that the PUC frustrated their 
efforts to achieve full interconnection with the monopoly 
provider for landline telephone service.  Claimant was also 
victorious in legal action to enforce interconnection, but 
has not yet been able to enforce the judgment.  Claimant D 
has petitioned for an extension of its 10 year license to 
match 15 year licenses granted to other providers.  They are 
also seeking licenses granted to other providers.  They are 
 
also seeking tax concessions to match those granted other 
providers.  Post has had no contact with the claimant in the 
last year.  END UPDATE. 
 
¶6. (SBU) a) Claimant E 
     b) 1995 
     c) CASE UPDATE:  The 2002 report stated that Claimant E 
intended to pursue a lawsuit against the GOG related to a 
land dispute.  Claimant E contacted post in early 2006 
saying the suit is ongoing and listing various conditions by 
which the claimant will accept a settlement with the GOG. 
END UPDATE. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The list of claimant names follows, all of who are 
believed to be U.S. citizens or companies controlled by 
U.S. citizens.  None of the claimants has signed a privacy 
act waiver at Post. 
 
Claimant A:    Atlantic Tele-Network (ATN).  U.S. registered 
company. 
 
Claimant B:    Texas Ohio Energy (TOE).  U.S. registered 
company. 
 
Claimant C:    Caribbean Wireless Ltd.  U.S. registered 
company. 
 
Claimant D:    Caribbean Telecommunications Ltd.  Guyanese 
registered company with U.S. citizen owner. 
 
Claimant E:    Mr. Keshwar Ramlal, United States Citizen. 
 
BULLEN