VZCZCXRO2319
RR RUEHGR
DE RUEHWN #0360/01 1691501
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 181501Z JUN 09
FM AMEMBASSY BRIDGETOWN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7496
INFO RUCNCOM/EC CARICOM COLLECTIVE
RUMIAAA/HQ USSOUTHCOM J2 MIAMI FL
RUMIAAA/HQ USSOUTHCOM J5 MIAMI FL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRIDGETOWN 000360 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EB/IFD/OIA FOR HEATHER GOETHERT, KIMBERLY BUTLER 
L/CID FOR PATRICK PEARSALL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CASC EINV KIDE OPIC PGOV
SUBJECT: 2009 EXPROPRIATION REPORT: ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 
 
REF: STATE 049477 
 
THIS CABLE IS SENSITIVE, BUT UNCLASSIFIED.  PLEASE PROTECT 
ACCORDINGLY. 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) The United States Government is aware of one (1) 
claim of a United States person that may be outstanding 
against the Government of Antigua and Barbuda (GOAB)  End 
Summary. 
 
Claimant Designation 
------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) Claimant A 
 
Date of Expropiation 
--------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) 2002 
 
Cse History 
----------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) In Deceber 2001, Claimant A (a holding company 
comprise of 98 percent U.S. and 2 per cent Canadian 
sharholders) requested that Embassy Bridgetown interven 
with the GOAB to halt the expropriation of HalfMoon Bay 
(HMB), a 110-acre beachfront property. Despite Post 
interventions with the GOAB Prime Mnister (PM), the 
Permanent Secretary, and the Miister of Tourism, the 
expropriation was approved y Parliament on January 11, 2002. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Accoding to the GOAB, the owner's failure to 
re-open the resort property, which had been severely damaged 
by Hurricane Luis in 1995, was depriving Antiguans of badly 
needed tourism revenue.  The GOAB also alleged that Claimant 
A owed back taxes to the GOAB and severance pay to 150 
workers when the hotel was closed in 1995.  Claimant A 
acknowledged liabilities, totaling less than $200,000 on a 
property estimated by Claimant A to be worth over $32 
million, but alleged that the GOAB obstructed its repeated 
efforts to finance the restoration of the property since 
1995, and refused to meet with lenders since 1999.  Claimant 
A alleged that its prospective lenders required a letter from 
the GOAB confirming that the government did not intend to 
expropriate the property. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Claimant A filed an injunction in January 2002 
alleging abuse of power on the part of the GOAB.  Although 
the courts denied the GOAB's application to strike out the 
judicial review, the GOAB appealed this decision.  The GOAB 
also stated on the record that Claimant A would not be 
evicted from the property until the court proceedings were 
finalized.  The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal upheld a 
lower court's decision that refused to bar the GOAB from 
expropriating the Half Moon Bay Resort.  Claimant A 
subsequently requested and was granted leave to appeal to the 
Privy Council (the final court of appeal) on May 26, 2003. 
 
¶6. (SBU) On November 2, 2004, Prime Minister Spencer told 
then U.S. Ambassador Mary Kramer that they remained committed 
to ceasing litigation and returning the property, but sought 
cooperation and flexibility from Claimant A in arranging for 
its return.  On July 18, 2005, the GOAB passed an Act of 
Parliament returning the property under three conditions:  1) 
Claimant A must drop all legal action against the GOAB; 2) 
Claimant A must sign an indemnity exempting the GOAB from 
future legal action; and 3) Claimant A must pledge to 
redevelop the property.  In an October 17, 2005, letter to 
the GOAB, Claimant A rejected the parliamentary offer and 
proposed mediation as an alternative, which the GOAB rejected. 
 
¶7. (SBU) On February 16, 2006, Claimant A met with the Deputy 
Chief of Mission and discussed plans to pursue the Privy 
Council appeal - which had been put on hold since 2003 in 
hopes of a negotiated settlement. 
 
¶8. (SBU) On April 27, 2006, Claimant A's lawyer met again at 
the State Department where Claimant A's lawyer submitted a 
draft proposal to resolve the case based on the parliamentary 
measure passed on July 18, 2005.  The lawyer's proposal was 
as follows:  Upon receiving clear title to the property, 
Claimant A pledges to:  1) drop all legal action against the 
 
BRIDGETOWN 00000360  002 OF 002 
 
 
GOAB; 2) indemnify the GOAB against future legal action; and 
3) promise to redevelop the property.  The primary difference 
between this proposal and the GOAB proposal of July 18, 2005, 
is that the GOAB must first return clear title of the 
property to Claimant A before Claimant A takes any action. 
 
¶9. (SBU) On May 16, 2006, Claimant A's attorney formally 
presented the proposal in a letter addressed to both 
Ambassador Kramer and Assistant Secretary Shannon.  On 
September 14, Claimant A,s attorney presented the GOAB with 
a draft Memorandum of Understanding based on this proposal. 
On September 29, GOAB Attorney General Simon met with 
Claimant A,s attorney in Washington to discuss the 
Memorandum of Understanding. 
 
¶10. (SBU) On November 22, 2006 GOAB Attorney General Simon 
requested confirmation of Claimant A,s legal representation 
after another law firm claimed to represent it.  Claimant 
A,s attorney responded with a letter on January 11, 2007 
that confirmed his representation of Claimant A and that the 
other firm was never given instructions to negotiate a global 
settlement on its behalf.  Claimant A,s attorney also 
informed the Attorney General that the other firm was 
retained solely to act in the matter which involved the 
rectification of the Register to reflect Claimant A as the 
registered proprietor of the property. 
 
¶11. (SBU) On December 6, 2006, Claimant A,s attorney wrote a 
letter to U.S. Ambassador Mary Ourisman, Assistant Secretary 
Thomas Shannon and the Department of Commerce, describing the 
alleged acts of harassment against Claimant A and requesting 
USG intervention. 
 
¶12. (SBU) On January 22, 2007, an Embassy Bridgetown Officer 
traveled to Antigua and Barbuda to meet with Claimant A and 
obtain an update regarding the property dispute with the 
GOAB.  Claimant A alleged that the majority shareholder 
recently was subject to incidents of harassment and threats, 
which she believes were GOAB,s retaliatory measures for her 
lawsuits against the government.  Claimant A described the 
incidents as damaged property, illegal break-ins, denied 
access to the Internet, and excessive charges for electricity 
usage by the GOAB utility company. 
 
¶13. (SBU) On February 6, 2007, Claimant A,s attorney 
contacted the State Department,s Office of the Legal Adviser 
to convey his frustration over several unsuccessful attempts 
to communicate with GOAB Attorney General Simon.  On April 2, 
Claimant A,s attorney sent a letter requesting that the 
State Department intervene to help Claimant A obtain the 
return of the property at issue.  Claimant A,s attorney 
described in his letter what he believed to be the GOAB,s 
failure to negotiate in good faith with Claimant A, Claimant 
A,s supposed inability to obtain justice in Antiguan courts 
because of alleged interference by the GOAB in judicial 
proceedings, and need for the USG to take action against the 
GOAB.  Claimant A,s attorney also informed the Embassy that 
a hearing concerning the Land Register issue had been 
scheduled to be held in Antigua on March 6, but that GOAB 
Attorney General Simon allegedly prevented Claimant A,s U.K. 
counsel from appearing on its behalf. 
 
¶14. (SBU) In June of 2007, the Privy Council ruled that the 
government could lay claim to the land under eminent domain 
laws in place in Antigua and reacquire the land.  However, 
the Privy Council also ruled that the government could only 
exercise this power if it provided the owners their 
constitutionally guaranteed &fair compensation8 in a 
reasonable time. 
 
¶15. (SBU) On April 12, 2009 the government provided, for the 
first time, an estimate of the properties value, estimating 
its value at US$23.5 million.  Claimant A,s valuation 
estimate by C.B. Ellis place the value of the property at 
US$60 million. 
 
¶16. (SBU) The last contact between the Embassy and Claimant A 
was on July 14 2008, when the CDA met with the claimant to 
discuss the status of her case.  In the opinion of the 
Claimant the GOAB is waiting to find a buyer for the property 
before they will pay her claim. 
 
¶17. (SBU) Claimant A:  Natalia Querard.  Querard is an 
American citizen, and has signed a Privacy Act Waiver. 
HARDT