VZCZCXRO4489
PP RUEHGR
DE RUEHWN #0369/01 1701904
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 191904Z JUN 09
FM AMEMBASSY BRIDGETOWN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7506
INFO RUCNCOM/EC CARICOM COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRIDGETOWN 000369 
 
SIPDIS 
 
WHA/CAR FOR JACKIE ROSHOLT 
EEB/IFD/OIA FOR HEATHER GOETHERT 
EEB/IFD/OIA FOR KIMBERLY BUTLER 
L/CID FOR PATRICK PEARSALL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CASC EINV KIDE OPIC PGOV XL
SUBJECT: EXPROPRIATION - ST. LUCIA 
 
REF: STATE 049477 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU) St. Lucia has one outstanding expropriation case. 
 
---------------------- 
Claimant Designation 
-------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) Claimants A through F. 
 
--------------------- 
Date of Expropriation 
--------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) The initial expropriation occurred in May 2008.  The 
title of the land formally passed to the Government of St. 
Lucia in January 2009. 
 
------------ 
CASE HISTORY 
------------ 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The expropriation concerns 230 acres of land on the 
west coast of St. Lucia just south of the town of Anse La 
Raye.  The land has a small beach, but is primarily 
mountainous, with some swampland adjacent to the waterfront. 
This land was purchased over 50 years ago by a consortium of 
American investors.  Recently, the group made a contribution 
of 176 acres of land that has historic significance for St. 
Lucia to the National Trust.  Brigand Hill, a small hotel of 
about five rooms is owned by Claimant A, as the land was 
split off prior to the current dispute, and is not included 
in the expropriation. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The problems for the consortium started when a 
group of minority investors, claimants E and F, took legal 
action to address perceived wrongdoings.  The issues are 
currently being handled in court, and the pending legal 
action prevented the land from being sold or developed.  The 
government has used this inaction to claim that the land was 
being left idle.  The public remarks concerning the land 
claim that it will be used for low income housing, despite 
the geography of the territory making it ill suited for such 
a development.  In addition, the presence of poisonous snakes 
and the lack of clean water or access to the electrical grid 
make development problematic. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The majority claimants (A,B,C,D) have contacted the 
St. Lucia Government and the U.S. Embassy to push their case. 
 A letter from the Ambassador was sent to the Prime Minister 
to encourage an expeditious and adequate settlement on 20 
October 2008.  During the St. Lucia National Independence Day 
celebrations on 22 February 2009, the Charge d'Affaires 
raised the issue with the PM, who gave his verbal assurance 
that the matter was being reversed, and that the 
expropriation of the land was in error.  A letter confirming 
this conversation was sent to the PM on 27 February 2009, but 
the Embassy has received no response despite numerous calls. 
According to the local lawyers involved, the expropriation is 
continuing, despite the statement from the PM.  Contacts have 
informed poloffs that the PM lacks control of his cabinet and 
is being fed incorrect information by select Ministers.  The 
people involved in this case are Richard Frederick, Minister 
of Housing, and Keith Mondesir, Minster of Health and also 
the Parliamentary representative for this district. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The value of the property is a point of contention. 
 The claimants have an offer for the land in the range of 2.4 
million USD.  They believe that the land is worth 
considerably more, and that the drop in value is due to the 
global recession.  The value of the donated land was 
estimated at 12 million USD, which allowed for a considerable 
U.S. tax deduction, but it is unlikely that the land would 
have received anywhere near that amount on the open market. 
The land is scenic, but the small beachfront makes a tourist 
hotel problematic, and without a tourist appeal, the value is 
much lower.  In case of a settlement, the government is 
required to pay a fair amount, but the claimants fear that 
any amount would be considerably less than open market value, 
and in any case would require a long wait for any money to 
trickle in. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Poloff attended a court case and visited the 
property on 20 May 2009.  Poloff is in regular contact with 
the majority claimants about their case, and has met the 
minority shareholders.  On the 15th of July, 2009, a final 
ruling on the shareholder list is scheduled, which would end 
 
BRIDGETOWN 00000369  002 OF 002 
 
 
the dispute among the shareholders, leaving the expropriation 
as the only remaining hurdle.  A liquidator has been 
appointed by the court to pay the debt of the company and is 
exploring ways to sell the land or get a fair settlement from 
the government. 
 
¶9.  (SBU)  All claimants are U.S. citizens. 
 
Claimant A : Michael Seely 
Claimant B : Joe Poindexter 
Claimant C : Barry Romeril 
Claimant D : Carrol Cavanagh 
Claimant E : David Bickford 
Claimant F : James Curry 
HARDT