VZCZCXYZ0003
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHDG #1424/01 1661131
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 151131Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY SANTO DOMINGO
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8521

UNCLAS SANTO DOMINGO 001424 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/IFD/OIA H. GOETHERT; L/CID S. MCDONALD 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EINV KIDE DR
SUBJECT: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 2007 REPORT ON INVESTMENT 
DISPUTES AND EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS 
 
REF: STATE 55422 
 
The United States Government is presently aware of twenty-one 
(21) outstanding claims (including five new claims for 2006, 
one in 2007, and one claim closed as of 2006) by US 
persons/entities against the Government of the Dominican 
Republic (government).  In mid-2005 a USAID-sponsored 
consultant finished working with the Dominican Government on 
implementing a system for evaluating and resolving claims 
through the use of bonds.  In 1999, Law 104-99 was passed, 
offering to claimants whose disputes arose on or before 
August 16, 1996, the option of circumventing the traditional 
method of claim resolution (at the "Bienes Nacionales"), and 
instead to seek compensation from a specially appointed 
Commission, provided the claimants are willing to accept 
payment in bonds.  A total of 247 claims were solved under 
Law 104-99 with USAID assistance.  This law expired on 
November 9, 2005. 
 
Government action on resolution of claims slowed when the 
Fernandez administration took office in August 2004.  The 
Office of Public Credit within the Ministry of Finance is 
responsible for expropriations and investment disputes.  The 
current Director has maintained his position for less than a 
year.  The office has had four directors in two years.  This 
high turnover rate with the change in administration has 
delayed consideration of claims.  The Office of Public Credit 
states that several claimants have either never registered 
their claim formally with the Office of Public Credit or the 
claims have not been passed to the Office of Public Credit 
from other Government offices.  The Embassy raises these 
expropriation and investor dispute cases with the Government 
on a regular basis.  In addition to visits to the Ministry of 
Finance, the Ambassador sent letters to the Minister of 
Finance and the legal advisor to the President requesting 
resolution of these U.S. claims.  All information provided 
herein was last updated on June 1, 2007. 
 
¶1.          a.  Claimant A 
      b.  1999 
c.  Eight independent power producers (IPPs), four of which 
are US-owned, provide approximately 30 percent of the 
Dominican Republic's electricity.  In 1999, the IPPs entered 
into a "Definitive Agreement" with the government under which 
an escrow account was to have been established to permit the 
capitalization of the State electricity company,s 
(Corporacion Dominicana de Empresas Electricas Estatales 
(CDEEE)) power generation and distribution facilities.  This 
escrow account was intended to receive payments from the new 
distribution companies and proceeds were to have been used to 
pay the IPPs for both current invoices and accumulated 
arrears.  The government did not live up to its commitment to 
implement this escrow arrangement; CDEEE failed to keep its 
payments current to the IPPs; and the government breached 
several agreements to make up the shortfall, which exceeded 
$100 million. 
 
In September 2002, the government announced that seven of the 
eight IPP,s had agreed in principle to give up their 
existing long-term contracts.  To date, the government has 
successfully renegotiated only one new contract with these 
IPP's.  In February 2004, the government and CDEEE signed a 
short-term agreement with two of the Claimants whereby the 
government agreed to increase tariff rates, make payments on 
current invoices and negotiate accumulated arrears.  Although 
tariff rates were increased CDEEE and the government 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.  Of additional concern, the contracts with Claimants 
A are backed, in part, by guarantees.  Should Claimant A's 
lenders call those guarantees, the government faces liability 
of more than $425 million.  The Embassy has made repeated 
approaches to high government officials in an effort to 
resolve this ongoing problem.  Although Embassy officers have 
met on various occasions with Claimants A, they have not 
requested Embassy advocacy in the last year.  CDEEE has 
initiated renegotiation talks with each claimant.  The 
renegotiation talks involve debt owed to the claimants. 
 
¶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 have been offered to Dominican landowners 
affected by this construction.  The government 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 government initial settlement offer will 
likely be in the form of bonds.  No time has been set for a 
decision.  Although the Embassy continues to discuss this 
claim with the Dominican government, the claimant has not 
contacted the Embassy in over a year.  Embassy personnel have 
tried to contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be 
reached. 
 
¶3.    a.  Claimant C 
b.  1994 and various 
c.  In 1996, Claimant C discovered that various components of 
the government 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 government.  In 1999, Claimant C 
accepted an offer of settlement in partial payment of the 
claim of approximately $1.5 million, which the government 
paid in three equal payments.  Efforts by Claimant to recoup 
the remainder of its claim have been rebuffed by the 
government, which takes the position that the claim has been 
satisfied in full.  Although the Embassy continues to discuss 
this claim with the Dominican government, the claimant has 
not contacted the Embassy in over a year.  Embassy personnel 
have tried to contact the claimant, but the claimant could 
not be reached. 
 
¶4.    a.  Claimant D 
b.  1991 
c.  In 1988, the government asked Claimant D to build 1,000 
homes for sugar cane workers.  Claimant D never signed a 
contract with the government.  Materials were shipped to the 
Dominican Republic for the first phase of construction (30 
homes) and Claimant D had invoices showing that the materials 
arrived.  In 1989, Claimant D was informed that, due to heavy 
rains and a bad crop, construction of the homes would be 
delayed.  Claimant D arranged with port authorities to have 
the materials remain in the port until construction could 
begin.  In 1991, Claimant D discovered that all of the 
materials had disappeared.  Claimant D alleged that some of 
the materials were auctioned off, and some given to 
government entities.  Claimant D estimates losses at $1.3 
million.  Claimant D,s case was disqualified under Law No. 
104-99.  Claimant D has since initiated legal action in a 
Dominican court. 
 
Embassy officials have been in direct contact with Claimant D 
and his lawyer.  On May 7, 2007, the Director for Public 
Credit told emboff that he has prepared a letter for Claimant 
D,s lawyer that lists the documents needed to process the 
case.  Emboff relayed this information to Claimant D. 
 
¶5.    a.  Claimant E (case closed as of December 2006) 
b.  1990 
c.  In 1989, Claimant E purchased a 75 percent interest in 
beachfront property near Barahona.  Claimant E,s Dominican 
partners owned the remaining 25 percent.  Claimant E,s 
interest in the land had an estimated value of $112,000.  On 
September 18, 1989, the government seized the land, stating 
that it intended to use it for the construction of a power 
plant.  Following this action, Claimant E entered into a new 
agreement with its Dominican partners, under which Claimant E 
would cease payments on the land and would reduce its 
interest in the property to 15 percent.  It was agreed that 
&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.8  Claimant E 
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 E applied for bonds 
under Law No. 104-99.  The Embassy has made repeated 
approaches to high government officials in an effort to 
resolve this ongoing problem. 
 
Subsequnetly, Claimant E informed the Embassy that they 
received payment, valued at $30,000, from the Dominican 
government in December 2006. 
 
¶6.    a.  Claimant F 
b.  1983 
c.  Claimant F 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 government seized the land, 
which is now part of the &Isabel de Torres Scientific 
Preserve.8  Claimant F sought compensation, but none was 
approved.  According to Claimant F, the government previously 
valued the land at $330,000.  Claimant F reported that it has 
 
an assessment valuing the land at approximately $990,000. 
Claimant F is willing to negotiate.  The Embassy raised this 
matter in all discussions of investment disputes with the 
government.  To date there has been no resolution, and the 
matter continues to experience payment opposition on behalf 
of Claimant F. 
 
Although the Embassy continues to discuss this claim with the 
Dominican government, the claimant has not contacted the 
Embassy in over a year.  Embassy personnel have tried to 
contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be reached. 
 
¶7.    a.  Claimant G 
b.  1980,s 
c.  The government expropriated Claimant G,s property in the 
1980,s, which Claimant G valued at several million dollars. 
To date there has been no resolution.  Although the Embassy 
continues to include the matter in all discussions of 
investment disputes with the government, the claimant has not 
contacted the Embassy in over a year.  Embassy personnel have 
tried to contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be 
reached. 
 
¶8.    a.  Claimant H 
b.  1986 
c.  Pursuant to a presidential decree in 1986, the government 
expropriated 823,495.70 square meters of land belonging to 
Claimant H for use in the construction of the Maria Montez 
Airport in Barahona.  Claimant H 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 government since that time. 
To date there has been no resolution.  The matter continues 
to be considered for settlement. 
 
Although the Embassy continues to discuss this claim with the 
Dominican government, the claimant has not contacted the 
Embassy in over a year.  Embassy personnel have tried to 
contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be reached. 
 
 
¶9.    a.  Claimant I 
b.  1987 
c.  Claimant I,s contract claim involves the unpaid 
commission for loan guarantees on a real estate transaction 
brokered in 1976.  Claimant I asserts he is entitled to 2% of 
$12 million, the loan guarantee amount.  Claimant I has a 
default judgment from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit, entered in 1987, for $240,000.  Claimant I asserts 
that with interest, the claim is now valued at approximately 
$2 million.  Embassy has raised this issue with government 
officials and facilitated a meeting between Claimant I and 
government officials, and the parties are presently in 
discussion.  The government provided the loan guarantees. 
 
Embassy personnel have tried to contact the claimant, but the 
claimant could not be reached. 
 
¶10.   a.  Claimant J 
b.  2003 
c.  In 1998 Claimant J and family responded to advertisements 
by the Dominican Republic seeking US investment by purchasing 
two adjacent parcels of land located in Cumayasa, San Pedro 
de Macoris.  In March of 2003 Claimant J, 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 J contacted 
the CEA office in Santo Domingo to request an immediate 
evacuation of the area a CEA engineer recommended that 
Claimant J 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 J immediately contacted 
a local attorney and initiated legal action in a Dominican 
Court.  The Embassy contacted government officials in regard 
to this claim.  The matter is currently pending a judicial 
decision. 
 
Although the Embassy continues to discuss this claim with the 
Dominican government, the claimant has not contacted the 
Embassy in over a year.  Embassy personnel have tried to 
contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be reached. 
 
¶11.   a.  Claimant K 
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 Empresas Electricas 
Estatales (CDEEE), Claimant K paid $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 K and ordered the 
payment of approximately $5,369,781 (original sum plus 
accrued interest and expenses) by the CDEEE/government.  In 
early 2003, government officials sought to retain a law firm 
in the US to negotiate a final settlement with Claimant K. 
The retainer was never completed.  On May 27, 2004 the 
Ministry of Finance,s Legal Department issued its opinion on 
the issue.  The Embassy had been in repeated contact with 
government officials in regard to this claim and brought it 
to the specific attention of the Ministry of Finance.  In 
2006 the government issued an offer of $3,758,275 dollars. 
The Claimant has decided to wait for the interest to be 
calculated by CDEEE.  Once this interest amount is calculated 
and sent to the Ministry of Finance, the claimant will seek a 
reimbursement that includes the interest (roughly $6 million) 
and the initial offering of $3,758,275 dollars.  At the end 
of May 2007, the Minister of Finance requested Claimant K to 
negotiate the interest payment directly with CDEEE.  The 
claimant views this motion as a positive step to resolving 
the interest payment. 
 
¶12.   a.  Claimant L 
b.  1992 
c.  Claimant L owned 400 square meters of land bordering the 
road to the Santo Domingo Las Americas Airport.  The land was 
expropriated by the government in the 1990,s for highway 
expansion.  Claimant L,s claim is being held up in the 
Ministry of Finance's Legal Department.  In order for 
Claimant L to receive compensation, the Legal Department must 
correct an error, which it committed at the time of the first 
disbursement.   The original disbursement incorrectly 
included the entire property instead of just the back-lot. 
Although Mr. Langa received reimbursement for his back-lot 
property, valued at RD 2,051,724, (paid in bonds) he has yet 
to receive payment for the front lot of his property valued 
at RD 360,000.  The Embassy spoke at length to the Director 
of Public Credit regarding this issue.  On May 7, 2007, the 
Director assured the Embassy that this error will be resolved 
immediately and that Mr. Langa will receive his payment in 
June 2007.  Mr. Langa states that the legal department of the 
Ministry of Finance and the Director,s assistant has 
contacted him to resolve this matter. 
 
¶13.   a.  Claimant M 
b.  2003 
c.  Claimant M is involved in a contractual dispute with the 
Dominican Procuraderia Nacional (Attorney General) concerning 
a telephone system for Dominican prisons.  Claimant M,s 
company, in partnership with a California-based equipment 
maker, is having trouble activating the system in the prisons 
due to bureaucratic delay in the Dominican Procuraderia.  His 
telephone equipment has already been installed in the central 
offices of the Procuraderia General and the Najayo, Puerto 
Plata and La Victoria prisons.  In 2004, when representatives 
of Claimant M went to activate the equipment at the central 
office, they were informed they could not operate the 
equipment until they had a letter of authorization from the 
Procuraderia,s office.  Claimant M has invested over 
$150,000 and is currently losing $7,000 a month waiting for 
the Procuraderia to sign the appropriate letter.  Claimant M 
signed a contract with the government on Sept 4, 2003.  A new 
presidential administration began on August 16, 2004 and 
appears reluctant to honor the agreements of the previous 
administration.  The Embassy has met with the Deputy Attorney 
General for Prisons and the Dominican telecommunications 
regulating agency of behalf of Claimant M. 
 
Although the Embassy continues to discuss this claim with the 
Dominican government, the claimant has not contacted the 
Embassy in over a year.  Embassy personnel have tried to 
contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be reached. 
 
 
¶14.   a.  Claimant N 
b.  2005 
c.  On May 7, 2004, Claimant N and the company he represents 
signed a contract with the government agency, (Corporacion 
Dominicana de Empresas Estatales - CORDE), granting Claimant 
N and his company Agregados del Lago the right to exploit a 
government-owned salt mine in the area of Las Salinas, 
Province of Barahona, for a period of 25 years.  Claimant N 
alleges the government is not honoring the contract and is 
denying his company access to the area. 
 
In February 2005, CORDE took back the mine, claiming that the 
contract was invalid.  Two weeks later, CORDE gave the mine 
back to Claimant N.  In March 2005, however, the Comision de 
Reforma de la Empressa Publica (CREP) took the mine from 
Claimant N and did not permit him or his company access to 
 
the mine.  CREP, which is responsible for handing over state 
companies to private enterprises, stated to Claimant N that 
his contract was invalid because no public concession 
occurred and because Claimant N had an active Dominican 
Senator on Claimant N,s payroll at the time the contract was 
signed.  CREP has since then maintained control of the mine. 
 
Claimant N asserts that he has invested $650,000 in equipment 
and other investments including contractual payments and tax 
payments to the government.  The contract requires Claimant N 
to invest $1.5 million in the mine over the first five years 
of the contract and then $150,000 every year thereafter.  The 
Embassy has contacted CREP, CORDE, as well as the General 
Director of Mining, to seek a resolution on the behalf of 
Claimant N.  CREP provided the Embassy their legal case as to 
why Claimant N,s contract is not valid. 
 
The Embassy discussed this case with the Department,s L 
Bureau and recommended to Claimant N that he should exhaust 
all channels to include legal channels to resolve this case. 
Claimant N asserts that he plans to take his case to court. 
 
¶15.   a.  Claimant O 
b.  2002 
c.  Claimant O entered a contract with Unidad Corporativa 
Minera (UCM, a government-owned entity closed in 2004) to 
determine the economic viability of sulphate based gold 
reserves at the Pueblo Viejo mine.  UCM contracted Claimant O 
to conduct an environmental study, fish assessment, tailings 
dam sitings and an overall technical review.  The job was 
finished in June 2002, but UCM failed to pay Claimant O more 
than $125,629.  Embassy officials have been in contact with 
UCM and the Director General de Mineria.  Obtaining payment 
from the government has been difficult in part because the 
UCM no longer exists and changes at the Office of Public 
Credit have slowed processing. 
 
Although the Embassy continues to discuss this claim with the 
Dominican government, the claimant has not contacted the 
Embassy in over a year.  Embassy personnel have tried to 
contact the claimant, but the claimant could not be reached. 
 
¶16.   a.  Claimant P 
b.  2002 
c.Claimant P is currently involved in a legal dispute with 
the Anabalca Shipyard Company (50% owned by the Dominican 
Navy), the company he contracted to repair his tugboat. 
Anabalca is holding his tugboat as collateral for $40,000 in 
repairs performed after the tugboat experienced transmission 
problems.  Claimant P claims Anabalca did not correctly align 
the shaft, which caused the transmission to break.  Claimant 
P refuses to pay for the services Anabalca has provided.  For 
the last three years the case has been before the Dominican 
Court in Bani.  Claimant P,s tugboat has been in the Port of 
Las Calderas, Province of Peravia, since June 2001.  Embassy 
officials have raised this issue with the managers of the 
Anabalca Shipyard and the Dominican Armed Forces.  The 
Dominican Navy does not operate the shipyard and has no 
authority over the operations of Anabalca and its repair 
shop.  It appears that this dispute is purely a commercial 
dispute. 
 
¶17.   a. Claimant Q 
      b. 2004 (Claimant contacted the Embassy in 2006) 
c. Claimant Q had approximately 251 acres in the Bayahibe 
area expropriated by the Ministry of Environment in 2003. 
Claimant Q had a real estate company value the expropriated 
property at about $24 million dollars.  The Dominican 
authorities, however, valued the land at about $7 million 
dollars.  Claimant Q objects to this pricing and has since 
brought legal action to defend the true value of their 
property.  As of 5/22/2007, the Director of Public Credit, 
Edgar Victoria, told embassy officials that he has requested 
the Ministry of Environment to verify if Claimant Q,s land 
was expropriated in the 1970's for Parque del Este.  If the 
land was expropriated at that time, the value of the claim 
would reflect the value of the land at the time of 
expropriation, which is considerably less than Amcit's claim, 
which values the land in 2003-the time the Amcit believes 
that the land had been expropriated. 
 
¶18.   a. Claimant R (Claimant contacted the Embassy in 2006) 
      b. 2003 
c. Claimant R states that the land their family owned in 
Santo Domingo was expropriated by the government of the 
Dominican Republic.  The file is located at the Tribunal de 
Tierra.  Since 2003, cClaimant R has tried to get reimbursed 
for the expropriated property.  Mr. Edgar Victoria, The 
Director of Public Credit /Deuda-Credito Public of the 
Secretaria de Haciendas told embassy officials in late May 
 
SIPDIS 
2007, that he has all the documets, but that he and is 
 
awaiting for a letter from the cClaimant R to requestthat 
outlines the total amount and includes a check and the newly 
printed property titles from Rosa Abel Castillo from the 
Registro de Titulo at la Feria. 
 
¶19.   a. Claimant S (Claimant contacted the Embassy in 2006) 
      b. 2000 
c. Claimant S states that the land their family owned near La 
Ruina was expropriated by the government of the Dominican 
Republic to build a road.  The government also dumped 
landfill on Claimant S,s property.  Claimant S states that 
the government promised to give them a check, but they never 
received this check.  These claimants have not signed privacy 
act waiversmet with the office of Public Credit to 
substantiate their claims. 
 
¶20.   a. Claimant T (Claimant reinitiated contact with the 
Embassy in 2006) 
      b. 1974 (Claimant reinitiated contact with the Embassy 
in 2006) 
c. Claimant T states that the land and their businesses their 
family owned were expropriated by the government of the 
Dominican Republic in the early 1960,s.  The following is a 
list of the companies that were operated by Claimant T: 
Industria Nacional del Vidrio, Sisal Dominicano, Consorcio 
Algodonero, Sacos y Tejidos Dominicanos, Fabrica de Sacos y 
Corderleria, Sal y Yeso Dominicanos.  A Supreme Court 
decision was made in 1970 in favor of Claimant T.  The 
government reimbursed Claimant T for a portion of the land 
but did not reimburse the family for their businesses and 
other properties.  Claimant T states that the only 
reimbursement the family has received amounts to roughly 10 
percent of the estate that was expropriated.  The Supreme 
Court decision estimated the amount of investment for the 
businesses at USD 34 million at the time of confiscation, 
which was over 30 years ago. 
 
Although Claimant T is new to this list, Claimant T has 
sought Embassy assistance in the past.  Claimant T 
reinitiated contact with the Embassy in the fall of 2006. 
Embassy officials have repeatedly discussed this issue with 
the Director of Public Credit and have sent official notices 
to the Minister of Finance regarding this claim. 
 
According to the Director of Public Credit and the 
President,s counsel, only President Fernandez can authorize 
reimbursement, even though a Supreme Court decision has 
demanded this action over 35 years ago. 
 
Claimant T was not a U.S. citizen at the time of 
expropriation. His children are U.S. citizens and have 
pursued this case with the Embassy, the State Department, and 
U.S. congressmen after the death of their father in 1989. 
 
¶21.     a. Claimant U 
b. 2003 (Claimant contacted the Embassy in 2006) 
c. Two U.S. citizen firms, Skol Associates and Manchester 
Trade,Claimants V have reported an outstanding debt with the 
Dominican government since 2003.  These firms claimants 
report that they performed advocacy work for the Dominican 
Republic, including advocating for your the country's 
inclusion in the Dominican Republic-Central America Free 
Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA).  These firms claimants also 
report that, after years of advances and setbacks in seeking 
payment of their claim, the latest problem preventing payment 
has been that the Dominican Comptroller never certified the 
second contract signed by President Mejia in 2003, though the 
Dominican government has already made partial payments on 
that contract.  The firms claimants believe that the 
Dominican Government should not withhold payments for what 
the claimants firms see as an internal error on the part of 
the Government of the Dominican Republic subsequent to the 
signing of an otherwise valid contract, particularly since 
these claimants firms say they were expected to honor the 
contract immediately following its signing.  Finally, these 
firms are concerned that the change of the calendar year will 
affect the current progress in advancing their claim. 
Embassy officials have met numerous times with government 
officials regarding this case.  In late May of 2007, the 
Director of Public Credit sent a letter to Claimant U asking 
for more information to settle the claim. 
 
 
¶22.     a.  Claimant V 
b. 2002 (Claimant contacted the Embassy in 2007) 
c.  Claimant V had invested in the &Cayman8 power barge 
that sold power to CDEEE in the 1990s. In 2000, CDEEE and the 
government of the Dominican Republic (GoDR) stopped paying 
the bill. Claimant V went into arbitration for the unpaid 
bill with the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) in 
¶2001. Claimant V won an arbitral award ($6 million) in 2005 
 
and notified the Dominican government and CDEEE. Since 2005, 
Claimant V has failed to receive the arbitral award from 
CDEEE.  Claimant V has therefore gone to the federal district 
court in Washington D.C. in order to seize Dominican assets 
in the U.S. against the arbitral award.  Embassy officials 
met with both the Director of Public Credit and CDEEE to 
determine a quick resolution.  Subsequently, Claimant V met 
with CDEEE. CDEEE,s vice-chair agreed to the principal 
amount of the arbitral award and requested to negotiate with 
Claimant V the interest payment.  Claimant V plans to meet 
with CDEEE to negotiate the final settlement in June 2007. 
 
 
=============================== 
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.  These claimants have not signed privacy 
act waivers. 
 
Claimant A: AES Dominican Power Partners, Coastal 
Corporation, Seaboard Corporation, and Maxon Engineering 
Services Inc. 
 
Claimant B:       Boyd Hernandez Collazo 
 
Claimant C:       Hunt Marckwald, Habanero Land Company 
 
Claimant D:       Bob Weidner (Chilott/Prefabicados Linda) 
 
Claimant E:       Ronald Blisset, Blisset Enterprises 
 
Claimant F:             Luis M. Bordas and Neyda Lopez Bordas 
 
Claimant G:       Mercedes Colwin 
 
Claimant H:       Miguel Angel Fuentes Vasallo 
 
Claimant I:       Charles V. Meadows 
 
Claimant J:       Dante Llacuna 
 
Claiment K:       New Hampshire Insurance Company 
 
Claimant L:       Carlos Langa 
 
Claiment M:       Gabelle Prison Telephones- Ruben Cerezo 
 
Claimant N:       Pedro Antonio Martinez, Agregados del Lago, 
S.A 
 
Claimant O:       Pincock, Allen & Holt, subsidiary of 
HartCrowser 
 
Claimant P:       Tugboat Linda W- Gene Martin 
 
Claimant Q:       Carlos Diaz 
 
Claimant R: Rosario Ginebra vd. Del Castillo and Succesores 
de Jesus B. Del Castillo 
 
Claimant S: Maria Rojas 
 
Claimant T: Gadala Maria 
 
Claimant U:       Skol Associates and Manchester Trade 
 
Claimant V:       Elliott Management Corporation &Cayman 
Power Barge8 
BULLEN