VZCZCXYZ0005
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHWR #0687 1680657
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 160657Z JUN 08
FM AMEMBASSY WARSAW
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6564

UNCLAS WARSAW 000687 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EB/IFDD/OIA HGOETHERT, EEB/IFD/OIA KBUTLER, L/CID 
GSWINEY & CHOLLAND 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON EINV KIDE PL
SUBJECT: POLAND: 2008 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND 
EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS 
 
REF: STATE 43784 
 
¶1.  (U)  In response to reftel, post provides the following 
information, in the format requested in reftel para. 15. 
 
¶2.  (U)  Post is aware of two (2) claims of U.S. Claimants 
that may be outstanding against the Government of Poland. 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  (A).  Claimant designation: Claimant A. 
(B)  Approximate year dispute arose: 2003. 
(C)  Case history: In 1995, Claimant A, an American company, 
invested in a sugar substitute production facility, which 
opened in May 2001.  In late 2001, the Polish government 
implemented a national production quota on sugar substitutes. 
 Then in EU accession discussions, the Polish government 
agreed to an even lower quota on sugar substitutes within the 
EU.  These quotas limit the ability of Claimant A to utilize 
its investment.  In February 2003, Claimant A notified the 
Polish government that it would seek international 
arbitration under Article 3 of the UNCITRAL rules.  In Spring 
2008, the arbitration panel determined that Claimant A was 
entitled to a monetary award, with interest.  Claimant A is 
awaiting a response from the Polish government regarding when 
the Polish government will either seek an appeal or satisfy 
the arbitral decision. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  (A)  Claimant designation: Claimant B. 
(B)  Approximate year dispute arose:  2003. 
(C)  Case history:  In 1999, Claimant B began construction of 
an import/export facility on land leased from a 
Polish-government controlled port authority.  After several 
investors withdrew from the project, construction halted in 
¶2003.  The port authority refused to pay Claimant B for work 
accomplished.  Claimant B found a potential buyer to take 
over the project, but the sale fell through because, Claimant 
B alleges, of the port authority's actions.  In 2005, the 
Polish Arbitration Court determined that Claimant B owed the 
port authority arrears, and declared that the land lease 
remained in effect.  In 2006, the lease was terminated.  In 
February 2008, Claimant B filed a counterclaim with the 
Polish Arbitration Court, seeking US$75 million-$US180 
million in damages.  That case is still pending. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  This paragraph contains business proprietary 
information, and is not for public release.  Post has no 
information to indicate that either Claimant A or Claimant B 
has signed a Privacy Act waiver.  As reported in prior years, 
Claimant A. is Cargill.  Claimant B is Europort, a 
Canada-U.S. consortium.  All shares of Europort are owned by 
Renaissance Trust LP and Dessaport International 
Corportation.  Renaissance Trust LP is owned by U.S. citizen 
Joseph D'Andrea. 
Min