Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 97115 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
ETRD EAGR ETTC EAID ECON EFIN ECIN EINV ELAB EAIR ENRG EPET EWWT ECPS EIND EMIN ELTN EC ETMIN EUC EZ ET ELECTIONS ENVR EU EUN EG EINT ER ECONOMICS ES EMS ENIV EEB EN ECE ECOSOC EK ENVIRONMENT EFIS EI EWT ENGRD ECPSN EXIM EIAD ERIN ECPC EDEV ENGY ECTRD EPA ESTH ECCT EINVECON ENGR ERTD EUR EAP EWWC ELTD EL EXIMOPIC EXTERNAL ETRDEC ESCAP ECO EGAD ELNT ECONOMIC ENV ETRN EIAR EUMEM ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID EREL ECOM ECONETRDEAGRJA ETCC ETRG ECONOMY EMED ETR ENERG EITC EFINOECD EURM EENG ERA EXPORT ENRD ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EGEN EBRD EVIN ETRAD ECOWAS EFTA ECONETRDBESPAR EGOVSY EPIN EID ECONENRG EDRC ESENV ETT EB ENER ELTNSNAR ECHEVARRIA ETRC EPIT EDUC ESA EFI ENRGY ESCI EE EAIDXMXAXBXFFR EETC ECIP EIAID EIVN EBEXP ESTN EING EGOV ETRA EPETEIND ELAN ETRDGK EAIDRW ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ENVI ELN EAG EPCS EPRT EPTED ETRB EUM EAIDS EFIC EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM EAIDAR ESF EIDN ELAM EDU EV EAIDAF ECN EDA EXBS EINTECPS ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EPREL EAC EINVEFIN ETA EAGER EINDIR ECA ECLAC ELAP EITI EUCOM ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID EARG ELDIN EINVKSCA ENNP EFINECONCS EFINTS ECCP ETC EAIRASECCASCID EINN ETRP EAIDNI EFQ ECOQKPKO EGPHUM EBUD ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ENERGY ELB EINDETRD EMI ECONEFIN EIB EURN ETRDEINVTINTCS EIN EFIM ETIO ELAINE EMN EATO EWTR EIPR EINVETC ETTD ETDR EIQ ECONCS EPPD ENRGIZ EISL ESPINOSA ELEC EAIG ESLCO EUREM ENTG ERD EINVECONSENVCSJA EEPET EUNCH ECINECONCS ETRO ETRDECONWTOCS ECUN EFND EPECO EAIRECONRP ERGR ETRDPGOV ECPN ENRGMO EPWR EET EAIS EAGRE EDUARDO EAGRRP EAIDPHUMPRELUG EICN ECONQH EVN EGHG ELBR EINF EAIDHO EENV ETEX ERNG ED
KMDR KPAO KPKO KJUS KCRM KGHG KFRD KWMN KDEM KTFN KHIV KGIC KIDE KSCA KNNP KHUM KIPR KSUM KISL KIRF KCOR KRCM KPAL KWBG KN KS KOMC KSEP KFLU KPWR KTIA KSEO KMPI KHLS KICC KSTH KMCA KVPR KPRM KE KU KZ KFLO KSAF KTIP KTEX KBCT KOCI KOLY KOR KAWC KACT KUNR KTDB KSTC KLIG KSKN KNN KCFE KCIP KGHA KHDP KPOW KUNC KDRL KV KPREL KCRS KPOL KRVC KRIM KGIT KWIR KT KIRC KOMO KRFD KUWAIT KG KFIN KSCI KTFIN KFTN KGOV KPRV KSAC KGIV KCRIM KPIR KSOC KBIO KW KGLB KMWN KPO KFSC KSEAO KSTCPL KSI KPRP KREC KFPC KUNH KCSA KMRS KNDP KR KICCPUR KPPAO KCSY KTBT KCIS KNEP KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNNB KGCC KINR KPOP KMFO KENV KNAR KVIR KDRG KDMR KFCE KNAO KDEN KGCN KICA KIMMITT KMCC KLFU KMSG KSEC KUM KCUL KMNP KSMT KCOM KOMCSG KSPR KPMI KRAD KIND KCRP KAUST KWAWC KTER KCHG KRDP KPAS KITA KTSC KPAOPREL KWGB KIRP KJUST KMIG KLAB KTFR KSEI KSTT KAPO KSTS KLSO KWNN KPOA KHSA KNPP KPAONZ KBTS KWWW KY KJRE KPAOKMDRKE KCRCM KSCS KWMNCI KESO KWUN KPLS KIIP KEDEM KPAOY KRIF KGICKS KREF KTRD KFRDSOCIRO KTAO KJU KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KEN KO KNEI KEMR KKIV KEAI KWAC KRCIM KWCI KFIU KWIC KCORR KOMS KNNO KPAI KBWG KTTB KTBD KTIALG KILS KFEM KTDM KESS KNUC KPA KOMCCO KCEM KRCS KWBGSY KNPPIS KNNPMNUC KWN KERG KLTN KALM KCCP KSUMPHUM KREL KGH KLIP KTLA KAWK KWMM KVRP KVRC KAID KSLG KDEMK KX KIF KNPR KCFC KFTFN KTFM KPDD KCERS KMOC KDEMAF KMEPI KEMS KDRM KEPREL KBTR KEDU KNP KIRL KNNR KMPT KISLPINR KTPN KA KJUSTH KPIN KDEV KTDD KAKA KFRP KWNM KTSD KINL KJUSKUNR KWWMN KECF KWBC KPRO KVBL KOM KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KEDM KFLD KLPM KRGY KNNF KICR KIFR KM KWMNCS KAWS KLAP KPAK KDDG KCGC KID KNSD KMPF KPFO KDP KCMR KRMS KNPT KNNNP KTIAPARM KDTB KNUP KPGOV KNAP KNNC KUK KSRE KREISLER KIVP KQ KTIAEUN KPALAOIS KRM KISLAO KWM KFLOA
PHUM PINR PTER PGOV PREL PREF PL PM PHSA PE PARM PINS PK PUNE PO PALESTINIAN PU PBTS PROP PTBS POL POLI PA PGOVZI POLMIL POLITICAL PARTIES POLM PD POLITICS POLICY PAS PMIL PINT PNAT PV PKO PPOL PERSONS PING PBIO PH PETR PARMS PRES PCON PETERS PRELBR PT PLAB PP PAK PDEM PKPA PSOCI PF PLO PTERM PJUS PSOE PELOSI PROPERTY PGOVPREL PARP PRL PNIR PHUMKPAL PG PREZ PGIC PBOV PAO PKK PROV PHSAK PHUMPREL PROTECTION PGOVBL PSI PRELPK PGOVENRG PUM PRELKPKO PATTY PSOC PRIVATIZATION PRELSP PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PMIG PREC PAIGH PROG PSHA PARK PETER POG PHUS PPREL PS PTERPREL PRELPGOV POV PKPO PGOVECON POUS PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PWBG PMAR PREM PAR PNR PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PARMIR PGOVGM PHUH PARTM PN PRE PTE PY POLUN PPEL PDOV PGOVSOCI PIRF PGOVPM PBST PRELEVU PGOR PBTSRU PRM PRELKPAOIZ PGVO PERL PGOC PAGR PMIN PHUMR PVIP PPD PGV PRAM PINL PKPAL PTERE PGOF PINO PHAS PODC PRHUM PHUMA PREO PPA PEPFAR PGO PRGOV PAC PRESL PORG PKFK PEPR PRELP PREFA PNG PGOVPHUMKPAO PRELECON PINOCHET PFOR PGOVLO PHUMBA PRELC PREK PHUME PHJM POLINT PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PGOVE PHALANAGE PARTY PECON PEACE PROCESS PLN PRELSW PAHO PEDRO PRELA PASS PPAO PGPV PNUM PCUL PGGV PSA PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PGIV PRFE POGOV PEL PBT PAMQ PINF PSEPC POSTS PHUMPGOV PVOV PHSAPREL PROLIFERATION PENA PRELTBIOBA PIN PRELL PGOVPTER PHAM PHYTRP PTEL PTERPGOV PHARM PROTESTS PRELAF PKBL PRELKPAO PKNP PARMP PHUML PFOV PERM PUOS PRELGOV PHUMPTER PARAGRAPH PERURENA PBTSEWWT PCI PETROL PINSO PINSCE PQL PEREZ PBS

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 09BUENOSAIRES846, 2009 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND EXPROPRIATION

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #09BUENOSAIRES846.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
09BUENOSAIRES846 2009-07-20 18:45 2011-08-25 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Buenos Aires
VZCZCXYZ0026
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBU #0846/01 2011845
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201845Z JUL 09
FM AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4096
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHINGTON DC
INFO RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/HQ USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL
RUCNMER/MERCOSUR COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS BUENOS AIRES 000846 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
EEB/IFD/OIA FOR HGOETHERT, KBUTLER 
L/CID FOR PPEARSALL 
USDOC FOR 4322/ITA/MAC/OLAC/PEACHER 
TREASURY FOR LUYEN TRAN, WILLIAM LINDQUIST 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EINV KIDE ECON PGOV PREL OPIC AR
SUBJECT: 2009 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND EXPROPRIATION 
CLAIMS: ARGENTINA 
 
REF: SECSTATE 49477 
 
1. (SBU)  The United States Government is aware of sixteen (16) 
claims against the Government of Argentina (GOA), one of which was 
resolved during 2007 but whose award has not been implemented by the 
GOA yet (Claimant C), and two others that were resolved during 2008 
and 2009 (Claimant I and Claimant K).  The other 13 cases are still 
active; five have resulted in awards for the claimants that are now 
being challenged in annulment procedures.  Many of these claims 
arise in whole or in part from the GOA's implementation of Emergency 
Law 25,561 on January 6, 2002.  This law (among other things) 
converted contract provisions denominated in US dollars into 
Argentine pesos at a 1:1 rate (a process known as "pesification") 
and rescinded previously-sanctioned indexation of contracts to US 
inflation indices.  US investors contend that such measures 
unilaterally derogated contractual agreements and effectively 
expropriated US investor capital.  The two new claims result from 
the 2008 confiscation of private pension funds and have not yet 
resulted in formal arbitration claims. 
 
2. (SBU) Many of these claims remain in arbitration proceedings 
through the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of 
Investment Disputes (ICSID).  Post does not advocate on behalf of 
U.S. firms in judicial or arbitration cases while formal proceedings 
are underway.  Some ICSID cases that have been temporarily suspended 
by mutual agreement of the parties are considered to be active under 
the terms of the ICSID Convention.  In cases where formal ICSID 
proceedings have ended but the GOA has yet to fulfill the 
requirements of the award (e.g., Claimant C), Embassy actively 
advocates for prompt final resolution. 
 
3. (SBU) a. Claimant A 
 
b. 2002 
 
c. Claimant A is a US energy sector utility with gas distribution 
assets in Argentina.  Its dollar-based gas distribution contracts in 
Argentina were linked to the US Producer Price Index.  In March 
2002, Claimant A initiated consultations under ICSID, claiming that 
various provisions of Emergency Law 25,561 voided its distribution 
contracts and effectively expropriated its capital investment. 
Claimant A also charged that the GOA had failed to pay contractually 
mandated subsidy payments in compensation for pricing its gas at 
below-market rates.  Claimant A filed for ICSID arbitration on 
September 10, 2002.  Its request for arbitration was accepted on 
December 6, 2002.  On February 27, 2003, Claimant A's business 
partner filed an arbitration claim under a bilateral investment 
treaty between Luxembourg and Argentina.  The two claims will be 
treated jointly.  The tribunal ruled against the GOA's objections to 
its jurisdiction.  Both parties filed post-hearing briefings on 
April 3, 2006.  In April 2007, the GOA and Claimant A's business 
partner reached an agreement on tariff increases and domestic 
investment, which included a settlement to suspend its portion of 
the  ICSID case, which it did.  The tribunal closed proceedings on 
Claimant A's case on July 19, 2007, and granted a final award to the 
Claimant on September 28, 2007.  The award established that the GOA 
breached its obligations to accord the Claimant fair and equitable 
treatment and to observe the obligations entered into with regard to 
the investment under the US-Argentine Bilateral Investment Treaty. 
The award directs the GOA to pay the Claimant compensation in the 
amount of USD128.3 million and interest (compounded semiannually at 
six-month LIBOR plus 2%, beginning on January 1, 2002 until the date 
of the award).  Under ICSID rules, the GOA registered an annulment 
request January 30, 2008, and the request is now being considered by 
an ad-hoc ICSID committee.  On September 16, 2008, Claimant A filed 
a request for the termination of the provisional stay of enforcement 
of the award granted to the GOA, which resulted in a March 5, 2009 
decision from the ad-hoc committee establishing that the stay of 
enforcement would continue in effect for the duration of the 
annulment proceedings.  The stay was granted with the condition that 
Argentina place in escrow USD 75 million which, including accrued 
interest, would be collectible in its entirety by Claimant A in 
partial discharge of Argentina's payment obligation under the award, 
in the event that Argentina's application for annulment of the award 
was completely rejected.  If the application was partially accepted 
by the Committee, Claimant A could collect the funds in escrow for 
that portion of the Award which was not annulled.  If Argentina 
failed to place in escrow the sum required within 120 days from the 
date of the decision, the Committee may - at the request of Claimant 
A - order the termination of the stay of enforcement with or without 
providing any opportunity for Argentina to make up for any 
delinquent payment.  On May 13, Claimant A filed a request for the 
 
 
termination of the stay of enforcement of the award.  Argentina did 
not place in escrow the sum required before the July 3, 2009 
deadline. 
 
4. (SBU) a. Claimant B 
 
b. 2001 
 
c. Claimant B, a US energy sector firm, has a substantial minority 
investment in an Argentine gas pipeline whose dollar-based 
transmission contract was linked to the US producer price index. 
Claimant B initiated preliminary consultations under ICSID 
arbitration guidelines in September 2001 following a GOA decision to 
cease approving index-related increases in gas transmission fees. 
In May 2002, Claimant B began a process to expand its ICSID claim to 
address certain provisions of Emergency Law 25,561.  Claimant B 
filed for ICSID arbitration on March 19, 2003.  The tribunal issued 
a ruling on jurisdiction in January 2004 in favor of Claimant B.  On 
May 22, 2007, the tribunal ruled against Argentina in this case, 
awarding USD 106.2 million in damages.  In addition to the 
compensation award, the ICSID arbitral panel ruled that the GOA must 
pay interest (at Libor plus 2%) for the period between January 2002 
and the May 22, 2007 ruling.  Claimant registered a request for 
rectification on July 16, 2007, asking the tribunal to order the GOA 
to continue paying interest on the amount awarded until full payment 
is made.  On October 25, 2007, the tribunal concluded that 
post-award interest could not be awarded.  On the award itself, the 
GOA registered an annulment request on March 7, 2008.  After the 
annulment ad-hoc committee was constituted, on June 18, 2008, 
Claimant B filed a request to terminate the provisional stay of 
enforcement of the award, or alternatively, to condition a 
continuation of the stay on Argentina's posting adequate security. 
On October 7, 2008, the ad-hoc committee decided in favor of an 
extension of the stay of enforcement, stating however that the 
committee understood that it was Argentina's intention, in the event 
that the award was not annulled, not to pay the Award but to require 
the Claimant to bring proceedings for the enforcement of the Award 
under the provisions of Argentine law that implement Article 54 of 
the ICSID Convention.  The committee therefore understood that 
Argentina, in the event that the Award was not annulled, at that 
time had the intention to engage in conduct that would amount to 
non-compliance with its obligations under the BIT and Article 53(1) 
of the ICSID Convention.  The committee found Argentina's position 
as to its obligations to pay on a final award to be incorrect, 
although the committee accepted that Argentina had acted 
consistently with its own good faith interpretation of the BIT and 
the ICSID Convention, and regarded 60 days as sufficient time for 
Argentina to reconsider its position on the extent of its 
obligations to pay on the final award if annulment was refused in 
this matter.  The Committee indicated that after 60 days, it would 
be prepared to reconsider the issue of continuance of the stay upon 
the application of the Claimant.  However, Argentina did not change 
its position after the 60-day period, and the Claimant requested the 
Committee to lift the provisional stay of enforcement of the award. 
Nevertheless, the ad-hoc Committee on May 20, 2009 granted to 
Argentina an extension of the provisional stay of enforcement of the 
award.  GOA officials told Embassy officials that this was the 
Committee's response to Argentina's argument that any amount placed 
in escrow would be very likely seized by Argentina's defaulted debt 
bond-holders. 
 
5. (SBU) a. Claimant C 
 
b. 2000 
 
c. Claimant C is a US energy sector infrastructure firm that 
operates natural gas pipelines in Argentina through a local company 
under a license granted to the local company by the GOA.  The 
Argentine gas legal framework and the local company's license linked 
the tariffs for gas transmission services to the US producer price 
index.  On October 20, 2000, following a decision by the GOA to 
cease approving index-related increases in gas transmission tariffs, 
Claimant C initiated preliminary consultations with the GOA under 
the US-Argentine Bilateral Investment Treaty.  On July 24, 2001, 
Claimant C filed for ICSID arbitration, claiming over USD100 million 
in compensation.  On January 6, 2002, the GOA passed Emergency Law 
25,561, which abolished adjustments and indexation clauses in 
contracts contained in licenses, and converted all 
dollar-denominated tariffs into pesos at the mandatory rate of 1 
peso per USD.  On February 13, 2002, Claimant C wrote to the GOA, 
saying these measures further affected Claimant C's property rights 
and were tantamount to an expropriation.  On July 5, 2002, Claimant 
 
C submitted its memorial seeking USD 261.1 million in damages from 
the GOA for expropriation of its investment.  On May 12, 2005, 
Claimant C received an award of USD 133.2 million from the ICSID 
tribunal, with interest to date of payment, and granting the GOA a 
right to purchase Claimant C's interest in its local affiliate for 
an additional payment.  On September 27, 2005, the GOA filed an 
ICSID application to institute annulment proceedings.  The ad-hoc 
ICSID annulment committee on September 25, 2007 annulled one 
sub-paragraph, but dismissed all other GOA claims, so most of the 
award remains in force.  The GOA declined to make any payment, 
arguing that the ICSID award must be further adjudicated in domestic 
courts.  Claimant rejected this interpretation of ICSID regulations. 
 The period during which the GOA had the right to purchase 
Claimant's C interests in its local affiliate expired on May 12, 
2008.  On June 5, 2008, Claimant informed Embassy that it had sold 
both its interest in the local affiliate and its ICSID award to a 
U.S. investment fund.  This investment fund has informed Embassy 
that it will continue efforts to collect this ICSID award from the 
GOA.  Following the September 25, 2007 conclusion of the ICSID 
arbitration process, the Embassy has actively encouraged GOA 
officials to fulfill Argentina's commitment to the Claimant under 
the terms of the ICSID Convention. 
 
6. (SBU) a. Claimant D 
 
b. 2000 
 
c.   Claimant D is a diversified US energy sector firm with gas 
transmission assets in Argentina whose dollar-based transmission 
contract was linked to the US producer price index.  In October 
2000, following a GOA decision to no longer approve index-related 
increases in gas transmission fees, Claimant D initiated preliminary 
consultations under ICSID arbitration guidelines and formally filed 
for ICSID arbitration in March 2001.  In May 2002, Claimant D began 
a process to expand its ICSID claim to include provisions of 
Emergency Law 25,561.  On April 30, 2004, the arbitral panel issued 
its decision on jurisdiction, ruling in favor of Claimant D on all 
jurisdictional issues.  On October 3, 2006, the tribunal decided on 
liability, based upon the GOA's assertion that provisions of 
Emergency Law 25,561 were adopted pursuant to a "state of necessity" 
that reflected the rights of the GOA to pursue "measures necessary 
for the maintenance of public order...or the protection of its own 
essential security interests" as recognized under Article XI of the 
U.S. - Argentine Bilateral Investment Treaty.  The tribunal 
concluded that the GOA underwent a "state of necessity" starting 
December 1, 2001 and ending April 26, 2003.  The tribunal a) 
dismissed the claim for expropriation of the investment; b) found 
that Argentina breached the standard of fair and equitable 
treatment, which was to provide no less favorable treatment than 
that to be accorded under the international law, and adopted 
discriminatory measures, causing damage to Claimant D; and c) 
determined that the standard prohibiting the adoption of arbitrary 
measures was not violated.  The tribunal ruled that Argentina was 
exempted from the payment of compensation for damages incurred 
during the state of necessity; however, Argentina was liable for 
damages outside that period.  The tribunal rendered a USD 57.4 
million plus interest award on July 25, 2007.  On July 8, 2008, the 
tribunal denied Claimant D's request for a supplementary decision to 
increase the amount awarded.  On September 19, 2008, Claimant D 
applied for the annulment of the July 25, 2007 award.  On December 
24, 2008, Argentina applied for the partial annulment of the award. 
The proceeding was suspended pursuant to the parties' agreement on 
March 11, 2009 and the suspension was extended on June 12, 2009. 
 
7. (SBU) a. Claimant E (First Claim) 
 
b. 2001 
 
c. Claimant E is a water resource management company that, through a 
local subsidiary, won a 30-year concession in 1999 to manage a 
significant share of Buenos Aires Province's water and wastewater 
management facilities.  Many of its tariff rights under the 
Concession Contract were effectively repudiated by the Province when 
the water in one city turned sour in April 2000 because of algae in 
the local reservoir which was under the Province's exclusive 
control.  According to Claimant E, provincial officials blamed 
Claimant E for the problems, refused to allow the company to bill 
for its services, required the company to provide bottled water to 
the town at the company's expense, and publicly announced that 
people should not pay their water bills.  The Province also 
allegedly repudiated Claimant E's right to amortize its bid payment. 
 In January 2001, Claimant E filed for ICSID arbitration.  Following 
 
 
unsuccessful settlement efforts, an ICSID panel was constituted in 
July 2001, and the case was formally accepted by the panel in 
September 2001.  While the arbitration case remained in process, 
Claimant E filed for bankruptcy in December 2001 and returned 
operation of all its water and wastewater management facilities to 
provincial authorities in March 2002.  The final hearing on the 
merits was held in March 2005.  In June 2006, the tribunal decided 
that the respondent had failed to accord full protection and 
security to the investment and that the respondent had breached the 
U.S. - Argentine Bilateral Investment Treaty by taking arbitrary 
measures that impaired the Claimant's use and enjoyment of its 
investment.  Therefore, it awarded compensation to Claimant E of USD 
165.2 million.  The Argentine Republic registered an ICSID annulment 
proceeding on December 11, 2006 to contest the award, and an ad-hoc 
Committee to consider the annulment request was constituted on June 
14, 2007.  On December 28, 2007, the ad-hoc ICSID annulment 
committee unanimously decided that enforcement of the award should 
be stayed pending the committee's decision on Argentina's 
application for annulment and declined to order the provision of any 
security during the period of the stay. 
 
8. (SBU) a. Claimant E (Second Claim) 
 
b. 2003 
 
c. Claimant E held, through a local subsidiary, a concession to 
manage a significant share of Mendoza Province's water and 
wastewater management facilities.  Claimant E filed for ICSID 
arbitration in 2003, alleging that by interfering with Claimant E's 
contractual rights, the province effectively repudiated its 
concession.  ICSID registered the claim on December 8, 2003.  The 
ICSID tribunal was constituted March 28, 2008 and it invited the 
parties to file submissions on jurisdiction on June 2, 2009. 
 
9. (SBU) a. Claimant F 
 
b. 2002 
 
c. Claimant F owns and operates several hydrocarbon and 
hydroelectric power plants in Argentina, and has electricity 
distribution concessions in the Province of Buenos Aires.  In March 
2002, Claimant F pursued informal negotiations claiming that the 
pesification of its dollar-denominated distribution contracts and 
the devaluation of the peso have resulted in the effective 
expropriation of a large portion of the value of its investment.  In 
April 2005, one of Claimant F's subsidiaries signed a definitive 
agreement on renegotiation of its concession agreement with the GOA. 
 The agreement was ratified by the Argentine Congress in May.  As 
part of that agreement, Claimant F agreed to suspend its claim, and 
to definitively drop its claim if a tariff agreement were approved. 
The parties requested the suspension of proceedings, which the 
tribunal accepted on January 23, 2006.  The tribunal has renewed the 
suspension on several occasions, the last being December 15, 2008. 
Portions of the proceedings referring to Claimant F's other two 
distribution subsidiaries were discontinued after Claimant F reached 
an agreement with the provincial government. 
 
10. (SBU) a. Claimant G 
 
b. 2001 
 
c. Claimant G is an information systems provider that won a USD 37 
million public bid contract to provide information services to the 
judicial branch.  The contract amount was payable in 36 equal 
monthly installments beginning when the system was completed.  Work 
started in early 1998.  Some 85 percent of the work had been 
completed by November 1999, and the remaining 15 percent was 
completed in December 2000.  During work on the contract, Claimant G 
agreed to do USD 30 million in additional information systems work 
for the GOA.  It also provided the GOA with USD 3.5 million in 
postal machinery.  In January 2001, the GOA began paying for the 85 
percent work completed in November 1999, and in February 2001, on 
the remaining 15 percent.  In December 2001, the contract was 
pesified (all dollar-denominated tariffs converted into pesos at the 
rate of 1 peso per USD) by law.  From January 2002 through April 
2003, the GOA made no payments under the contract, even after it had 
been pesified. 
 
Claimant G filed notice of its intention to pursue ICSID arbitration 
in October 2002.  It held friendly consultations with the GOA in 
February 2003 without success.  ICSID formally registered Claimant 
G's claim on October 15, 2003.  The claim is based on allegations of 
 
 
the pesification of the original contract, the refusal to recognize 
the additional work done under the contract, and the non-payment 
from February 2002 through April 2003.  Total claim amount is 
approximately USD 55 million.  According to Claimant G, this does 
not include a claim for the value of the postal machinery because 
the GOA has recognized that debt and repeatedly promised to pay it. 
Before an arbitral panel was constituted to hear the claim, the 
parties signed an agreement in August 2005 to postpone the case and 
jointly appointed accounting and technical experts to examine the 
facts.  The suspension of the case has since been extended several 
times.  On July 31, 2006, the accounting expert issued a report 
establishing compensation for Claimant G in the range of ARP 21.6 
million (USD 7 million) to ARP 38.4 million (USD 12.5 million). 
Once the parties agree on this range, a technical expert will begin 
its part of the analysis.  These reports will be used as the basis 
for final settlement negotiations.  The ICSID tribunal confirmed the 
suspension of the proceedings in April 2007 as negotiations 
continue.  However, Claimant G was notified on April 10, 2008, of a 
resolution issued by a judiciary agency directing Claimant G to pay 
a penalty of approximately USD 4.5 million plus interest charges, 
dating back to the beginning of the contract (1998).  Claimant G is 
in active discussions with the GOA about the accounting expert's 
findings, the pending technical report and the penalty.  The Embassy 
is supporting Claimant G's efforts to engage senior GOA officials to 
speed the resolution of its claim. 
 
11. (SBU) a. Claimant H 
 
b. 2003 
 
c. Claimant H owned an interest in electrical generating plants and 
in an oil and gas company operating in Argentina.  In January 2002, 
Argentina pesified dollar-denominated oil and gas supply contracts, 
imposed an oil export tax in alleged violation of decrees from 1992 
that guaranteed export tax stability, and changed the electrical 
generation regulatory and legal framework based on which the company 
invested.  Claimant H filed for ICSID arbitration in June 2003.  On 
April 27, 2006, an ICSID tribunal issued a decision on jurisdiction 
in favor of Claimant H.  The Claimant filed a reply on the merits 
November 28, 2006 and parties filed answers to questions posed by 
the tribunal during the hearing on the merits on August 2, 2007.  An 
ICSID tribunal decision on the merits remains pending. 
 
12. (SBU) a. Claimant I - Resolved 
 
b. 2003 
 
c. Claimant I is a provider of leasing services in Argentina. 
Claimant I's claim was registered with ICSID on February 27, 2004. 
The claim asserted that various actions by the Government of 
Argentina effectively expropriated the value of its investment.  On 
December 28, 2005, the GOA filed a memorial objecting on 
jurisdiction grounds.  On April 2, 2007, the tribunal rejected the 
GOA's objections.   The Tribunal issued an order taking note of the 
discontinuance of the proceeding on May 12, 2009, so the case is now 
concluded. 
 
13. (SBU) a. Claimant J 
 
b. 2003 
 
c. Claimant J is an insurance company with operations in Argentina. 
ICSID registered Claimant J's complaint on May 22, 2003.  An 
arbitration panel was selected, and had its first session on January 
29, 2004.  The tribunal found that it had jurisdiction over the 
claim on February 22, 2006.  The tribunal rendered an award on 
September 5, 2008, which established that, except for Claimant J's 
claim on how the restructuring of LETEs (a type of Treasury bill) 
affected it, all other substantive claims were dismissed.  Regarding 
the claim relating to the LETEs, Argentina was found liable for 
compensation of USD 2.8 million and compound interest thereon at at 
six-month LIBOR plus 2% compounded annually from January 1, 2005 
until payment.  On October 16, ICSID registered a request for 
rectification of the award by Claimant J, and on November 6, ICSID 
registered another request for rectification from Argentina.  The 
tribunal decided on both requests on February 23, 2009.  Most 
notably, in this decision the tribunal assented to the rectification 
request by Argentina to clarify that Argentina had not opposed the 
possibility of the tribunal consulting with the USG on its own view 
of some provisions contained in the US-Argentine Bilateral 
Investment Treaty (BIT).  This was because in the decision, the 
tribunal had stated that neither Claimant J nor Argentina "wished 
 
 
the tribunal to invite the U.S. to state its position formally for 
the purposes of these arbitration proceedings, one way or the 
other."  Argentina pointed out in its rectification request that it 
had not opposed such a consultation during the arbitral hearings - 
even if Argentina had not gone so far as to request that the 
tribunal consult the USG.  In response to Argentina's rectification 
request, the tribunal decided in its rectification decision to alter 
the award's wording so as to make clear that neither party 
"requested" that the tribunal consult with the USG on the 
interpretation to be given to Article 11 of the BIT.  On January 14, 
ICSID registered an application for the annulment of the award 
submitted by Claimant J, and on June 8, 2009, ICSID registered an 
application for the partial annulment of the award, submitted by 
Argentina. 
 
 
14. (SBU) a. Claimant K - Resolved 
 
b. 2003 
 
c. Claimant K consists of two companies, an Argentine energy firm 
and its largest foreign shareholder, which owned interests in 
electrical generating plants and hydrocarbon development assets in 
Argentina.  In January 2002, Argentina pesified dollar-denominated 
oil and gas supply contracts, imposed an oil export tax in alleged 
violation of decrees from 1992 that guaranteed export tax stability, 
and changed the electrical generation regulatory and legal framework 
on which the company's investment was based.  Claimant K filed two 
claims with ICSID in June 2003, and the claims were heard jointly by 
one arbitration panel.  The panel held a hearing on jurisdiction in 
March 2005.  Meanwhile, the Province of Chubut Government 
renegotiated its hydrocarbon exploration and development concession 
contract with Claimant K.  A provision of this concession extension 
agreement required Claimant K to discontinue its ICSID claim.  The 
GOA attorney general's office announced that an agreement of the 
parties had been reached and that Claimant K cancelled its case June 
23, 2008.  The ICSID Tribunal took official note of the 
discontinuance order on August 20, 2008. 
 
15. (SBU) a. Claimant L 
 
b. 2004 
 
c. Claimant L is an oil and gas exploration and development company. 
 Claimant L contends that its investment was effectively 
expropriated following the 2002 pesification of its 
dollar-denominated oil and gas supply contracts.  Claimant L also 
complains that the imposition of export taxes in 2002 violated the 
decrees that were in force at the time of its investment.  Claimant 
L's claim was formally registered August 5, 2004.  Claimant L filed 
an ancillary claim to expand the case on February 14, 2006, and a 
second such ancillary claim on October 23, 2007.  Claimant L filed a 
memorial on the merits on February 16, 2009.  The GOA filed a 
memorial on jurisdiction on May 14, 2009. 
 
16. (SBU) a. Claimant M 
 
b. 2005 
 
c. Claimant M is an Argentina-based company with US and German 
investors.  It formally registered its claim with ICSID on June 23, 
2005.  Claimant M seeks USD 20 million from the GOA, claiming that a 
local bank illegally canceled contracts in 2003, resulting in 
expropriation of its funds.  An arbitral panel was constituted on 
March 27, 2006.  The tribunal held its first session March 2, 2007. 
Following a request by the parties, the tribunal suspended the 
proceedings for the first time on July 18, 2007, with subsequent 
extensions.  Eventually, the case continued, and Claimant M filed a 
memorial on the merits on January 15, 2009.  The GOA filed a 
memorial on jurisdiction on May 1, 2009. 
 
17. (SBU) a. Claimant N 
 
b. 2008 
 
c. On October 21, 2008, with no advance warning, the GOA proposed 
legislation to nationalize the AFJP (Argentine private pension 
funds) management system.  Argentina's Congress passed the law on 
November 20, and it entered into effect December 9.  The bill 
affected two U.S. companies: Claimant N and Claimant O (see para 
16).  At the time of the nationalization, Claimant N had become the 
largest AFJP in Argentina as measured by assets under management. 
 
 
Both claimants N and O requested that the USG clarify to the GOA the 
importance of ensuring that the nationalization process be fair and 
properly executed.  Specifically, they requested that the GOA grant 
a clean and transparent transfer of AFJP client assets, that the GOA 
grant proper compensation for the negative impact that AFJP 
shareholders will suffer through this regulatory reform, and that 
there be respectful treatment of AFJP executives and their corporate 
brands throughout the process.  Senior Embassy officials as well as 
visiting USG officials and visiting Members of the U.S. Congress 
have raised these points with various senior GOA officials.  To 
date, however, the GOA has not broached the subject of compensation 
for the nationalization of AFJPs' business operations, and the five 
affected foreign companies (including Claimant N and Claimant O) are 
all reportedly considering whether to pursue international 
arbitration via ICSID. 
 
18. (SBU) a. Claimant O 
 
b. 2008 
 
c. Claimant O was a minority shareholder in an AFJP separate from 
Claimant N's. 
 
19. (SBU) Identification of Claimants 
 
Claimant A: Sempra Energy International 
Claimant B: Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron 
Corporation) as shareholder of TGS 
Claimant C: CMS Gas Transmission Company 
Claimant D: LG&E Energy Corporation, LG&E Capital Corporation and 
LG&E International Inc. 
Claimant E: Enron as shareholder of Azurix 
Claimant F: AES Corporation 
Claimant G: Unisys Corporation 
Claimant H: El Paso Energy International Company 
Claimant I: CIT Group Inc. 
Claimant J: Continental Casualty Company 
Claimant K: Pan American Energy LLC, BP Argentina Exploration 
Company, and BP America Production Company 
Claimant L: Mobil Exploration and Development Inc. Suc. Argentina 
and Mobil Argentina S.A. 
Claimant M: Asset Recovery Trust 
Claimant N: Metropolitan Life 
Claimant O: New York Life International LLC 
 
KELLY