Anda di halaman 1dari 4

6 July 2011 To: His Excellency the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Mr I. A.

Karimov Uzbekistan 100163 Tashkent 43, Uzbekistanskaya Street Mr R. S. Azimov, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Uzbekistan Uzbekistan 100078 Tashkent 5, Mustaqillik Square Mr M. Mirzaev, Deputy Minister of Finance Cabinet of Ministers Uzbekistan 100078 Tashkent 5, Mustaqillik Square Fax: +998 (71) 239-84-63 State Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan for Geology & Mineral Resources (Goskomgeology) Attention of Mr I. B. Turamuratov, Acting Chairman 100060 Tashkent 11, T. Shevchenko Street Fax: +998 712 560283, +998 712 256 2275 Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Combinat (NMMC) Attention: Mr K. S. Sanakulov, General Director 210100 Navoi 27, Navoi Street Fax: +998 4362 39951, +998 7922 77566 Dewey LeBoef LLP Attention: Ms Deborah Ruff 1 Minster Court Mincing Lane London EC3R 7YL United Kingdom Fax: +44 20 7459 5099

To:

To:

Copy to:

Copy to:

Copy to:

BY COURIER AND FAX WITHOUT PREJUDICE Dear Mr President and Messrs Ministers, As you know, we are counsel to Oxus Gold PLC and its subsidiaries (collectively Oxus). We refer to: (1) correspondence dated 8 April 2011 from Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, counsel to

Goskomgeology and NMMC; and (2) notice dated 28 June 2011 from Goskomgeology (collectively the Notices). The purpose of this letter is to correct certain factual assertions contained in the Notices that are patently erroneous and, indeed, appear calculated as a pretext for Goskomgeology and NMMC to avoid engaging in meaningful negotiations with Oxus. This letter focuses primarily on the most egregious of those errors, and any failure to address other erroneous information in the Notices should not be construed as an admission or acceptance of their substance. To the extent allegations in the Notices directed against Oxus are not specifically addressed below, such allegations are denied, and any liability on the part of Oxus is expressly rejected. Further, we reject any notion that Goskomgeology and NMMC are somehow separate from the Uzbek government. Those entities have at all relevant times been controlled directly by the Uzbek government, and they lack any semblance of independence. Accordingly, for purposes of this dispute, we consider Goskomgeology, NMMC and the Government of Uzbekistan to be inseparable and interchangeable. Failure by Goskomgeology and NMMC to Negotiate in Good Faith As you are probably aware, Oxus participated in a series of meetings in January 2011 with the Uzbek shareholders of Amantaytau Goldfields A.O. (AGF), who repeatedly assured Oxus that Goskomgeology and NMMC would engage in bona fide negotiations toward an amicable settlement. Further, on 27 January 2011, Mr Ilkhombai Bekchanovich Turamuratov, Vice-Chairman of Goskomgeology, stated that he had been authorised by the Ministry of Finance to negotiate a peaceful settlement. In reliance on those assurances, Oxus made a written offer on 3 February 2011 for the sale of its stake in AGF. As a demonstration of good faith, Oxus based its offer upon values assigned by the Uzbek shareholders, rather than the substantially higher albeit fully justifiable market valuations for the company. Mr Turamuratov assured Oxus during meetings on 15 February 2011 that the Uzbek government was evaluating Oxus offer and would respond in writing within two days, yet almost four months later, the Uzbek government has failed to respond. Instead, Goskomgeology and NMMC have focused inexorably upon involuntary liquidation for AGF, against the best interest of the company, and contrary to the express wishes of Oxus and applicable legal criteria. Indeed, Oxus has proposed several options under which the company could operate viably in the future, including offers in December 2010 and February 2011 to purchase or sell 50% of AGF, as an alternative to the current joint operation of the company. In this context, repeated public allegations by various Uzbek officials that Oxus has not offered any genuine proposals of settlement clearly demonstrates the Uzbek governments antagonism toward bona fide settlement discussions. Notwithstanding the Uzbek governments recalcitrance, Oxus remains willing to engage in constructive dialogue to discuss its written offer of 3 February 2011. We are confident that you understand given the repeated threats made against Oxus staff and the continued detention of one of its employees why we have insisted that any such discussions take place outside of Uzbekistan and in the presence of legal counsel. Further, Oxus is not willing to discuss the liquidity of AGF or its potential liquidation separately from comprehensive settlement discussions. Investment by Oxus Contrary to what the Notices suggest, Oxus has invested millions of dollars and committed substantial technical and scientific expertise over several years of operations in Uzbekistan. One of only a handful of western investors, Oxus substantially advanced the mining industry in Uzbekistan by introducing western technology and expertise to the country. Despite suffering numerous unexpected setbacks largely occasioned by the conduct of the Uzbek 2

government Oxus persisted and was able to produce significant quantities of gold and silver. Further, Oxus capital investment in Uzbekistan has been substantial. For example, Oxus acquired equipment and materials to construct a silver refinery at significant expense in order to overcome the state-owned refinerys inability to process AGFs volume of output, although Goskomgeology inexplicably withdrew its approval for the construction. Similarly, Oxus acquired an exploratory drilling rig at a cost of approximately $2 million and leased it to AGF, although AGFs Uzbek shareholders have since misappropriated that asset. Additionally, Oxus invested in Uzbekistan in the form of human capital, by providing the calibre of professional staff necessary to ensure the highest standards of business innovation. Unfortunately, Oxus former chief technologist Mr Said Ashurov has been detained for several months and is awaiting trial on fabricated charges. Environmental Management The Notices incorrectly suggest that Oxus has been environmentally deficient. On the contrary, throughout the course of its operations in Uzbekistan, Oxus has consistently complied with all applicable environmental and public safety laws and regulations. Further, Oxus has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment and responsiveness to environmental issues, which arise in all phases of mineral extraction, by scrupulously adhering to its contractual obligations under the relevant joint venture agreements, including attention to even minor issues relating to environmental management and compliance. Oxus has at all times maintained best practices in accordance with western standards, and has strived to minimise liabilities associated with mining activities. Indeed, Oxus was the first company operating in Uzbekistan to voluntarily undertake an environmental impact assessment plan in accordance with World Bank standards. Oxus retained Wardell Armstrong, a recognised environmental engineering consultancy, to provide a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment for AGF, which confirmed that Oxus practices far exceeded the applicable Uzbek environmental regulations. It is, therefore, difficult to understand the basis for the allegations by Goskomgeology and NMMC that Oxus violated Uzbek environmental regulations. More importantly, even if those allegations of environmental violations were true (which they are not), Goskomgeology and NMMC would be liable with Oxus. Oxus equal ownership of AGF with the Uzbek shareholders requires a presumption of joint operation and management by all shareholders. Contrary to what is suggested in the Notices, Goskomgeology and NMMC are not entitled to immunity, and they cannot legally transfer liability exclusively to Oxus while absolving themselves of responsibility. Funding Oxus contributed significantly to AGF by securing attractive financing packages to enable the company to expand existing operations and commence development of the underground project. However, the Government of Uzbekistan altered the VAT regime for companies exporting precious metals, in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, prompting the Royal Bank of Scotland to withdraw its $150 million loan facility, out of concerns over the capricious and unpredictable application of the Uzbek tax regime. Despite that significant setback, Oxus was able to improve AGFs cash flow prospects by entering into conditional transaction agreements with CITIC Construction Co., Ltd (CITIC) to obtain up to $185 million in equity and debt financing. However, Goskomgeology and NMMC, together with several other Uzbek government authorities, effectively prevented Oxus from satisfying the applicable conditions precedent, and the Uzbek governments announcement that it intended to liquidate AGF cemented CITICs decision to withhold its investment in the company. 3

Set-Off The Notices assert that Oxus has violated Uzbek law in connection with the remittance of silver currency proceeds from the sale of silver. That assertion is patently false. As we explained in March 2011, Oxus duly exercised its rights under the loan agreement dated 17 July 2002 between AGF and Oxus as agent, trustee and lender and applied proceeds from silver sales to partially satisfy considerably larger unpaid sums owed to Oxus under the loan agreement. Allegations of improper use of offshore bank accounts have been a recurring theme in the Uzbek governments pattern of harassment against Oxus, although the government has never explained how Oxus banking activities could possibly violate Uzbek law. Unless the Government of Uzbekistan specifies the basis for its allegations and presents evidence in support, we respectfully request that it refrain from making fictitious charges. Force Majeure and Exclusion from Management of AGF The Notices incorrectly assert that Oxus unilaterally withdrew from the management of AGF. The reality is that Oxus has continuously been denied the opportunity to influence any decisions concerning the operation and/or management of AGF since the commencement of the state audit several months ago. Far from withdrawing, Oxus has exercised its rights under the AGF joint venture agreement and its charter to the full extent of its abilities under the circumstances. Conclusion As we have stated previously, Oxus is entitled to pursue international arbitration proceedings against Uzbekistan pursuant to the Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments dated 24 November 1993 between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uzbekistan. While details concerning Uzbekistans breach will be set out in our formal Notice of Arbitration, the principal basis for the claim is that Oxus and its subsidiaries have been subjected to expropriatory, unlawful, unfair and discriminatory treatment, resulting in catastrophic losses of no less than $400 million. Nevertheless, as noted above, Oxus remains willing to discuss settlement, should Uzbekistan change course and decide to undertake good faith negotiations. Meanwhile, we emphasise that the conduct of Goskomgeology and NMMC continues to injure Oxus, impair the ongoing viability of AGF, and generally undermine Uzbekistans ability to attract foreign investment. Sincerely,

Robert R. Amsterdam AMSTERDAM & PEROFF LLP

Anda mungkin juga menyukai