Tate & Lyle is facing a
multi-million pound High Court lawsuit from Cambodian farmers, who claim
the sugar giant knowingly profited from illegally seized land.
Lawyers
acting for 200 villagers have accused Tate & Lyle of buying sugar
from the Koh Kong Companies, despite being aware of allegations the
Cambodian firm acquired its plantations unlawfully.
The
Koh Kong Companies allegedly seized the land from villagers, who claim
they were evicted by force after being subjected to ‘multiple instances
of arson, theft and wrongful damage’.
Bitter sweet: Tate & Lyle is facing a lawsuit from 200 Cambodian farmers
Villagers also suffered the theft of
their livestock, according to the claim, while a local activist named An
In was murdered in 2007 while taking photographs of land being cleared
for development. Koh Kong later converted the land to grow sugar cane
and convert it to raw sugar for export to Tate & Lyle.
The
first consignment of 10,000 tonnes of sugar, part of a five-year
contract with Koh Kong, allegedly arrived at Tate & Lyle’s
Silvertown refinery on the Thames in June 2010.
Tate & Lyle ‘knew that the villagers were the owners of the raw sugar or
ought to have known given its position as a leading player in the sugar
market’, the claim says.
The firm ‘wrongfully deprived’ the villagers of their property for its own benefit, according to the document.
The
Cambodians want Tate & Lyle (up 5p to 847p) to pay them for the
consignments of sugar it has received from Koh Kong, claiming they are
the rightful owners of anything produced on their land.
Their
claim could be as high as £10 million (US$15.4 million), based on estimates of the amount
of sugar the land can produce, as well as damages and interest accrued
on the proceeds of any sales.
The
case was filed in the High Court against both Tate & Lyle plc and
former subsidiary Tate & Lyle Sugars, sold to American Sugar
Refining in 2010 in a £211 million deal.
Tate
& Lyle Sugars says the land was legally purchased by the Koh Kong
Companies, but also acknowledges: ‘Land ownership in Cambodia is
difficult to establish, due to the country’s evolving legal and
political structures following the fall of the Khmer Rouge regime.’
Jones
Day, the law firm acting for the villagers, declined to comment, as did
Tate & Lyle plc. The firm has, in the past, been forced to deny
that founder Sir Henry Tate made money from slavery, insisting he
entered the industry after Britain abolished slavery.
No comments:
Post a Comment