XML 39 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Retail segment contingency
6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

10. Retail segment contingency

 

In the Cayman Islands, the Company provides water to retail customers under a 20-year license issued to Cayman Water in July 1990 by the Cayman Islands government that grants the Company the exclusive right to provide water to retail customers within our licensed service area. The Company’s service area is comprised of an area on Grand Cayman that includes the Seven Mile Beach and West Bay areas, two of the three most populated areas in the Cayman Islands. For the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011,the Company generated approximately 36% and 44%, respectively, of its consolidated revenues and 51% and 53%, respectively, of its consolidated gross profits from the retail water operations conducted pursuant to this exclusive license. For the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the Company generated approximately 38% and 45%, respectively, of its consolidated revenues and 52% and 54%, respectively, of its consolidated gross profits from the retail water operations conducted pursuant to this exclusive license. If Cayman Water is not in default of any terms of the license, the Company has a right of first refusal to renew the license on terms that are no less favorable than those that the government offers to any third party.

 

This license was set to expire on July 10, 2010 however the Company and the Cayman Islands government have agreed in correspondence to extend the license eight times in order to provide sufficient time to negotiate the terms of a new license agreement. The Company was advised by letter from Water Authority-Cayman in July 2012 that the government had approved an extension of the License until December 31, 2012. On August 3, 2012, the Company was notified that the government had formally executed this extension.

 

On February 14, 2011, the Water Production and Supply Law, 2011 (which replaces the Water (Production and Supply) Law (1996 Revision) under which the Company is licensed) and the Water Authority (Amendment) Law, 2011 (the “New Laws”) were published on terms that they would come into force on such date as may be appointed by Order made by the Governor in Cabinet. Such Order was subsequently made by Cabinet and the New Laws are now in full force and effect. Under the New Laws, the Water Authority-Cayman would issue any new license which could include a rate of return on invested capital model described below.

 

The Company was recently advised in correspondence from the Cayman Islands government and the WAC that: (i) the WAC is now the principal negotiator, and not the Cayman Islands government, in these license negotiations, and (ii) the WAC has determined that the “rate of return on invested capital” model (“RCAM”) is in the best interest of the public and the Company’s customers.  RCAM is the rate model currently utilized in the electricity transmission and distribution license granted by the Cayman Islands government to the Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd.

 

On July 3, 2012, in an effort to resolve several issues relating to the retail license renewal negotiations, the Company filed an Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (the “Application”) with the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Court”), stating that:  (i) certain provisions of The Water Authority Law, 2011 and The Water (Production and Supply) Law, 2011, appear to be incompatible, (ii) the WAC’s roles as the principal license negotiator, statutory regulator and our competitor put the WAC in a position of hopeless conflict,  and (iii) the WAC’s decision to replace the rate structure under our current exclusive license with RCAM was predetermined and unreasonable.

 

Throughout the course of the retail license renewal negotiations, the Company has objected to the use of RCAM on the basis that it believes such a model would not promote the efficient operation of its water utility and could ultimately increase water rates to its customers.

 

If the Court agrees to consider the issues set forth in the Application, the Company would have the opportunity (as would the WAC and the Cayman Islands government) to present its positions to the Court in a trial proceeding.

 

If the Court does not agree to consider the issues raised in the Application, the Company’s recourse would be to file an appeal with the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands or continue to engage in negotiations for a new license agreement with the Cayman Islands government.  If the Company does not ultimately enter into a new license agreement and no other party is awarded a license, the Company expects to be permitted to continue to supply water to its service area, subject to entering into a new license.  It is possible that the Cayman Islands government could offer a third party a license to service some or all of the Company’s present service area.  In such event, the Company may assume the license offered to the third party by exercising its right of first refusal.  However, the terms of any new license agreement may not be as favorable to the Company as the terms under which it is presently operating and could materially reduce the operating income and cash flows that the Company has historically generated from its retail license and could require the Company to record an impairment loss to reduce the $3,587,754 carrying value of its goodwill.  Such impairment loss could be material to the Company’s results of operations.

 

The Company is presently unable to determine what impact the resolution of this matter will have on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.