Santo Domingo. A judge ordered the seizure of movable and immovable assets belonging to businessman Carlos Matamoros Bregnil and the companies Dynex Energy Group and Dynex Energy RD, as part of a judicial process related to a claim for alleged non-payment stemming from the Puerto Viejo energy project, Playa Los Negros, in Azua.
According to a statement from the plaintiff, the decision was adopted following a request filed by lawyers Lora Castillo and Jorge G. Lora Olivares, who represent the firm Transcaribbean Energy Partners & Consulting.
According to the document, the controversy originated after 18 transfers were made from Karpowership to Dynex between March and April 2025, totaling RD$15,098,459.04 and US$3,098,396.71. The plaintiff maintains that 55% of those funds belonged to them due to their participation in the project, but claims they never received the agreed-upon payment.
The legal representatives indicated that attempts to resolve the conflict out of court were unsuccessful, so they decided to go to court.
Likewise, they pointed out that for more than six years Transcaribbean Energy Partners & Consulting carried out technical studies, institutional efforts, and consulting work to promote the development of the project.
More Read
“The barges are off the coast of Azua, generating power and collecting payment every month. Our client invested six years of work and his own resources to make that project a reality, and what he received was silence. They collected payment and did not pay what was agreed upon,” stated the plaintiff’s lawyers.
We recommend reading:
The statement explains that the authorized garnishment measures cover present and future assets derived from the project’s operation, up to an amount of US$5 million, as well as the withholding of sums owed to the defendant by third parties.
More Read
On the other hand, the judge rejected the request for a travel ban against Carlos Matamoros Bregnil, considering that the defendant’s status as a foreigner does not, in itself, constitute a presumption of flight and that the requesting party did not demonstrate sufficient elements to justify that coercive measure.
The decision also contemplates measures of garnishment, conservatory attachment, and provisional judicial mortgage on the defendant’s assets, according to the statement from the plaintiff.
