BSCFA Asked to Sign Away Millions in Claims for One Year’s Promise

The Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association (BSCFA) is being asked to sign a settlement agreement proposed by T&L Sugars Limited (TLS) and Belize Sugar Industries Limited (BSI).

The proposed settlement would resolve a long-running dispute over millions of dollars in unpaid Fairtrade Premiums. But according to a legal opinion prepared by Marin Young & Co LLP, the terms heavily favour the sugar companies and would strip BSCFA of nearly a decade’s worth of legal entitlements without a single dollar of compensation for past years.

In June 2024, BSCFA filed a lawsuit against both BSI and TLS for Fairtrade Premiums totalling BZD $4,922,470.80 for crop years 2021/22 and 2022/23, as well as damages for alleged unlawful conspiracy and breach of contract.

TLS immediately sought to have the case thrown out, filing an application to strike out the claim on the grounds that Belize courts had no jurisdiction over the matter. On 4 July 2025, Justice Mansoor of the High Court of Belize dismissed TLS’s application, ruling that Belize courts do have jurisdiction, and awarded costs to BSCFA.

TLS appealed that ruling. The appeal is scheduled to be heard on 30 March 2026.

The proposed Settlement Agreement requires BSCFA to take several significant steps. The proposed Settlement Agreement requires that BSCFA permanently and irrevocably drop Claim No. 140 of 2024, the $4.9M+ lawsuit, within 7 days of signing; waive all rights to Fairtrade Premiums for every crop year before 2026/27, including 2023/24 and 2024/25; forfeit the costs award granted by Justice Mansoor on 4 July 2025; release BSI and TLS permanently from all past and future claims related to these matters and keep all terms of the agreement strictly confidential.

In return, TLS agrees to sign a Letter of Enhancement Agreement (LOE) for the single crop year 2026/27 and to withdraw its own appeal (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2025). Crucially, BSI and TLS admit no wrongdoing whatsoever.

The lawyers at Marin Young & Co draw particular attention to several provisions within the LOE itself…the document that represents the entirety of what BSCFA would be getting in return.

According to the legal opinion, the offer gives TLS absolute discretion over what volume of BSI sugar is treated as Fairtrade-eligible. BSCFA cannot challenge this calculation, and under Clause 3.2, TLS’s premium calculation is explicitly stated to be “final and binding.” There is no renewal guarantee. The LOE expires when the last payment for 2026/27 is made. There is no obligation on TLS to sign a new LOE for 2027/28 or any year after, meaning the same withholding tactic could be repeated. The proposed settlement also says that the dispute resolution moves to London. Any future disagreement under the LOE goes to the Council of the Refined Sugar Association in London under English law. If RSA refuses to arbitrate, the Courts of England and Wales take exclusive jurisdiction.

Marin Young & Co, in their opinion dated 6 March 2026, do not mince words. The firm identifies four key consequences of accepting the settlement that they believe BSCFA’s leadership must weigh carefully. First, BSCFA would be giving up a financial claim totalling well in excess of eight million dollars, $4,922,470.80 already claimed for 2021/22 and 2022/23, plus an estimated further two million or more for each of the 2023/24 and 2024/25 crop years, plus interest, and receiving no monetary compensation whatsoever for any of this.

Second, by accepting that the LOE is necessary to receive FT Premiums, BSCFA would be conceding the fundamental legal argument it has been making in court, namely, that premiums are owed regardless of whether a letter is signed. This argument has never been tested before a judge on its merits. If BSCFA won that argument at trial, it would represent a binding legal precedent protecting every future crop year.

Third, the settlement implicitly accepts that BSI and TLS have the right to decide who receives Fairtrade Premiums in the absence of an LOE, a precedent that could be used against BSCFA and other associations in future disputes.

Fourth, and perhaps most strikingly, the lawyers warn that the settlement does nothing to prevent BSI and TLS from repeating this exact strategy in future years. If BSCFA ever seeks to renegotiate its Commercial Agreement with BSI, or objects to terms unfavourable to its members, the companies can simply withhold the next year’s LOE and again deny the premiums on the same pretext.

Central to the lawyers’ recommendation is the fact that no Belizean court has yet ruled on the core question: are FT Premiums payable to BSCFA whether or not an LOE is signed? BSCFA says yes. TLS says no. That question, worth potentially millions of dollars annually, remains unanswered. Accepting the settlement, the lawyers argue, forecloses the possibility of getting that answer in a way that would benefit BSCFA for generations.

.