Guyana and the fuel deal at the heart of a lawsuit: what one contract dispute reveals about power
In guyana, the promise of a refined fuels arrangement with the national government has become more than a business opportunity: it is now central to a US lawsuit alleging confidential trade information was misused in the pursuit of a lucrative venture. The dispute, unfolding in an American court, ties together a former US congressman, a lobbyist-attorney, and two businesses that say their work was undercut.
What is the lawsuit involving Guyana about?
The lawsuit was filed in Florida at the end of February by Curlew Mainstream LLC and Playera Group Global LLC. It names former Tennessee congressman Mark Green, lobbyist and corporate attorney Marc C. Hebert, and Hebert’s law firm Jones Walker LLP.
The plaintiffs allege that confidential trade information was improperly used while the defendants attempted to secure a refined fuels agreement with the Guyanese government. At the center of the case is a claimed sequence: Hebert represented Playera as it worked with Curlew on a fuel agreement, then later formed a competing venture with Green using protected business information obtained through that earlier relationship.
How do Prosimos and Mark Green’s travel connect to the claims?
The filing describes a new business venture: last year, Green and Hebert established a company called Prosimos. The lawsuit alleges Prosimos was created to compete for a similar fuel agreement in guyana, and points to actions the plaintiffs say affected Curlew’s negotiations.
In April 2025, the lawsuit alleges, Green and Hebert held a meeting in Washington, D. C., where they suggested they could influence whether Curlew Midstream secured a proposed fuel exchange agreement while Green was still serving as chairman of the US House Homeland Security Committee. The same week, the lawsuit says, Prosimos was formed in Florida.
The plaintiffs also allege that after forming Prosimos, Green and Hebert communicated with the Guyanese government about “issues” related to Curlew’s pending agreement, and that these communications delayed the deal. The filing further claims Curlew was still communicating with the government as recently as January to resolve remaining issues affecting the original agreement.
Green’s travel is also part of the narrative described in the reporting summarized in the provided context. It states that Green traveled to Guyana multiple times during his tenure as a congressman, and that the lawsuit alleges he traveled again earlier this year while Curlew was still trying to resolve outstanding issues with the government.
What did the parties say, and what remains unanswered?
The provided context indicates that the defendants had not filed a response at the time the information was published. It also states that attorneys for the plaintiffs and representatives for Hebert did not respond to requests for comment, and that efforts to contact Green were unsuccessful.
The context also describes Green’s public explanation of Prosimos’ purpose. After Green announced his retirement and later resigned from the US House of Representatives in July last year, he said at a campaign event later in the year that Prosimos was intended to help American companies compete internationally for infrastructure projects.
Separately, the context notes that President Irfaan Ali announced an agreement involving Curlew Midstream tied to a refined fuels venture during the Guyana Energy Conference and Supply Chain Expo at the Marriott Hotel.
For now, the lawsuit positions the contested fuel arrangement as both a commercial prize and a test of how confidential information, professional relationships, and political standing can intersect when government contracts are in play—especially in a country like guyana, where energy-related deals can quickly attract intense scrutiny.
