US Ag/Food Exports To Cuba Increase 25.4% In 2019 Compared To 2018; September Up 135.4%- Will It Continue?

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
November 2019

September 2019 Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Increase 135.4%- 1
Cuba Ranked In September 48th Of 229 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
Cuba Year-To-Year Exports Increase 25.4%- 2
September 2019 Healthcare Product Exports US$5,040.00- 2
September 2019 Humanitarian Donations US$278,851.00- 3
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue To Increase- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 16

SEPTEMBER 2019 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA INCREASE 135.4%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in September 2019 were US$28,779,856.00 compared to US$12,226,970.00 in September 2018 and US$21,329,099.00 in September 2017. 

United States exports from January 2019 through September 2019 were US$246,618,468.00 compared to US$196,740,098.00 from January 2018 through September 2018, representing an increase of 25.4%.   

Total reported agricultural commodity and food product exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba from December 2001 (first authorized shipments) through September 2019 is US$6,121,831,686.00. 

The data contains information on exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba- products within the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000, Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992, and regulations implemented (1992 to present) for other products by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury and Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce. 

The TSREEA re-authorized the direct commercial (on a cash basis) export of food products (including branded food products) and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba, irrespective of purpose.  

The TSREEA does not include healthcare products, which remain authorized and regulated by the CDA.  Total CDA exports from 2003 through September 2019 is US$25,738,214.00. 

LINK To Complete Report In PDF Format

Reuters Americas
London, United Kingdom
7 November 2019

“One of the few exhibitors [FIHAV annual trade fair in Havana] present was Jay Brickman, vice president of Florida-based shipping company Crowley Maritime Corp, which has been shipping foods to Cuba for nearly two decades under an exemption to the U.S. trade embargo.  U.S. exports to Cuba suddenly contracted over the last month, likely due to Cuba's difficulty getting financing in the wake of tighter sanctions.  Next week, Brickman said, his firm would be sending a ship over with just 13 containers on board, compared with the 50 containers needed to break even.  "It's worse than ever before," he said.”

What Does France's COFACE Think About Cuba's Commercial Environment? "Business Default Risk- Extreme"

Bois-Colombes, France-based Compagnie Française d'Assurance pour le Commerce Extérieur (COFACE) was established in 1946. Privatized in 1994, COFACE is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Paris, France-based Natixis S.A., a subsidiary of Paris, France-based Groupe BPCE, the second-largest banking group in France. From COFACE:

February 2019
Cuba
Population- 11.5 million
GDP per capita- US$
Country risk assessment- E (Business Default Risk- Extreme)
Business Climate- E (Business Default Risk- Extreme)

Major macro-economic indicators
2016 2017 2018(e) 2019(f)
GDP growth (%) -0.9 1.6 0.0 1.0
Inflation (yearly average, %) 4.5 5.2 5.9 5.0
Budget balance (% GDP) -6.3 -8.6 -8.3 -7.8
Current account balance (% GDP) 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6
Public debt (% GDP) 42.5 48.2 51.2 52.1
(e): Estimate. (f): Forecast.

STRENGTHS
Tourism and mining sectors (nickel, cobalt), agricultural potential (sugar, tobacco); Opening up to the individual and cooperative private sector of agriculture, trade, catering and construction (more than 200 trades); Qualified and inexpensive labour force; Quality medical and educational sectors; Relatively satisfactory social indicators; Low crime; fight against corruption; Dialogue and cooperation agreement with the European Union since the November 1, 2017, which has already led to FDI

WEAKNESSES
External vulnerabilities (climate, raw material prices, Venezuelan aid); Low productivity in the public sector and agriculture; Low investment and poor infrastructure; Cumbersome administrative process; still very recent trade regulations; State control over wholesale trade, credit, foreign trade, and foreign investment; Subsidies on commodities (those listed in libreta or ration book) weighing on public expenditure; Reduced access to external funding; Distance from the real conversion rate that maintains the dualism of the economy, the black market, the rationing economy and the informal sector; Lack of statistical transparency

Risk assessment

The bet of FDI to revive growth at half mast
The country’s already weak growth is likely to be impacted in 2019 by poor performance in the agricultural sector and lower growth in tourism from the United States. The former, heavily impacted by Hurricane Irma in September 2017, is struggling to recover, with particularly poor sugar harvests in 2018 (a 30% drop from the previous year). From a tourism perspective, the return of tensions with the United States, since Donald Trump came to power, will continue to weigh on the sector. The fallout from the hurricane will also continue to impact the activity. 2018 was a year of slower growth after the 2017 record (-24% for tourists from the United States in the first half of 2018) with the return of some American restrictions. The vitality of the cruise sector is not expected to reverse the trend in 2019. New President Miguel Diaz-Canel has relaunched reforms to attract foreign investment. New administrative simplification measures have been put in place, while foreign companies have been granted permission to operate the rail network. This decision fulfils a dual objective of modernising infrastructure and increasing the country's attractiveness for FDI. However, these efforts are unlikely to generate the targeted USD 2.5 billion per year needed to boost growth. To date, most foreign investment remains concentrated in the Port of Mariel's special economic zone (totalling USD 10.7 billion of investments), while foreign investors remain constrained by US sanctions. In terms of domestic demand, public consumption will likely be driven by investment in infrastructure, mainly around post-hurricane reconstruction. Private consumption will continue to be supported by expatriate remittances and tourism revenues. In addition, Venezuela's economic downturn will continue to impact exports of refined products (drop in crude oil supply at low prices). This decline, in addition to lower sugar exports, should lead to a negative contribution of net exports to growth.

Public and current accounts subject to external conditions
The currently weak public accounts are expected to continue to improve as a result of lower financing needs for post-hurricane reconstruction. The lowest deficit observed in 2018, thanks to an increase in revenue collected from private companies (11% of revenues), suggests that the deficit will be further reduced in 2019. However, the absence of Venezuelan aid will continue to weigh on the public accounts, and the expenditure structure (50% for social spending) will likely limit the extent of the reduction. As a result, public debt is expected to continue to increase, although data detailing its structure is lacking. Following an agreement with the Paris Club in 2015, Cuba obtained a waiver of interest arrears, a staggered payment of the principal of the original debt over 18 years and a grace period for the payment of new interest until 2020. However, access to external financing will remain constrained.

From a current account perspective, the trade balance will remain largely in deficit, due to high import dependence. Nevertheless, imports should decrease following the controls imposed by the government in response to the shortage of foreign exchange. Exports will continue to be impacted by the decline in oil revenues (drop in Venezuelan crude oil deliveries), as well as by the decline in sugar production in a context of low prices. The dynamism of nickel exports, with prices increasing, will likely only partially offset these two effects. The balance of services should remain positive thanks to tourism, as should the income balance, thanks to remittances from expatriates. The current account will therefore remain in surplus, despite a downward trend. Elsewhere, little progress has been made on the project to unify the two exchange rates: the convertible peso aligned on the US dollar (dedicated to tourists and remittances) and the domestic peso (CUP 24 per USD), in which wages and locally produced goods are denominated.

Renewal but little change
2018 was marked by a renewal of the Cuban political class, as Miguel Diaz-Canel succeeded Raoul Castro as president. The electoral cycle that framed the transition was marked by the absence of dissent. However, few changes are to be anticipated with the retention of Mr Castro as leader of the Cuban Communist Party until 2021, and a still significant influence of the army in various domains. The constitutional reform launched in spring 2018 will bring about very few transformations, limited to normalising past reforms, particularly in terms of the existence of a private sector under state control. This reform is expected to be ratified by referendum at the beginning of 2019. Relations with the United States will likely remain tense under the presidency of Donald Trump, pushing the island to seek other diplomatic partners to deal with the fall of its Venezuelan ally – such as Russia (rail investment projects under way).

LINK To Report: https://www.coface.com/Economic-Studies-and-Country-Risks/Cuba

Six Months Since Libertad Act Lawsuits Permitted For Cuba. Has It Worked? We Don’t Know And May Never Know… That’s A Problem.

If A Settlement Is Secret, Then Where Is The Deterrent?
Taxpayers Paid For It; Should Benefit From Knowing How It Is Used
All Settlements Using Title III Of The Libertad Act Should Be Public
Courts Are Public Entities- Any Decision/Settlement Should Be Public
The United States Department Of State Should Publish All Title IV Decisions
Some May Never See The Accountability They Seek
A Twenty-Three-Year-Old Volcano Has Come To Life- Everyone Needs To See The Lava

In 1996, the United States enacted a law specifically designed to deter the use of expropriated assets.  A primary goal of the law was to publicly shame “traffickers” to cease activity in the Republic of Cuba- and do so in a high-wattage manner whereby others would be deterred from the same activity.  The courts would serve as spotlights. 

The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”) has been operational for more than six months; if all the court decisions, court judgements, settlements and out-of-court agreements are not fully disclosed in a timely manner, how will any taxpayer-funded deterrent be measurable? 

The Libertad Act languished for twenty-three (23) years through three presidencies and half of a fourth presidency.  A dormant volcano.  When it spewed, it would cascade not lava, but notices, summonses, subpoenas, motions and appeals. 

During the last 187-days, in four states a total of twenty (20) lawsuits have been filed by seventy-two (72) plaintiffs using Title III of the Libertad Act against sixty-seven (67) defendants.  At least eighty-eight (88) attorneys from twenty-five (25) law firms are involved with the lawsuits presenting plaintiffs or defendants. 

STATISTICS: Twenty (20) lawsuits filed; Court Filing Fees US$130,960.00; Twenty-Five (25) Law Firms; Eighty-Eight (88) Attorneys; US$1.1+ Million In Law Firm Billable Hours; One Hundred-And-Three (103) companies/individuals, excluding attorneys, are lawsuit parties; Seventy-Two (72) plaintiffs; Four (4) Class Action status requests; Sixty-seven (67) defendants; Five (5) companies notified as will be added as defendants unless prompt settlement.  Lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Courts in Southern Florida (16), Washington DC (1), Washington State (1), Nevada (1) and Delaware (1). LINK To Complete Statistics Report  

Law firms retained by plaintiffs/defendants: Akerman; Arent Fox; Baker & McKenzie; Boies Schiller Flexner; Coffey Burlington; Colson Hicks Eidson; Cueto Law Group; Ewusiak Law; Hogan Lovells; Holland & Knight; Jones Walker; Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton; Law Offices Of Paul Sack; Manuel Vazquez PA; Margol & Margol; Mayer Brown; Pacifica Law Group; Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman; Reed Smith; Reid Collins & Tsai; Rice Reuther Sullivan & Carroll; Rivero Mestre; Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess; Steptoe & Johnson; Venable.  

Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset.   

Given the immense domestic and international implications for decisions arising from the lawsuits, essential that all decisions be in the public domain. 

This exposure is especially significant with respect to any “private settlements” among plaintiffs and defendants.  The Libertad Act authorizes private settlements- a trafficker and owner of the expropriated asset can agree on compensation, but there is nothing in the Libertad Act compelling disclosure of any compensation. 

Title IV of the Libertad Act restricts entry into the United States by individuals who have connectivity to unresolved certified claims or non-certified claims.  One Canada-based company is currently known as subject to this provision based upon a certified claim. 

The United States Department of State has refused to provide any information relating to the use of Title IV- not the number of letters sent, not the identity of the recipients, not whether any recipient has ceased “trafficking” as a result of receiving a letter.   

There is value to current plaintiffs and defendants and to potential plaintiffs and defendants from having data from which they weigh the value of their lawsuit, the value of filing a lawsuit, and the value of seeking a Title IV letter. 

From a United States-based law firm: “It’s a very odd and recent idea that settlements should be allowed to be secret.  Without a court case, sure, people can settle their affairs with each other privately on any terms they like.   

But once someone invokes a law that claims a public policy purpose, like the Libertad Act, then the citizens of this country ought to know exactly how that law is working in practice. Is it achieving its policy goals, or is just a means for Cuban Americans to extort tolls from businesses trading with and investing in Cuba?  Think for example about American Airlines being sued for transporting passengers to and from Cuba under various federal licenses and route allocations.  Clearly the United States government not only approved but encouraged the company to provide that service.   

So, should that case be settled, doesn’t the public have a right to know what a litigant got from deploying a federal law against that United States company? 

Another thing, the filing fee in a federal case doesn’t even cover the wages of the janitor who cleans the courtrooms.  Taxpayers foot the bill for judges’ salaries and pensions, and law clerks and administrative staffs’ wages, the costs of bailiffs, the cost of court houses and their maintenance, and on and on.  Why should someone be free to use that infrastructure to procure money from another private party without taxpayers knowing how much they actually received by using a public law and its enforcement mechanism, the federal court system?” 

From the Chicago, Illinois-based American Bar Association (ABA) on United States Federal Courts Funding: 

https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/priorities_policy/independence_of_the_judiciary/federal-court-funding/ 

Libertad Act 

The Trump Administration has made operational Title III and further implemented Title IV of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”). 

Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset.   

Title IV restricts entry into the United States by individuals who have connectivity to unresolved certified claims or non-certified claims.  One Canada-based company is currently subject to this provision based upon a certified claim. 

Suspension History 

Title III was suspended every six months since the Libertad Act was enacted in 1996- by President William J. Clinton, President George W. Bush, President Barack H. Obama and President Donald J. Trump.   

• On 16 January 2019, The Honorable Mike Pompeo, United States Secretary of State, reported a suspension for forty-five (45) days. 

• On 4 March 2019, Secretary Pompeo reported a suspension for thirty (30) days. 

• On 3 April 2019, Secretary Pompeo reported a further suspension for fourteen (14) days through 1 May 2019. 

• On 17 April 2019, the Trump Administration reported that it would no longer suspend Title III. 

• On 2 May 2019 certified claimants and non-certified claimants were permitted to file lawsuits in United States courts. 

Certified Claims Background 

There are 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the USFCSC and have not been resolved for nearing sixty years (some assets were officially confiscated in the 1960’s, some in the 1970’s and some in the 1990’s.  The USFCSC permitted simple interest (not compound interest) of 6% per annum (approximately US$114,132,137.10); with the approximate current value of the 5,913 certified claims US$8,521,866,236.75.  

The first asset to be expropriated by the Republic of Cuba was an oil refinery in 1960 owned by White Plains, New York-based Texaco, Inc., now a subsidiary of San Ramon, California-based Chevron Corporation (USFCSC: CU-1331/CU-1332/CU-1333 valued at US$56,196,422.73).  

The largest certified claim (Cuban Electric Company) valued at US$267,568,413.62 is controlled by Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot, Inc.  The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International; the certified claim also includes land adjacent to the Jose Marti International Airport in Havana, Republic of Cuba.  The smallest certified claim is by Sara W. Fishman in the amount of US$1.00 with reference to the Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust. 

The two (2) largest certified claims total US$449,377,207.76, representing 24% of the total value of the certified claims.  Thirty (30) certified claimants hold 56% of the total value of the certified claims.  This concentration of value creates an efficient pathway towards a settlement.   

Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 requires that an asset had a value of US$50,000.00 when expropriated by the Republic of Cuba without compensation to the original owner.  Of the 5,913 certified claims, 913, or 15%, are valued at US$50,000.00 or more.  Adjusted for inflation, US$50,000.00 (3.70% per annum) in 1960 has a 2019 value of approximately US$427,267.01.  The USFCSC authorized 6% per annum, meaning the 2019 value of US$50,000.00 is approximately US$1,649,384.54.  

The ITT Corporation Agreement 

In July 1997, then-New York City, New York-based ITT Corporation and then-Amsterdam, the Netherlands-based STET International Netherlands N.V. signed an agreement whereby STET International Netherlands N.V. would pay approximately US$25 million to ITT Corporation for a ten-year right (after which the agreement could be renewed and was renewed) to use assets (telephone facilities and telephone equipment) within the Republic of Cuba upon which ITT Corporation has a certified claim valued at approximately US$130.8 million.  ETECSA, which is now wholly-owned by the government of the Republic of Cuba, was a joint venture controlled by the Ministry of Information and Communications of the Republic of Cuba within which Amsterdam, the Netherlands-based Telecom Italia International N.V. (formerly Stet International Netherlands N.V.), a subsidiary of Rome, Italy-based Telecom Italia S.p.A. was a shareholder.  Telecom Italia S.p.A., was at one time a subsidiary of Ivrea, Italy-based Olivetti S.p.A.  The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International.  

What Is “Trafficking” According To Libertad Act? 

(13) Traffics.--(A) As used in title III, and except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person "traffics" in confiscated property if that person knowingly and intentionally-- (i) sells, transfers, distributes, dispenses, brokers, manages, or otherwise disposes of confiscated property, or purchases, leases, receives, possesses, obtains control of, manages, uses, or otherwise acquires or holds an interest in confiscated property, (ii) engages in a commercial activity using or otherwise benefiting from confiscated property, or (iii) causes, directs, participates in, or profits from, trafficking (as described in clause (i) or (ii)) by another person, or otherwise engages in trafficking (as described in clause (i) or (ii)) through another person, without the authorization of any United States national who holds a claim to the property. 

(B) The term "traffics" does not include-- (i) the delivery of international telecommunication signals to Cuba; (ii) the trading or holding of securities publicly traded or held, unless the trading is with or by a person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be a specially designated national; (iii) transactions and uses of property incident to lawful travel to Cuba, to the extent that such transactions and uses of property are necessary to the conduct of such travel; or (iv) transactions and uses of property by a person who is both a citizen of Cuba and a resident of Cuba, and who is not an official of the Cuban Government or the ruling political party in Cuba. 

“DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OF CLAIMS REFERRED BY DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES 

"Sec. 514. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act and only for purposes of section 302 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, a United State district court, for fact-finding purposes, may refer to the Commission, and the Commission may determine, questions of the amount and ownership of a claim by a United States national (as defined in section 4 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996), resulting from the confiscation of property by the Government of Cuba described in section 503(a), whether or not the United States national qualified as a national of the United States (as defined in section 502(1)) at the time of the action by the Government of Cuba.” 

TITLE III--SEC. 302. LIABILITY FOR TRAFFICKING IN CONFISCATED PROPERTY CLAIMED BY UNITED STATES NATIONALS. 

(a) Civil Remedy.-- (1) Liability for trafficking.--(A) Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person that, after the end of the 3-month period beginning on the effective date of this title, traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property for money damages in an amount equal to the sum of-- (i) the amount which is the greater of-- (I) the amount, if any, certified to the claimant by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, plus interest; (II) the amount determined under section 303(a)(2), plus interest; or (III) the fair market value of that property, calculated as being either the current value of the property, or the value of the property when confiscated plus interest, whichever is greater; and (ii) court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.  (B) Interest under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be at the rate set forth in section 1961 of title 28, United States Code, computed by the court from the date of confiscation of the property involved to the date on which the action is brought under this subsection.   

(2) Presumption in favor of the certified claims.--There shall be a presumption that the amount for which a person is liable under clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A) is the amount that is certified as described in subclause (I) of that clause. The presumption shall be rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence that the amount described in subclause (II) or (III) of that clause is the appropriate amount of liability under that clause. 

(3) Increased liability.-- (A) Any person that traffics in confiscated property for which liability is incurred under paragraph (1) shall, if a United States national owns a claim with respect to that property which was certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, be liable for damages computed in accordance with subparagraph (C).   

(B) If the claimant in an action under this subsection (other than a United States national to whom subparagraph (A) applies) provides, after the end of the 3-month period described in paragraph (1) notice to-- (i) a person against whom the action is to be initiated, or (ii) a person who is to be joined as a defendant in the action, at least 30 days before initiating the action or joining such person as a defendant, as the case may be, and that person, after the end of the 30- day period beginning on the date the notice is provided, traffics in the confiscated property that is the subject of the action, then that person shall be liable to that claimant for damages computed in accordance with subparagraph (C).   

(C) Damages for which a person is liable under subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B) are money damages in an amount equal to the sum of-- (i) the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A)(ii), and (ii) 3 times the amount determined applicable under paragraph (1)(A)(i).  (D) Notice to a person under subparagraph (B)-- (i) shall be in writing; (ii) shall be posted by certified mail or personally delivered to the person; and (iii) shall contain-- (I) a statement of intention to commence the action under this section or to join the person as a defendant (as the case may be), together with the reasons therefor; (II) a demand that the unlawful trafficking in the claimant's property cease immediately; and (III) a copy of the summary statement published under paragraph (8).  (4) Applicability.--(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, actions may be brought under paragraph (1) with respect to property confiscated before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(B) In the case of property confiscated before the date of the enactment of this Act, a United States national may not bring an action under this section on a claim to the confiscated property unless such national acquires ownership of the claim before such date of enactment.  (C) In the case of property confiscated on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, a United States national who, after the property is confiscated, acquires ownership of a claim to the property by assignment for value, may not bring an action on the claim under this section.   

(5) Treatment of certain actions.--(A) In the case of a United States national who was eligible to file a claim with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but did not so file the claim, that United States national may not bring an action on that claim under this section.  (B) In the case of any action brought under this section by a United States national whose underlying claim in the action was timely filed with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but was denied by the Commission, the court shall accept the findings of the Commission on the claim as conclusive in the action under this section. 

(C) A United States national, other than a United States national bringing an action under this section on a claim certified under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, may not bring an action on a claim under this section before the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(D) An interest in property for which a United States national has a claim certified under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 may not be the subject of a claim in an action under this section by any other person. Any person bringing an action under this section whose claim has not been so certified shall have the burden of establishing for the court that the interest in property that is the subject of the claim is not the subject of a claim so certified.  (6) Inapplicability of act of state doctrine. No court of the United States shall decline, based upon the act of state doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action brought under paragraph (1). 

(7) Licenses not required.  (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action under this section may be brought and may be settled, and a judgment rendered in such action may be enforced, without obtaining any license or other permission from any agency of the United States, except that this paragraph shall not apply to the execution of a judgment against, or the settlement of actions involving, property blocked under the authorities of section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act that were being exercised on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the President before such date, and are being exercised on the date of the enactment of this Act.

LINK To Complete Analysis

11 Senators Sign Letter Asking DOT/State To Reverse Cuba Flight Changes; Only One Senator From State With Flights To Cuba

On 1 November 2019, United States Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island), Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), and Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) sent a letter to the United States Department of State and United States Department of Transportation. 

The letter requests the Trump Administration to re-instate regularly-scheduled commercial airline services for airports in the Republic of Cuba in addition to Jose Marti International Airport (HAV) in Havana, Republic of Cuba. 

Of the senators signing the letter, only one is from a state which has regularly-scheduled commercial airline service to the Republic of Cuba: Massachusetts.  Senator Edward Markey (D- Massachusetts) did not sign the letter. 

There are no senators signing the letter from the other states that have regularly-scheduled commercial airline services to the Republic of Cuba: Florida, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 

LINK TO TEXT OF LETTER

IAG (British Airways, Iberia, Air Lingus) Purchase Of Air Europa Could Trigger US-UK-Spain-Ireland Conflict

On 25 September 2019, Mr. Jose Ramon Lopez Regueiro filed a lawsuit (1:19-cv-23965) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Fort Worth, Texas-based American Airlines, Inc. (2018 revenues exceeded US$44 billion) and Las Condes, Chile-based LATAM Airlines Group S.A. (2018 revenues exceeded US$9.9 billion).   

The attorneys representing the plaintiff confirmed that Llucmajor, Spain-based Air Europa Lineas Aereas S.A.U. (2018 revenues exceeded US$2.3 billion) was notified that it could be included as a defendant in the lawsuit unless a settlement offer was forthcoming. 

Air Europa, the third-largest airline in Spain, is a subsidiary of Globalia Corporacion Empresarial, S.A. (2018 revenues approximately US$4 billion) whose hotel subsidiary, Be Live Hotels manages seven (1,502 rooms) properties in the Republic of Cuba which account for 31.6% of the company’s global room inventory.  Among its forty-four aircraft fleet, Air Europa operates twelve (12), with orders for fourteen (14), Boeing 787-8/9 Dreamliners and has orders for twenty-two (22) Boeing 737- MAX 8 aircraft.   

Including Air Europa in the lawsuit could now impact the United Kingdom along with Spain, potentially creating bilateral and trilateral commercial, economic and political stresses with the United States. 

On 4 November 2019, London, United Kingdom-based International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A. (IAG; 2019 revenues exceeded US$30.5 billion) which controls Madrid, Spain-based Lineas Aereas de Espana, S.A. (Iberia; a member of the 13-airline oneworld Alliance), Hounslow, United Kingdom-based British Airways (member of oneworld alliance), Dublin, Ireland-based Air Lingus (member of oneworld Alliance) and Barcelona, Spain-based Vueling Airlines S.A. reported that IAG has agreed to acquire Air Europa. 

Iberia, which services Jose Marti International Airport (HAV) in Havana, Republic of Cuba, may also be included as a defendant in the lawsuit.   

The lawsuit was filed using Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”).  Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset.  Title IV of the Libertad Act restricts entry into the United States by individuals who have connectivity to unresolved certified claims or non-certified claims.  One Canada-based company is currently known to be subject to this provision based upon a certified claim.  Unknown if legal counsel for Mr. Lopez will seek administrative action using Title IV.   

The asset of focus is in Rancho Boyeros, created in 1976 as one of the fifteen municipalities in the city of Havana, Republic of Cuba.  Specifically, the target is what was known as Rancho-Boyeros Airport and today is known as HAV.  Approximately fifty-one (51) airlines service HAV, including five (5) United States-based airlines.  

Mr. Jose Ramon Lopez is a citizen of Spain who became a United States citizen through naturalization after the implementation of the Libertad Act 1996.  Mr. Lopez’s father, Jose Lopez Vilaboy, died in 1989 in Florida; a probate court confirmed he was an heir to his father’s estate. 

Mr. Lopez believes he has standing to file a lawsuit(s) for some of the assets (bank, hotels, factories, newspaper, airlines and an airport) of his father that were expropriated in 1959 without compensation by the government of the Republic of Cuba.  Any claim filed by Mr. Lopez would not be considered a certified claim.  NOTE: There are attorneys who believe language in the Libertad Act requires a plaintiff to have been a United States national prior to implementation of the Libertad Act in order to bring a lawsuit using the Libertad Act; a judge likely will decide. 

On 11 September 2019, Mr. Lopez was included (for an hotel claim) in a list of thirty-nine (39) individuals who are seeking class action status in a lawsuit (Case 1:19-cv-22529) previously filed against Melia Hotels International, SA.; Melia Hotels USA, LLC; Expedia, Inc.; Trivago GmbH, Hotels.com L.P.; Hotels.com GP, Orbitz LLC, Travelocity.com, LP; Booking.com B.V.; Booking Holdings Inc.; Grupo Hotelero Gran Caribe, Corporacion de Comercio Y Turismo Internacional Cubanacan S.A.; Grupo De Turismo Gaviota S.A.; Rail Doe 1-5; and Mariela Roe 1-5.   

LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Statistics

International Airlines Group (IAG)
Hardmondsworth, London, United Kingdom
4 November 2019
Agreement for the acquisition of Air Europa for €1 billion

International Consolidated Airlines Group ("IAG") and Globalia ("Globalia") are pleased to announce that definitive transaction agreements have been signed under which IAG’s wholly owned subsidiary, IB OPCO Holding S.L. (“Iberia”), has agreed to acquire the entire issued share capital of Air Europa ("Air Europa") for €1 billion to be satisfied in cash at Completion (the “Acquisition”) and subject to a closing accounts adjustment. 

Highlights

Transforms IAG’s Madrid hub into a true rival to Europe’s four largest hubs: Amsterdam, Frankfurt, London Heathrow and Paris Charles De Gaulle.  Re-establishes IAG as a leader in the highly attractive Europe to Latin America and Caribbean market.  Offers significant synergy potential in terms of cost and revenue.  EPS accretive in the first full year and accretive to IAG’s return on invested capital by the fourth year after Completion.  Completion is expected to take place in H2 2020 following receipt of relevant approvals. 

Commenting on today’s announcement, Willie Walsh, Chief Executive of IAG, said: “Acquiring Air Europa would add a new competitive, cost effective airline to IAG, consolidating Madrid as a leading European hub and resulting in IAG achieving South Atlantic leadership, therefore generating additional financial value for our shareholders.  IAG has a strong track record of successful acquisitions, most recently with the acquisition of Aer Lingus in 2015 and we are convinced Air Europa presents a strong strategic fit for the group.” 

Javier Hidalgo, Chief Executive of Globalia, said: “For Globalia, the incorporation of Air Europa to IAG implies the strengthening of the company’s present and future that will maintain the path followed by Air Europa in the last years. We are convinced that the incorporation of Air Europa to a group such as IAG, who over all these years has demonstrated its support to the development of airlines within the group and the Madrid hub, will be a success”. 

Luis Gallego, Chief Executive of Iberia, said: “This is of strategic importance for the Madrid hub, which in recent years has lagged behind other European hubs. Following this agreement, Madrid will be able to compete with other European hubs on equal terms with a better position on Europe to Latin America routes and the possibility to become a gateway between Asia and Latin America.” 

Strategic rationale

Air Europa is one of the leading private airlines in Spain, operating scheduled domestic and international flights to 69 destinations, including European and long-haul routes to Latin America, the United States of America, the Caribbean and North Africa. In 2018, Air Europa generated revenue of €2.1 billion and an operating profit of €100 million. It carried 11.8 million passengers in 2018 and ended the year with a fleet of 66 aircraft. 

The Board of IAG believes that the transaction would: Increase the importance of IAG’s Madrid hub, transforming it into a true rival to Europe’s big four hubs: Amsterdam, Frankfurt, London Heathrow and Paris Charles De Gaulle; Unlock further network growth opportunities and re-establish IAG’s South Atlantic leadership; and Result in significant customer benefits through providing increased choice and schedule flexibility and greater opportunities to earn and redeem miles.  The Air Europa brand will initially be retained and the company will remain as a standalone profit centre within Iberia run by Iberia CEO Luis Gallego. The managements of IAG and Iberia anticipate opportunities to unlock value through the Acquisition across three key areas: Integrating Air Europa into the existing Iberia hub structure at Madrid; Creating commercial links between Air Europa and other IAG operating companies, in addition to inclusion into IAG’s joint businesses; Integrating Air Europa onto the IAG platform of common services. 

Synergies and financial impact

The Acquisition is expected to generate cost synergies across selling, general and administrative expenses, procurement, handling and distribution costs with full run-rate synergies to be achieved by 2025. IAG expects implementation costs to be phased over the same period.  In addition, the Acquisition is expected to generate significant revenue synergies by 2025, including: Adding reciprocal intra-group codeshares across all connecting gateways; Adjusting timings to maximise connectivity through the Madrid hub; Aligning commercial policies and integrating sales forces in home markets; Integrating Air Europa into existing IAG joint businesses; and Integrating Air Europa into the Avios currency for loyalty.  The Acquisition is expected to be earnings accretive in the first full year following Completion and accretive to IAG’s return on invested capital within four years after Completion. 

Financing and expected timetable

The Acquisition will be funded by external debt. After Completion, IAG’s net debt to EBITDA is expected to be 0.3 times higher as a result of the Acquisition compared to 1.2 times last reported at the end of Q3 2019.  Assuming satisfaction of all conditions to the Acquisition, Completion is expected to take place in 2H 2020.  IAG has agreed to pay Air Europa a break fee of €40 million in the event that the transaction fails to receive the necessary regulatory approvals and either party elects to terminate the transaction agreement.  The Acquisition constitutes a Class 2 transaction for the purposes of the UK Financial Conduct Authority's Listing Rules and, as such, does not require IAG’s shareholders' approval. The gross assets of Air Europa at 31 December 2018 were €901 million. The pre-tax profits attributable to Air Europa for the year ended 31 December 2018 were €67 million.

Avianca Airlines Suspends Ticket Sales With Cuba; Carnival Corporation Had A Similar OFAC Issue In 1997

Bogota, Colombia
October 31, 2019

“Panama City, Panama-based Avianca Holdings (“Avianca”) informs that, while they resolve a pending matter with the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) related to their Cuba-related commercial operations, Avianca will suspend ticket sales to and from Cuba as of October 31, 2019. Any additional information will be shared in a timely manner with Avianca’s clients and the general public.”

History Of The Decision

“As previously reported on October 23rd, because of the financial structure to obtain a loan, Synergy Aerospace Corp. (“Synergy”), a majority shareholder of Avianca Holdings, formed in Delaware, United States, the limited liability company BRW, to which Synergy unilaterally transferred all its shares of Avianca Holdings. At that moment, Avianca became considered a company subject to U.S. regulations with respect to the economic embargo that the United States holds against Cuba. Therefore, after reviewing the case, Avianca identified that its commercial operations to and from Cuba could have unintentionally infringed the U.S. Cuban Assets Control Regulations (the “CACR”). Avianca voluntarily disclosed this situation to the U.S. authorities (OFAC), and Avianca is cooperating with OFAC to provide the information necessary to achieve timely resolution of this matter.”

23 October 2019

“Avianca Holdings S.A., a company organized under the laws of Panama (together with its subsidiaries, the “Company”), recently became aware that it is presently subject to U.S. jurisdiction for purposes of certain U.S. sanctions laws and regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. This jurisdictional nexus was established as a result of the transfer, on November 9, 2018, by the Company’s parent company, Synergy Aerospace Corp. (“Synergy”), of approximately 78% of the Company’s voting common shares (the “Share Transfer”) from a Panama based company to a Delaware limited liability company wholly-owned by Synergy (“BRW”). Synergy formed BRW and effected the Share Transfer unilaterally in connection with BRW obtaining a loan from United Airlines.”

”Having become aware that as a consequence of the ownership change the Company is considered a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction by OFAC, the Company engaged outside counsel to conduct a review aimed at identifying any potential violations of U.S. sanctions regulations. As a result of this review, the Company identified that the regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights between cities in Central and South America and Havana, Cuba and related Cuba operations that it has historically conducted may have constituted inadvertent violations of the U.S. Cuban Assets Control Regulations (the “CACR”) during the period following the Share Transfer. During the period beginning on the date of the Share Transfer and ending on September 30, 2019, such flights to and from Havana, Cuba comprised an immaterial amount of the Company’s gross revenues.”

”On September 25, 2019, the Company submitted to OFAC a preliminary voluntary self-disclosure addressing such potential inadvertent violations. The Company also plans to submit to OFAC a request for specific authorization for its subsidiary airlines to continue to conduct flights to and from Cuba during a wind-down period or until such time as the Company is no longer subject to the CACR. There can be no assurance that such request will be granted.”

”The Company is committed to fully cooperating with OFAC, but it is too early to predict what action OFAC may take in this regard (including sanctions and fines) and what effect such action could have on the Company’s reputation, business, financial position or results of operations.”

”This Report on Form 6-K is incorporated by reference into the Company’s Exchange Offer Memorandum and Consent Solicitation Statement, dated August 14, 2019, as supplemented, in respect of the Company’s previously reported offer to exchange any and all of its 8.375% Senior Notes due 2020 for newly issued 8.375% Senior Secured Notes due 2020.” LINK To SEC Form 6-K Filing

A Similar Problem In 1997 For Carnival Corporation

From 1995 until 1998, Genoa, Italy-based Costa Crociere operated the “Costa Playa” cruise ship which visited the Republic of Cuba and a subsidiary of Costa Crociere developed and managed the US$11 million passenger ship facility at the Port of Havana. In 1997, Miami, Florida-based Carnival Corporation & plc (2018 revenues exceeded US$18.8 billion) purchased a 50% interest in Costa Crociere.

In 1998, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury in Washington, D.C., required Carnival Corporation to cease both the operation of the “Costa Playa” to the Republic of Cuba and the management of the passenger ship facility. Costa Crociere had a 50% interest in Silares Terminales del Caribe, a joint venture with the Republic of Cuba established to manage three cruise ship terminals in Havana, Santiago de Cuba and Isla de la Juventud.

In 2000, Carnival Corporation & plc purchased the remaining 50% of Costa Crociere from Peterborough, United Kingdom-based Airtours Group plc. LINK To Media Release

The OFAC authorizes companies subject to United States law to have non-controlling investments in third country companies that have commercial activities within the Republic of Cuba provided that the investments do not result in control in fact of the third country company and provided that a majority of the revenues of the third country company are not produced from commercial activities within the Republic of Cuba [OFAC 4 March 1994].

Today, Istanbul, Turkey-based Global Ports Holding (2018 revenues exceeded US$124 million), which also has a registered office in London, United Kingdom, and is listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) has “a management agreement in Cuba to advise and consult on cruise port management best practice. The cruise terminal is in the Sierra Maestra complex, in San Francisco pier, with a current capacity for two ships.”

According to the company, the duration of the management contract is thirty-three (33) years with “no future Capex Obligation” and “Tariff Discretion.” The company reported that the management contract was not a result of a “Competitive Process” and the Process Description was defined as an “Uncompetitive tender” with comments “GPH submitted and unsolicited tender.” However, the 2018 Annual Report for the company references that the management contract is for fifteen (15) years.

According to the company, “Global Ports Holding Plc (GPH) is the world's largest [independent] cruise port operator with an established presence in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, Asia-Pacific regions, including extensive commercial port operations in Turkey and Montenegro.”

Global Ports Holding Plc may be subject to a lawsuit under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”). Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset.

Thus far, Miami, Florida-based Carnival Corporation; Miami, Florida-based MSC Cruises; Miami, Florida-based Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings; and Miami, Florida-based Royal Caribbean Cruises are defendants in lawsuits using Title III due to their operations in the Republic of Cuba.

LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format

El Nuevo Herald
Miami, Florida
31 October 2019

Avianca Holdings announced Thursday the immediate suspension of the sale of tickets to Cuba "while resolving a pending issue" with the US authorities on its operations on the island that is related to the economic embargo that weighs on the Caribbean country.

The measure was taken because Avianca Holdings constituted this month a limited liability company in the United States to obtain a loan, which is subject to the regulations of that country.

“Avianca Holdings informs that, while resolving a pending issue with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), related to the commercial operation to Cuba, the company will suspend the sale of tickets to and from Cuba as of December 31 October 2019, ”the company said in a statement.

Avianca currently has a daily flight to Havana from Bogotá and another from San Salvador, which will continue to operate while the case is resolved, but it is not ruled out that the suspension of ticket sales extends to operations as such.

"The tickets already issued remain normal and will be fulfilled" but in the hypothetical case that the measure is extended to the suspension of flights the company will have to accommodate other airlines to those who have already bought tickets, a source of the company.

On October 23, Avianca Holdings announced that, as part of the financial structure for obtaining a loan, its majority shareholder, Synergy Aerospace Corp, established in the state of Delaware (USA), the limited liability company BRW, a which unilaterally transferred all its shares of the conglomerate.

With that operation "Avianca came to be considered as a company subject to US regulations regarding the economic embargo that said country is holding against Cuba," the company added.

“In that sense, after reviewing the situation, the company identified that its commercial operations to and from Cuba could have involuntarily violated US regulations for the control of Cuban assets,” of which Avianca voluntarily informed the OFAC.

The company added that it cooperates with that agency "to deliver the necessary information and timely resolve this situation."

The Government of the United States activated on May 2, Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, which allows Americans to sue companies operating in land or real estate in Cuba expropriated after the 1959 Revolution, including airports.

As part of the tightening of the US embargo on Cuba by the Administration of President Donald Trump, last Friday the Government announced the ban on air service between the United States and Cuba within 45 days, a measure that will affect nine airports in the island and of which the only exempt will be that of Havana.

EFE
Madrid, Spain
31 October 2019

Avianca announced that as of Thursday, October 31, the sale of tickets to travel to the Greater Antilles was suspended while resolving an issue with the US Office of Foreign Assets Control. The Colombian airline Avianca suspends the sale of tickets to Cuba

BOGOTA - The Colombian airline Avianca announced Thursday the suspension of flights to Cuba after in recent days the company reported that its commercial flights to and from the island could have violated US measures on Cuban assets.

According to a report by El Espectador, Avianca announced that as of Thursday, October 31, the sale of tickets to travel to the Greater Antilles was suspended while resolving an issue with the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States ( OFAC).

While the US authorities respond to their requests, such as a license to continue flights to the Caribbean island, Avianca decided to suspend the sale of tickets and said that "any additional information will be shared in a timely manner to customers."

It is worth remembering, El Espectador points out, that the company must be accountable to the US since November 2018, when Synergy Aerospace Corp., the company's parent company, transferred 78% of the ordinary and voting shares of a company established in Panama to BRW, which is incorporated in the state of Delaware (USA) and is its property.

The finding was the result of an external review contracted by the company to identify any potential violation of the United States sanction rules, the report concludes.

The Government of Donald Trump announced last Friday the cancellation of flights of US airlines to various destinations on the island, except Havana, a decision that deepens the sanctions on the Caribbean nation since the activation on May 2 of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act.

Washington has reinforced its policy against the Cuban regime and blames it for being an ally of the dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela.

The measures taken by the Trump administration seek to prevent US dollars from reaching the coffers of the island's government and military companies that are responsible for exercising repression against dissidents and opponents.

MLB Commissioner Plays Golf With President Trump; Renewed Life For Cuba Agreement? Second-Base For Lobbyist?

On 26 October 2019, The White House reported: “Today President Donald J. Trump played golf with Major League Baseball [MLB] Commissioner Rob Manfred and Senators Lindsey Graham [R- South Carolina] and David Perdue [R- Georgia].”

On 10 June 2019, Commissioner Manfred met in the Oval Office at The White House with President Trump for a “meeting on Major League Baseball’s efforts to combat human trafficking.”

That meeting was likely a result of a decision by MLB to retain Washington DC-based Ballard Partners to lobby [LINK To Filing] on “issues related to combating human trafficking.” A Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 filing with the United States Congress on 8 May 2019 listed Mr. Brian Ballard and Mr. Sylvester Lukis as lobbyists. The filing did not disclose payments to Ballard Partners.

A 7 April 2019 Tweet from The Honorable John R. Bolton, then-Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs: “Cuba wants to use baseball players as economic pawns—selling their rights to Major League Baseball. America’s national pastime should not enable the Cuban regime‘s support for Maduro in Venezuela.”

On 5 April 2019, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury rejected [LINK To Letter] an agreement [LINK] between MLB and the Republic of Cuba government-operated Federacion Cubana de Beisbol (FCB).

Previous Analysis:

10 June 2019
Cuba Lobbyist Works? President Trump To Participate In Oval Office Meeting With MLB To Discuss “Human Trafficking”
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/6/10/cuba-lobbyist-works-president-trump-to-participate-in-oval-office-meeting-with-mlb-to-discuss-human-trafficking?rq=MLB

9 April 2019
OFAC Responds To Major League Baseball Proposal For Players From Cuba
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/4/9/ofac-responds-to-major-league-baseball-proposal-for-players-from-cuba?rq=MLB

11 January 2019
MLB Might Consider Three Options To Obtain Support For Agreement With Cuba
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/1/11/mlb-might-consider-three-options-to-obtain-support-for-agreement-with-cuba?rq=MLB

20 December 2018
Another Obama (Ben Rhodes) Administration Legacy Decision Harms Major League Baseball
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2018/12/20/uppblm8km7qmk28ly7ilzjz7xgty54?rq=MLB

16 March 2016
New OFAC Regulation Benefits MLB Players; Performers & Teachers Too
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2016/3/16/pdx1fcle5mbj7202fg30lmjisro0kc?rq=MLB

29 February 2016
Some Parallels Between President Obama’s Baseball And President Nixon’s Ping Pong
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2016/2/29/some-parallels-between-president-obamas-baseball-and-president-nixons-ping-pong?rq=MLB

SEC 10-Q Filings For Libertad Act Lawsuits: Royal Caribbean, Carnival Corporation, Booking Holdings, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings

Miami, Florida-based Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.

Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 20, 2019

Litigation

On August 27, 2019, two lawsuits were filed against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known as the Helms-Burton Act. The complaint filed by Havana Docks Corporation alleges it holds an interest in the Havana Cruise Port Terminal and the complaint filed by Javier Garcia-Bengochea alleges that he holds an interest in the Port of Santiago, Cuba, both of which were expropriated by the Cuban Government. The complaints further allege that Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. trafficked in those properties by embarking and disembarking passengers at these facilities. The plaintiffs seek all available statutory remedies, including the value of the expropriated property, plus interest, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. filed its answer to each complaint on October 4, 2019. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against them. We believe that it is unlikely that the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse impact to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, and there can be no assurances that the final outcome of this case will not be material. We are routinely involved in claims typical within the cruise vacation industry. The majority of these claims are covered by insurance. Although the outcome of any litigation is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, we believe it is unlikely that the outcome of such claims, net of expected insurance recoveries, will have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Effective June 5th, 2019, we stopped sailings to Cuba as the U.S government rescinded authorized travel to Cuba under the People-to-People program and prohibited travel to Cuba via cruise ships. The estimated negative impact resulting from this regulatory change, primarily due to changes in itineraries, is approximately $0.13 and $0.16 per share on a diluted basis to our Net Income attributable to Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2019, respectively.

an increase of $167.8 million in ticket prices primarily driven by the improvement in our ticket price on a per passenger basis due to the addition of Silversea Cruises to our fleet in the second half of 2018, the additions of Spectrum of the Seas and Celebrity Edge and higher pricing on our Caribbean sailings, net of the negative impact to our ticket price on a per passenger basis resulting from itinerary changes related to the travel restrictions to Cuba.

an increase of $524.5 million in ticket prices primarily driven by the improvement in our ticket price on a per passenger basis due to the addition of Silversea Cruises to our fleet in the second half of 2018, the additions of Spectrum of the Seas, Symphony of the Seas, Azamara Pursuit and Celebrity Edge, and higher pricing on our Caribbean and Asia/Pacific sailings, net of the negative impact to our ticket price on a per passenger basis resulting from itinerary changes related to the travel restrictions to Cuba.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

On August 27, 2019, two lawsuits were filed against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known as the Helms-Burton Act. The complaint filed by Havana Docks Corporation alleges it holds an interest in the Havana Cruise Port Terminal and the complaint filed by Javier Garcia-Bengochea alleges that he holds an interest in the Port of Santiago, Cuba, both of which were expropriated by the Cuban Government. The

complaints further allege that Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. trafficked in those properties by embarking and disembarking passengers at these facilities. The plaintiffs seek all available statutory remedies, including the value of the expropriated property, plus interest, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. filed its answer to each complaint on October 4, 2019. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against them. We believe that it is unlikely that the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse impact to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, and there can be no assurances that the final outcome of this case will not be material.

Changes in U.S. foreign travel policy may affect our results of operations.

Changes in U.S. foreign policy could result in the imposition of travel restrictions or travel bans on U.S. persons to certain countries or result in the imposition of U.S. rules, regulations or legislation that could expose us to penalties or claims of monetary damages. The timing and scope of these changes are unpredictable, and they could cause us to cancel scheduled sailings, possibly on short notice, or could result in possible litigation against us. This, in turn, could decrease our revenue, increase our operating costs and otherwise impair our profitability. For instance, in June 2019, the U.S. government announced that cruise ships would no longer be allowed to travel between the U.S. and Cuba. This required us to change our high yielding Cuba sailings on short notice which impacted our earnings. Moreover, in May 2019, the U.S. government activated Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996, popularly known as the Helms-Burton Act. This allowed certain individuals whose property was confiscated by the Cuban government to sue in U.S. courts anyone who "traffics" in the property in question. The activation of Title III has resulted in litigation against us and others in the tourism industry.

“Sanctioned Country” means, at any time, a country, region or territory which is itself the subject or target of any Sanctions (at the time of this Agreement, Crimea, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria).

Miami, Florida-based Carnival Corporation

Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending August 31, 2019

NOTE 4 – Contingencies

Litigation

On May 2, 2019, two lawsuits were filed against Carnival Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known as the Helms-Burton Act. The complaint filed by Havana Docks Corporation alleges it holds an interest in the Havana Cruise Port Terminal and the complaint filed by Javier Garcia-Bengochea alleges that he holds an interest in the Port of Santiago, Cuba, both of which were expropriated by the Cuban Government. The complaints further allege that Carnival Cruise Line “trafficked” in those properties by embarking and disembarking passengers at these facilities. The plaintiffs seek all available statutory remedies, including the value of the expropriated property, plus interest, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. The court denied our motion to dismiss the complaints filed by Havana Docks Corporation and Javier Garcia-Bengochea, on August 28, 2019 and August 26, 2019, respectively.

We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them. We do not believe that it is likely that the outcome of these matters will be material, but litigation is inherently unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the final outcome of the case might not be material to our operating results or financial condition.

Additionally, in the normal course of our business, various claims and lawsuits have been filed or are pending against us. Most of these claims and lawsuits, or any settlement of claims and lawsuits, are covered by insurance and the maximum amount of our liability, net of any insurance recoverables, is typically limited to our self-insurance retention levels. We believe the ultimate outcome of these claims, lawsuits and settlements, as applicable, each and in the aggregate, will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Norwalk, Connecticut-based Booking Holdings Inc.

Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2019

Part II- Other Information

Item 1A. Risk Factors

The U.S. Government announced that, effective May 2, 2019, it will no longer suspend the right of private parties to bring litigation under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996, popularly known as the Helms-Burton Act, allowing certain individuals whose property was confiscated by the Cuban government beginning in 1959 to sue anyone who "traffics" in the property in question in U.S. courts. We have received letters on behalf of various persons notifying us that they intend to sue us with respect to certain aspects of our business related to Cuba and seek remedies including the value of the expropriated property (generally, the applicable hotel), plus interest, treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to any potential claims and that the results of any related litigation would not be material to our business, financial condition or results of operations.

However, litigation is uncertain and there is little judicial history or interpretation of the relevant claims and defenses, in particular as applied to businesses like ours. As a result, there can be no assurance that there will not be adverse outcome to any such litigation or that such an outcome would not result in an adverse impact on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Miami, Florida-based Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.

Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2019

Quarterly Review

In June 2019, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury removed the authorization for group people-to-people educational travel by U.S. persons to Cuba. As a result, we have stopped sailings to Cuba during the three months ended June 30, 2019. The estimated negative impact resulting from this regulatory change was approximately $0.06 to diluted EPS and Adjusted EPS for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2019. We expect a negative impact to diluted EPS and Adjusted EPS throughout the remainder of 2019 as a result of the cessation of cruises to Cuba.

Expense

On a Capacity Day basis, Net Cruise Cost increased 4.7% (5.5% on a Constant Currency basis) primarily due to an increase in marketing, general and administrative expenses and an increase due to the addition of Norwegian Bliss, costs associated with the cessation of cruises to Cuba and other ship operating costs.

On a Capacity Day basis, Net Cruise Cost increased 3.7% (4.3% on a Constant Currency basis) primarily due to an increase in marketing, general and administrative expenses and an increase due to the addition of Norwegian Bliss, costs associated with the cessation of cruises to Cuba and other ship operating costs.

Unavailability of ports of call may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

the authorization for group people-to-people educational travel by U.S. persons to Cuba. Concurrently, the United States Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security removed the authorization to travel for most non-commercial aircraft and all passenger and recreational vessels, including cruise ships, on temporary sojourn in Cuba. Combined, these rulings effectively eliminated the ability of cruise lines to offer cruise travel to Cuba. Limitations on the availability of ports of call or on the availability of shore excursions and other service providers at such ports have adversely affected our business, financial condition and results of operations in the past and could do so in the future.

The U.S. Government announced that, effective May 2, 2019, it will no longer suspend the right of private parties to bring litigation under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996, popularly known as the Helms-Burton Act, allowing certain individuals whose property was confiscated by the Cuban government beginning in 1959 to sue anyone who "traffics" in the property in question in U.S. courts. Monetary and other claims may now be brought against us and other companies who have done business in Cuba. If these suits are successful, they could result in substantial monetary damages against the Company.

“Sanctioned Country” means, at any time, a country, region or territory which is itself the subject or target of comprehensive Sanctions (at the time of this Agreement, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and Crimea).

In June 2019, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury removed the authorization for group people-to-people educational travel by U.S. persons to Cuba. As a result, we have stopped sailings to Cuba during the three months ended June 30, 2019. The estimated negative impact resulting from this regulatory change was approximately $0.06 to diluted EPS and Adjusted EPS for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2019. We expect a negative impact to diluted EPS and Adjusted EPS throughout the remainder of 2019 as a result of the cessation of cruises to Cuba.

Societe Generale Issues 54-Page Motion To Dismiss Libertad Act Lawsuit

29 October 2019

United States District Court

Southern District Of Florida

Case No.: 19-cv-22842-DPG

“DEFENDANT SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE, S.A.’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2) AND 12(b)(6) AND ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT”

“Defendant, Société Générale, S.A. (“SG”), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1, respectfully moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint (“AC”) filed by Plaintiff, Sucesores De Don Carlos Nuñez Y Doña Pura Galvez, Inc., for lack of lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.”

SUCESORES DE DON CARLOS NUNEZ Y DONA PURA GALVEZ, INC., BDA BANO NUNEZ V. SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE, S.A., D/B/A SG AMERICAS, INC.; THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, D/B/A SCOTIA HOLDINGS (US) INC., A/K/A THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, MIAMI AGENCY; THE NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA, D/B/A NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; AND BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA, S.A., D/B/A BBVA, USA.,

Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP (plaintiff) and Law Offices Of Paul Sack A. Law, P.A. (plaintiff)

Mayer Brown LLP (defendant) and ReedSmith LLP (defendant)

LINK To Motion To Dismiss- Part A

LINK To Motion To Dismiss- Part B

LINK To Motion To Dismiss- Part C

LINK To All Case Documents

1st SLH-Affiliated Hotel In Cuba Is Not Government Owned, Not Government Managed, And Not Subject To A Claim For Ownership

First Hotel In Cuba To Use Hermés Toiletries
Why Only Two (Soon Three) International Standard Luxury Hotels In Cuba?
First SLH-Affiliated Hotel In Cuba Is Not Owned By Government Of Cuba
It’s A 10-Room Casa Particular
US$2 Million Investment
An Italian Husband And Cuban Wife
Current Owners Met With Previous Owners
U.S. Credit Cards Valid For Use
The Type Of Property The Trump Administration Supports

The foremost challenge for hotel management companies in the Republic of Cuba is navigating the impact upon morale that results from the distance between what a guest pays for a room, meals and services and what an employee who is a Republic of Cuba national receives as wages- and can purchase with those wages.

According to a senior-level executive from a non-Republic of Cuba-based hotel management company, “For the properties self-identifying as luxury, they remain outliers rather than examples; isolated rather than imitated; orphans rather than part of a growing family. There is a tragic sense of ‘economic apartheid’ in Cuba that must be addressed.”

There are two international standard luxury-level properties operating in the Republic of Cuba, with a third scheduled to open in September 2019.

The Independent (And Smallest)

When asked for a unique aspect to Paseo 206 (http://www.paseo206.com), Mr. Andrea Gallina, who owns the property, shared: “The level of service and amenities offered. The décor. The location. The fact that my wife and I are always there to meet the guests.” His wife is Diana Sainz, a Republic of Cuba national.

Small Luxury Hotels [SLH] of the World Management Limited (www.slh.com) was established in 1989. The company has 520 properties in more than eighty countries. According to the company, there are more than 1,000 applications submitted each year and 5% are accepted. LINK: https://www.slh.com/paseo-206-boutique-hotel/?l

The first SLH-affiliated property in the Republic of Cuba is not a Republic of Cuba government-owned property and not a Republic of Cuba government-operated property. It is a privately-owned residence and the pre-1959 revolution owners have made no claim on the residence.

Properties affiliated with SLH make an annual payment and pay a commission per reservation made through the SLH Internet site. According to SLH, the annual payment for the smallest properties (less than twelve rooms) range from US$8,000.00 to US$12,000.00.

From SLH: “Paseo 206 Boutique Hotel is not currently available to book online. To book Havana’s first luxury boutique hotel, please contact the hotel directly on +53 78313423 or +53 55517894 or via email paseo206@slh.com.”

The Casa Particular, Paseo 206, opened in September 2016 and affiliated with SLH in June 2017. The property has ten rooms: Rooftop Suite (3; average rack rate US$449.00); Master Suite (3; average rack rate US$349.00), Junior Suite (2; average rack rate US$299.00) and Matchbox Room (2; average rack rate US$249.00).

At 100%, 365-day occupancy, excluding revenues from food and beverage and commissions, rack rate room-only annual gross revenues could be US$1.273 million.

Paseo 206, as do other properties, discounts seasonally and often pays commissions to travel agents, tour operators and other intermediaries; which may account for up to 25% of gross revenues.

Occupancy rates were 52% in 2017, 58% in 2018 (room county increased from eight to ten) and projected at 67%-68% in 2019. Based upon the projection for 2019, gross revenues could be approximately US$687,000.00, not including food, beverages and services.

Paseo 206 reports that the reduction in visitors from the United States has been compensated by “other high-spending visitors from Northern Europe, The Americas, Asia and Middle East.” Revenues have increased approximately 8% on an annual basis.

Less than 1% of reservations for Paseo 206 originate with San Francisco, California-based Airbnb, Inc., approximately 30% of reservations originate with www.booking.com and www.expedia.com, and approximately 69% of reservations originate with “small concierge travel agents and direct to the property.”

https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/14518299?source_impression_id=p3_1566152144_x5b4ivB5Q%2BlISnx2

In a statement to the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, Airbnb shared: “In April 2015, Airbnb was excited to welcome Cuban hosts to the global community and since then, Airbnb has provided an opportunity for Cuban hosts to earn important supplemental income, as they open their homes to travelers from around the world. Data released in 2017 showed that Airbnb hosts welcomed 560,000 guests since 2015. From January 2018-January 2019, Cuban hosts welcomed more than 728,000 in just one year. In 2017, there were 22,000 listings, today there are 36,400. The average Cuban Airbnb host has lived in the community where they host for 31 years. 67% of Cuban hosts say that hosting has helped them afford to stay in their home.”

The use of a Casa Particular is specifically encouraged, but not required, for an individual subject to United States jurisdiction who visits the Republic of Cuba using the “Support for the Cuban People” provision (31 CFR 515.574) as administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury.

Property Claim

According to Mr. Andrea Gallina, “No claims. We had a visit of the original owners now living in the US. Zero interest in claiming the property. Lots of happiness to see we brought it back to its original splendor. So, their childhood memories were intact.”

Due to marriage, Mr. Gallina received a Green Card and is thus entitled to own property within the same regulations that apply to Republic of Cuba nationals.

He continued: “The current owner is me. The last owner I am afraid I don’t know where he is. He had purchased the house from a person that had purchased the property from the original owner, whose relatives are in the United States. The property had a change of ownership for three times at least... and the family members from the United States that came to visit us were not the owners. So, I don’t think it is even a case where a claim exists since someone from the family was left behind (in Cuba) and lived in the house.”

Credit Cards Accepted

“Any card can be used at check-out, but we don’t have a POS [Point of Sale] at the front desk. We take the card information at check-in, process a guarantee by sending the information to our office in Italy and then settle the bill at check-out. The transaction is not immediate though, and when there is a problem, we need to contact the client again and ask to approve the payment for example. There is always a risk associated with it...but we take it and so far, we have been successful in charging credit cards 99% of the time.”

Operational Costs

Mr. Gallina purchased Paseo 206 for US$250,00.00. The average price per square foot for a residence in the Vedado area of the city of Havana is US$1,000.00 and US$1,500.00 per square foot in Old Havana. The total cost to create Paseo 26, including the structure purchase, was approximately US$2 million.

Paseo 206 reports that in terms of financial significance, the ten (10) largest monthly expenses for the property are: 1) Taxes 2) Food 3) Labor 4) Electric 5) Internet 6) Telephone 7) Maintenance 8) Water 9) Gas and 10) Insurance.

Income taxes are based upon sales, not on profit. The highest income tax rate of 50% is for self-employed with annual revenues of more than CUP 50,000.00 (approximately US$2,000.00). Monthly estimate payments are required. There are substantial limitations on deductions; which vary depending upon the category of the business. There is no true wholesale marketplace in the Republic of Cuba. Retail prices are generally 240% above product cost. Self-employed purchase inputs for the same pricing as do retail customers at Republic of Cuba government-operated retail stores. Income taxes generally account for 40% of net profit.

When Will Properties Be Rated By AAA & Forbes Travel Guide?

Properties self-identifying as rating five-stars in the Republic of Cuba generally equate with one-star to two-star-plus properties in the United States.

There are SLH-affiliated properties in many countries that have earned the AAA Five Diamond Award from AAA and a Five-Star rating from Forbes Travel Guide.

There are no properties in the Republic of Cuba that have been rated by Heathrow, Florida-based AAA (formerly American Automobile Association) or Atlanta, Georgia-based Forbes Travel Guide. From AAA: "AAA’s Diamond Rating System does not cover Cuba at this time." No AAA Four Diamond, AAA Five Diamond, Four-Star or Five-Star rated properties.

From Forbes Travel Guide: "At this time we do not have any star rated hotels in Cuba though we continue to watch the destination with interest and look forward to launching the country as a new market in the not too distant future. We are really waiting for the hotel infrastructure to generate levels of service that would qualify them to be considered for an evaluation and potential Star Award. We have not sent any inspectors into Cuba at this time for this reason though have already made high level visits by members of our Executive office." The Chief Executive Officer of Forbes Travel Guide, Gerald J. Inzerillo, visited the Republic of Cuba in 2016.

Along with Paseo 206, only one other hotel in the Republic of Cuba would likely earn at least a Four Diamond or Five-Star rating: The 246-room Gran Hotel Kempinski Manzana La Habana which opened in 2017. The property is managed by Geneva, Switzerland-based Kempinski Hotels S.A.; the property is owned by Republic of Cuba government-operated Gaviota S.A. which is controlled by Republic of Cuba government-operated Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A. (Enterprise Management Group), or GAESA, which is controlled by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of the Republic of Cuba (FAR). The property is required by Gaviota S.A. to use Republic of Cuba-produced and branded toiletries in its rooms. The Gran Hotel Kempinski Manzana La Habana is on the Cuba Restricted List (CRL) maintained by the United States Department of State. Individuals subject to United States jurisdiction are generally prohibited from direct transactions with entities on the CRL.

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2017/4/29/cubas-1st-potentially-five-star-aaa-diamond-property-kempinski-manzana-la-habana-welcoming-guests-on-9-june-2017?rq=Kempinski

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2017/1/29/cubas-1st-us-standard-based-five-star-hotel-is-about-to-open?rq=Forbes

In September 2019, a third hotel is scheduled to open and could earn at least a Four Diamond or Five-Star rating: The 250-room SO Havana Paseo del Prado, a “lifestyle luxury hotel bursting with local energy” is scheduled to open. The property will be managed by Paris, France-based Accor S.A.; the property is owned by Republic of Cuba government-operated Gaviota S.A. which is controlled by Republic of Cuba government-operated Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A. (Enterprise Management Group), or GAESA, which is controlled by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of the Republic of Cuba (FAR). The SO brand (which has one operating property and five scheduled to open by 2021) is not the highest-level-of-service brand owned by Accor; that is the six-property Legend, a “unique collection of heritage hotels infused with French art de vivre.”

https://sofitel.accorhotels.com/gb/hotel-B361-%E5%AE%9C%E5%BF%85%E6%80%9D%E5%B0%9A%E5%93%81%E4%B8%9C%E4%BA%AC%E6%B9%BE%E9%85%92%E5%BA%97/index.shtml#origin=sofitel

Travel Pulse
Westhampton, New Jersey
12 August 2019

By Mia Taylor

“Banish all of your preconceived notions about what it might be like to visit Cuba. And more specifically, do away with any ideas you might have about hotel accommodations on a Caribbean island that's currently grappling with a commercial, economic, and financial embargo imposed by the United States. Why? Because with its incredibly chic and stylish decor; very modern, upscale amenities and outstanding food offerings, Paseo 206 defies all expectations of Cuban hospitality that have been bandied about in the American media.

This sophisticated hotel could quite literally be anywhere in the world. Yet at the same time, it oozes distinctly Cuban warmth and character. From its location on a tree-lined street in Vedado, (the economic and cultural heart of La Havana), to the building itself, a Cuban family home dating back to 1933, Paseo 206 represents Cuba at its finest and most charming.

To truly understand Paseo 206, you must have a bit of a primer about who owns and operates this unique gem of a property. It's run by a Cuban Italian family, led by the husband and wife team of Andrea Gallina and Diana Sainz, two former World Bank employees who left behind their high- powered jobs after years of globetrotting to settle in Diana's home country and become hoteliers. Together, the duo has painstakingly converted a former private Cuban residence (owned during the 1930s by a well-to-do senator who worked in the administration of President Gerardo Machado) into a 10-room boutique hotel that aims to combine the best of both Italian and Cuban culture.

The couple first saw the house that would become Paseo 206 in 2015, not long after President Raúl Castro restarted diplomatic relations with the United States and opened Cuba to American tourism. After laying eyes on the property, they were smitten and decided to pursue a dream. "This is a work of love," Gallina explained during a recent interview, adding: "Diana and I traveled so much for work or for pleasure over the years and we really enjoyed small hotels. We thought people usually open hotels like this when they retire, but we should do it now, while we have energy." And thus the Paseo 206 project was born.

It took about 11 months to restore the property, an effort that aimed to maintain the soul of the structure and preserve its unique architectural elements including refinishing intricate wooden moldings and replacing glass on original cabinetry. The couple also imported furnishings from Italy and adorned the walls and public spaces with the art of locals. And last but not least, they recruited family to help run the hotel. The result is a warm, stylish and property where you'll often bump into Gallina's mother in the hallways and each evening will be treated to live music from local musicians in the restaurant.

Each guest room at Paseo 206 is bright, modern and comfortable, designed to be peaceful enclaves from the hustle and bustle of the surrounding city. The decor is both welcoming and sophisticated, all of which is no accident. Before retiring from the World Bank, Andrea and Diana had visited no less than 60 countries. That globetrotting has clearly informed their couple's current project.

Room categories range from the Matchbox Room, which is the smallest room in the house (ideal for shorter stays) to Rooftop Suites. In between these two categories, there's also Junior Rooms and Master Suites.

The Master Suites at Paseo 206 feature distinct zones for sleeping, relaxing or working, and are decorated with Italian mid-century original furniture, as well as custom made lighting. Another noteworthy detail, these accommodations feature an in-room bathtub for an added bit of romance.

The Rooftop Suites at Paseo 206 offer an added bit of charming style and spaciousness. They include private terraces with jacuzzies providing views over the Malecon and the sea - perfect for relaxing after a day of exploring Havana.

Some of the additional property highlights and amenities at Paseo 206 include Hermes amenities; Marshall speakers; free, high-speed Wi-Fi (which is no minor detail in Cuba); 24-hour room service and king-size beds decked out with luxurious Frette linen. Spa services are also available on-site.

The warm, freshly baked croissants that melt in your mouth. The olive oil imported from Italy, specifically from the Bulgari family's limited collection - these are just some of the memorable highlights of a meal at Paseo 206, and more specifically its restaurant Eclectico. Here again, the family's Italian heritage plays a big role. Eclectico was designed to be a tiny corner of Italy in Cuba and to that end offers traditional Mediterranean recipes and dishes paired with the intense aromas of the Caribbean. The restaurant's chef Vincenzo Frassanito and his Cuban staff serve up a distinctive interpretation of Italian cuisine that emphasizes artisanal ingredients working with local farmers and small producers.

To further immerse guests in Cuban culture Paseo 206 offers a variety of local experiences, among them boxing, salsa classes, cooking lessons, fishing, and photography workshops in Old Havana, Gallina explained. The hotel, which showcases original artwork from locals, can also provide guests direct contact with Cuban artists and galleries.

Rates at this not to miss, restored colonial mansion range from about $150 per night to $300 per night depending on the season and the room you choose. For more information contact Paseo 206 at info@paseo206.com.”

LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format

U.S. Ceases Scheduled Air Services To Cities Other Than Havana Effective December 2019

Will American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Jet Blue Airways, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines Agree To Operate Charter Flights To Other Cities?

From The United States Department of State

"At the request of the Secretary of State, the U.S. Department of Transportation suspended until further notice scheduled air service between the United States and Cuban international airports other than Havana’s Jose Marti International Airport to prevent the Cuban regime from profiting from U.S. air travel. U.S. air carriers will have 45 days to discontinue all scheduled air service between the United States and all airports in Cuba, except for Jose Marti International Airport.

In line with the President’s foreign policy toward Cuba, this action prevents revenue from reaching the Cuban regime that has been used to finance its ongoing repression of the Cuban people and its support for Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. In suspending flights to a total of nine airports, the United States impedes the Cuban regime from gaining access to hard currency from U.S. travelers staying in its state-controlled resorts, visiting state-owned attractions, and otherwise contributing to the Cuban regime’s coffers near these airports.

United States continues to hold Cuba accountable for its repression of the Cuban people, and its interference in Venezuela, including its unconscionable support of the illegitimate Maduro regime. The human rights situation in Cuba remains abysmal, with state authorities harassing and arbitrarily jailing activists, dissidents, artists, and others questioning regime authority with impunity. Despite widespread international condemnation, Maduro continues to undermine his country’s institutions and subvert the Venezuelan people’s right to self-determination. Empowered by Cuba, Maduro has created a humanitarian disaster that destabilizes the region.

For more information on the suspension of these scheduled flights, please refer to the Notice posted in the federal docket management system at www.regulations.gov in dockets: DOT-OST-2016-002, DOT-OST-2016-0226, and DOT-OST-1998-20."

LINK To U.S. Department Of State Notification

LINK To U.S. Department Of Transportation Notification

LINK To Article From The New York Times

Cubana Airlines Cancels Flights Due To New U.S. Commerce Department Regulation

Cuban Carrier Cancels Some International Flights Due to U.S. Sanctions
October 24, 2019
Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Havana (dpa) - National carrier Cubana de Aviacion said on Wednesday that it will suspend flights to Mexico, Venezuela and part of the Caribbean due to new US sanctions.

The state-owned company said that it was notified by foreign leasing companies of the "cessation of lease agreements already signed," leading to the cancellations of flights to Mexico, Santo Domingo, Venezuela, Haiti, Martinique and Guadeloupe.

Cubana added that internal flights to the eastern provinces of Holguin and Santiago de Cuba would also be affected by the breaking of the leases. The company's deputy director, Arsenio Arocha, told local media that the cancellation of flights until December will cost Cubana some 10 million dollars.

Last Friday, the US Commerce Department announced it would revoke licences for aircraft leases to Cuban state-owned airlines, saying that Cuba has been using the leased aircraft to transport tourists, providing revenue for the regime's illicit activities. The department said that its Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) was also expanding sanctions to include more foreign goods containing at least 10 per cent of US components and was to impose additional restrictions on exports to the Cuban regime.

US President Donald Trump's administration has stepped up sanctions on Cuba, including a ban on former president Raul Castro from entering the United States, and limiting remittances to the island. Cuba has pledged to maintain its support to Venezuela despite stepped-up US pressure. Trump has been rolling back a US-Cuba detente introduced under his predecessor, Barack Obama.

LINK To U.S. Department Of Commerce Regulation: https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/10/18/us-department-of-commerce-final-rule-further-restricts-aircraft-operations-with-cuba

United States Department Of Commerce Reduces De-Minimis Level For U.S. Content In Exports To Cuba

On 19 October 2019, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce published a final rule amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to further restrict exports and reexports of items to the Republic of Cuba.

De Minimis Threshold: Pursuant to Section 734.4 of the EAR, foreign-made items located abroad are subject to the EAR under certain circumstances, including when they incorporate, or are bundled or commingled with, specified levels of controlled United States-origin commodities, software, or technology, by value.

With some exceptions for items for which there is no de minimis level, either a 10% de minimis rule or a 25% de minimis rule applies, depending upon the destination of the foreign-made products.

In 2015, the United States government rescinded the Republic of Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, making the country eligible for the more favorable 25% de minimis threshold.

The new rule means that a BIS license or an applicable license exception now is required to ship foreign-made items that contain greater than 10% United States-origin controlled content to the Republic of Cuba by value; for the Republic of Cuba, even EAR99 content is considered “controlled,” and thus the rule significantly limits the ability of foreign companies that rely on United States parts and components to do business with the Republic of Cuba.

LINK To BIS Rule

June 2020 G7 Gathering In Florida: Cuba & Venezuela Will Be Highly Visible; Other Surprises?

UPDATE: At 6:52 pm on 19 October 2019, President Trump used the Twitter platform to report that Trump National Doral Miami would not host the G7 gathering in 2020.

From Wednesday, 10 June 2019, to Friday, 12 June 2019, 643-room Trump National Doral Miami located on 800-acres in the City of Doral, Florida, located within Miami-Dade County will be the site of the 2020 annual Group of Seven (G7) gathering of heads of government/heads of state from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United States. The Honorable Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, will host the gathering.

An Anecdote: A room reservation made directly with the Internet site of Trump National Doral Miami at 1:00 pm on Thursday, 17 October 2019, as The White House was announcing the site selection, was confirmed by an email from the Reservations Office at 1:25 pm. On Friday, 18 October 2018, at 3:13 pm, the Reservations Office sent the following message by email: “At this time we are unable to honor your reservation from June 9th - June 13th, 2020 as we are fully committed. Please note that your reservation will be cancelled and we highly suggest for you to find alternate accommodations. Thank you for your interest in Trump National Doral.”

What might the event look like?

The theme for the G7 gathering in 2020 could be “Making The ‘G’ Relevant.” President Trump may advocate to permanently expand the “G” to include China, India and Russia.

H.E. Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China, may be invited as a guest of the United States. Officials of the Trump Administration have posited that for the G7 to exclude China, the world’s second-largest economy, is impractical as inclusion may prompt more effective accountability, cooperation and integration by China into the global marketplace.

H.E. Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, will be invited as a guest of the United States. Officials of the Trump Administration posit that for the G7 to exclude India, the world’s seventh-largest economy, is impractical as inclusion may prompt more effective accountability, cooperation and integration by India into the global marketplace. There are also perceived re-election campaign-related benefits to the Trump Administration.

H.E. Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, will be invited as a guest of the United States. While five or six of the seven members of the G7 may resist reinstating the participation of the Russian Federation, President Trump, as host, will seek to include President Putin as guest in part so the “G” may more effectively manage issues relating to Syria, Iran, Venezuela and the Republic of Cuba among others (including energy).

H.E. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of Turkey, will be invited as a guest of the United States. President Trump believes that cooperation with Turkey, a member since 1974 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), is critical to more effective integration and cooperation for issues relating to Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Republic of Cuba, Russia, Cyprus and other countries.

H.E. Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran, may be invited as means of demonstrating the willingness by President Trump to meet directly with those with whom the United States has disagreement.

H.E. Imran Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, may be invited with a goal of the G7 gathering serving as a platform for Prime Minister Khan and Prime Minister Modi to discuss issues relating to Kashmir.

H.E. Juan Guaido, President of the National Assembly of Venezuela since December 2018 and Interim President of Venezuela since January 2019, will invited as a guest of the United States. Fifty-four countries recognize Interim President Guaido. Italy is the only member of the G7 not to recognize Interim President Guaido.

There will be a formal discussion focusing upon Venezuela and the Republic of Cuba. With the United States seeking from the G7 (and European Union- EU) a more robust effort to support commercial, economic and political change in Venezuela and the Republic of Cuba. China, Turkey and Russia are critical to a resolution or movement towards a resolution of issues relating to Venezuela and the Republic of Cuba.

Depending upon the adjudication of lawsuits, currently twenty (20), that use Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”), members of the G7 will continue to oppose the use of Title III and will advocate the Trump Administration agree to directly negotiate [H.E. Miguel] Diaz-Canel Administration to resolve the 5,913 certified claims against the Republic of Cuba. Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset. As of 19 October 2019, there are Title III defendants located in Canada, France and the United States.

The Trump Administration will focus upon Miami-Dade County in terms of making available officials for speaking engagements to reinforce President Trump’s efforts relating to the Republic of Cuba and Venezuela.

The Wild Cards

Might President Trump extend invitations to H.E. Nicolas Maduro, President of Venezuela, and H.E. Miguel Diaz-Canel, President of the Republic of Cuba, to attend the G7 as guests? President Trump would benefit regardless of whether the invitations were accepted- he is reaching out to try and solve problems, although President Maduro has legitimate concerns as to his personal safety (arrest).

G7, G8, G20, OAS, EU, OPEC Membership

The Group of Seven (1974-1997), known as the G7, included Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United States.

The Group of Eight (1997-2014) known as the G8, included Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States and Russia.

The Group of Seven (2014-Present) includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United States. The Russian Federation was excluded in 2014 as a result of its military actions on the Crimean Peninsula.

G20: Argentina, Brazil, China, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russia, Turkey, United States, Australia, Canada, France, India, Italy, Mexico, Republic of South Africa, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, and Brussels, Belgium-based European Union (EU).

OAS: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, The Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

EU: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.

OPEC: Algeria, Angola, Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. OPEC Observers: Egypt, Mexico, Norway, Oman and Russia among other countries.

LINK To Complete Analysis

U.S. Department Of Commerce Final Rule Further Restricts Aircraft Operations With Cuba

BILLING CODE: 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 734, 740, and 746

[Docket No. 191011-0062] RIN 0694-AH90

Restricting Additional Exports and Reexports to Cuba AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to further restrict exports and reexports of items to Cuba. Specifically, this rule amends the Cuba licensing policy in the EAR to establish a general policy of denial for leases of aircraft to Cuban state-owned airlines. This rule also amends License Exception Aircraft, Vessels and Spacecraft (AVS) to clarify that aircraft and vessels are not eligible for the license exception if they are leased to or chartered by a national of Cuba or a State Sponsor of Terrorism. Additionally, this rule amends the EAR to establish a general 10- percent de minimis level for Cuba. Finally, this rule revises License Exception Support for the Cuban People (SCP) to make the Cuban government and communist party ineligible for certain donations, removes an authorization for promotional items that generally benefits the Cuban government, and clarifies the scope of telecommunications items that the Cuban government may receive without a license. BIS is making these amendments to further restrict the Cuban government’s access to items subject to the EAR, thereby supporting the Administration’s national security and foreign policy decision to hold the Cuban regime accountable for its repression of the Cuban people and its support for the Maduro regime in Venezuela; the Cuban regime denies its people fundamental freedoms while keeping Maduro in power using Cuban military intelligence and state security services. These amendments are consistent with the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba, signed by the President on June 16, 2017.

DATES: This rule is effective [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan W. Christian, Foreign Policy Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security at (202) 482-4252.

LINK To Filing In PDF Format

Norwegian Cruise Line And MSC Cruises Submit Motions To Dismiss In Libertad Act Lawsuits

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:19-cv-23588-BLOOM/Louis

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. and MSC CRUISES SA CO., Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

LINK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 19-23591-CIV-BLOOM/LOUIS

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS LTD., Defendant.

NORWEGIAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS

LINK

U.S. Department of Justice Updating Claims Filing System- Does This Foretell Increasing Activity?

AGENCY: Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of a new system of records.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (Commission), Department of Justice, proposes to establish a new system of records to enable the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibility to receive, examine, adjudicate and render final decisions with respect to claims for compensation of individuals. The system will include documentation provided by the claimants as well as background material that will assist the Commission in the processing of their claims. The system will also include the final decision of the Commission regarding each claim.

DATES: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this system of records notice is effective upon publication, with the exception of the routine uses that are subject to a 30-day period in which to comment, described below. Therefore, please submit any comments by November 18, 2019.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (Commission) is authorized, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 1621 et. seq., 50 U.S.C. 1701 note and 50 U.S.C. App. 2004 and 2005, to adjudicate claims to determine the eligibility of individuals for and the appropriate amount of compensation. The system of records covered by this notice is necessary for the Commission's adjudication of claims pursuant to its authority under the aforementioned statutes. These records shall form the basis upon which the Commission will determine an individual's eligibility for and amount of compensation. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Commission has provided a report to OMB and the Congress on the new system of records.

Dated: October 10, 2019.
Jeremy R. LaFrancois, Chief Administrative Counsel

PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM: This system shall consolidate the following Systems of Records: FCSC-1 Indexes of Claimants (Alphabetical); FCSC-3 Certifications of Awards; FCSC-4 China, Claims Against; FCSC-5 Civilian Internees (Vietnam); FCSC-8 Cuba, Claims Against; FCSC-17 Prisoners of War (Vietnam); FCSC-19 Soviet Union, Claims Against; FCSC-25 Egypt, Claims Against; FCSC-26 Albania, Claims Against; FCSC-27 Germany, Holocaust Survivors' Claims Against; FCSC-28 Iraq, Registration of Potential Claims Against; FCSC-29 Libya, Claims Against; FCSC-29 Claims of less than $250,000 Against Iran; FCSC-30 Iraq, Claims Against; FCSC-31 Claims Referred by the Department of State; FCSC-32 Claims Arising under the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. This system will enable the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibility to determine the validity and amount of claims authorized to be adjudicated pursuant to pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 1621 et. seq., 50 U.S.C. 1701 note and 50 U.S.C. App. 2004 and 2005.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Individuals who file claims pursuant to a duly authorized Commission claims program.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Claim information, including name and address of claimant and representative, if any; date and place of birth or naturalization; nature of claim; description of loss or injury including medical records; and other evidence establishing entitlement to compensation.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: The primary document source is the claimant upon whom the record is maintained. The collection may also include documents obtained from legal databases (e.g., Westlaw and/or Lexis), Congressional records, and the records of other Federal agencies (e.g., the Social Security Agency, Department of State, etc.)

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records contained in this system of records may be disclosed as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) under the circumstances or for the purposes described below, to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected.

a. Upon the issuance of a final decision awarding compensation, the Commission will certify its decision and other necessary personal information to the Department of the Treasury in order to process payment of the claim.Start Printed Page 55588

b. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the federal government, when necessary to accomplish a Commission function related to this system of records;

c. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record;

d. Where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature—the relevant records may be referred to the appropriate federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law;

e. In an appropriate proceeding before the Commission, or before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the Department of Justice and/or the Commission determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding;

f. To a former employee of the Commission for purposes of: Responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Commission regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Commission requires information and/or consultation from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility;

g. To the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906;

h. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to the individuals, the Commission (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm;

i. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach;

j. To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by federal statute or treaty.

LINK To Notification: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/17/2019-22496/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records?utm_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list

LINK To Federal Register Notification In PDF Format.

About The FCSC From The United States Department of Justice:

“The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States is a quasi-judicial, independent agency within the Department of Justice which adjudicates claims of U.S. nationals against foreign governments, either under specific jurisdiction conferred by Congress or pursuant to international claims settlement agreements. The decisions of the Commission are final and are not reviewable under any standard by any court or other authority. Funds for payment of the Commission's awards are derived from congressional appropriations, international claims settlements, or the liquidation of foreign assets in the United States by the Departments of Justice and the Treasury.

The Commission also has authority to receive, determine the validity and amount, and provide for the payment of claims by members of the U.S. armed services and civilians held as prisoners of war or interned by a hostile force in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam conflict, or by the survivors of such service members and civilians.

The Commission is also responsible for maintaining records and responding to inquiries related to the various claims programs it has conducted against the Governments of Albania, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Panama, Poland, Romania, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia, as well as those authorized under the War Claims Act of 1948 and other statutes.”

Agency URL: http://www.justice.gov/fcsc/
Parent Agency; Justice Department

Libertad Act Lawsuit Statistics Update: 25 Law Firms, 88 Attorneys, US$1.1 Million Billable Hours, 72 Plaintiffs, 67 Defendants, 20 Lawsuits

As of 31 October 2019, which is 182-days since the Trump Administration made operational Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”):

Twenty (20) lawsuits filed
Court Filing Fees US$130,960.00
Twenty-Five (25) Law Firms
Eighty-Eight (88) Attorneys
US$1.1 Million In Law Firm Billable Hours
One Hundred-And-Three (103) companies/individuals, excluding attorneys, are lawsuit parties
Seventy-Two (72) plaintiffs
Four (4) Class Action status requests
Sixty-seven (67) defendants
Five (5) companies notified as will be added as defendants unless prompt settlement

Lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Courts in Southern Florida (16), Washington DC (1), Washington State (1), Nevada (1) and Delaware (1).

Law firms retained by plaintiffs/defendants: Akerman; Arent Fox; Baker & McKenzie; Boies Schiller Flexner; Coffey Burlington; Colson Hicks Eidson; Cueto Law Group; Ewusiak Law; Hogan Lovells; Holland & Knight; Jones Walker; Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton; Law Offices Of Paul Sack; Manuel Vazquez PA; Margol & Margol; Mayer Brown; Pacifica Law Group; Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman; Reed Smith; Reid Collins & Tsai; Rice Reuther Sullivan & Carroll; Rivero Mestre; Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess; Steptoe & Johnson; Venable.

Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset.

LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format

Could Accor S.A. Of France Be Subject To Libertad Act Lawsuits?

On 24 June 2019, four (4) plaintiffs filed a lawsuit [1:19-cv-22620] seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against seven (7) defendants.

The lawsuit is using Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”). Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset.

At the bottom of page two of the twenty-page lawsuit, note 2 contains the following: “In accordance with 22 U.S.C. $ 6082(a)(3), the Angulo Cuevas Heirs have given notice to Accor S.A. ("Accor") of their intent to add Accor as a defendant to this lawsuit if they do not promptly compensate the Angulo Cuevas Heirs and the class for the unlawful trafficking of their property.” LINK To Lawsuit.

The notification process includes a letter and the target of the letter has thirty (30) days by which to respond. To date, neither the plaintiffs nor their attorneys and Accor S.A. have publicly confirmed that compensation has been received by the plaintiffs.

Issy-les-Moulineaux, France-based Accor S.A. (2018 revenues exceeded US$4 billion) manages two properties in the Republic of Cuba.

The company had managed two additional properties: 385-room Mercure Playa de Oro in Varadero from 2012 to 2017 and the 178-room Hotel Mercure Sevilla Havane in the city of Havana from 1995 to 2018.

The Playa de Oro Varadero is owned by Republic of Cuba government-operated Gran Caribe. Disagreement as to responsibility for financing for renovations resulted Accor S.A. returning the property to Gran Caribe. Accor S.A. had reported that the Hotel Mercure Sevilla Havane was to undergo a US$20 million renovation to become an MGallery by Sofitel property. Disagreement as to responsibility for financing resulted in Accor S.A. returning the property to its owner, Republic of Cuba government-operated Gran Caribe.

Pullman Cayo Coco Hotel (518 rooms)

The property of owned by Gran Caribe. Accor S.A. has managed the property since December 2015. From Accor S.A.:

“Hotels combining lifestyle and design, for business and leisure. All-inclusive 5-star resort facing the Caribbean Sea and ideally located in the hearth of the ecological park of the island of Cayo Coco. The resort has 2 sections: main hotel featuring 522 deluxe rooms and The Collection by Pullman adult only section offering junior suites, full suites and private Golden Villa. Our property offers a choice of 8 restaurants, 10 bars, 7 pools, 600-meter long private white sand beach, state of the art spa, Kids Club, banquet facilities and much more. Located off the Northern Cost of Cuba, on the Atlantic Ocean side, and part of the Jardines Del Rey archipelago that counts over 2,500 islands and cays widely renowned for its white sand beaches, calm and crystal-clear waters and natural surroundings.”

SO/Paseo Del Prado La Habana (250 rooms)

The property is owned by Gaviota. Accor S.A. reports the property will open in November 2019. From Accor S.A.:

“You already dreamed about it! In 2020, SO/ Hotels & Resorts will open a new address in America! Where? In the heart of one of Cuba's most emblematic districts: Havana. Discover now the SO/Havana Paseo del Prado. Charm, history, design, a vibrant atmosphere... The brand has it all! Take the Malecon boardwalk and join the El Vedado district of Havana City where its wide avenues and villas will take you on a 1950s American series. Not to miss: the alleys of Habana Vieja with its ancient monuments like forts, churches, palaces... The Cuban capital captivates the imagination like no other city on earth! And this is precisely the new destination of the SO/ brand.

With 10 floors above street level, SO/Havana Paseo del Prado feature 250 guest rooms, including 36 suites. Ranging in size from 34 to 64 square meters, guest rooms will consist of stylish contemporary furnishings, neutral palettes, innovative technology and thoughtful designer amenities. Interior meeting rooms, SPA with 6 treatment rooms, fitness center and swimming pool with adjacent bar will be at the disposal of our travelers. The hotel will also feature additional signature elements of the SO/ lifestyle such as the Just Say SO service and SO Parties, featuring the hottest DJs and artists.

SO/ hotels are vibrant and highly sought-after destinations for trendy and discerning travelers. The brand is already present in Thailand, Mauritius, Singapore, Berlin, Vienna and St. Petersburg. The brand will soon reveal its future addresses in Auckland (November 2018), Kuala Lumpur (2020), Samui and Jakarta (2021).”

LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format