Four Cruise Lines File Motions Seeking To Appeal To The 11th District Court Of Appeals

The four defendants, cruise lines each, have submitted to the judge in their case before the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida- Miami Division, their Motions For Certification For Interlocutory Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District whose headquarters is located in Atlanta, Georgia. Uncertain if the motions from the four defendants will be granted.  

According to practitioners, Courts of Appeals generally prefer a holistic approach, disliking piecemeal legal filings and will await final dispensation of a case prior to moving up within the legal process.

From The Court: “Established by Congress in 1981, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit has jurisdiction over federal cases originating in the states of Alabama, Florida and Georgia. The circuit includes nine district courts with each state divided into Northern, Middle and Southern Districts.” 

From The Court: “Although some cases are decided based on written briefs alone, many cases are selected for an "oral argument" before the court. Oral argument in the court of appeals is a structured discussion between the appellate lawyers and the panel of judges focusing on the legal principles in dispute. Each side is given a short time — usually about 15 minutes — to present arguments to the court. 

Most appeals are final. The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc, that is, by a larger group of judges (usually all) of the court of appeals for the circuit. 

A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently. There are also a small number of special circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal.  Different types of cases are handled differently during an appeal.  Civil Case: Either side may appeal the verdict.” 

LINK To United States Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/

From Carnival Corporation’s submission: 

“This Court recently granted Plaintiff Havana Docks Corporation permission to file an amended complaint and lifted the stay in this matter. D.E. 79. In so doing, this Court incorporated its broad legal holdings concerning the Helms-Burton Act that it set forth in recently-issued orders reversing, on reconsideration, orders entered in the other cases brought by Havana Docks against cruise line defendants. This Court’s interpretation of the Helms-Burton Act presents a pure question of controlling law over which reasonable minds could clearly differ, the resolution of which would dispose of many of Havana Docks’ claims and materially advance this litigation.  Accordingly, Defendant Carnival Corporation respectfully requests that the Court allow immediate appeal of its Omnibus Order, D.E. 79, and certify the following question for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): Whether “Title III’s plain language creates liability for trafficking in the broadly defined ‘confiscated property’—i.e., in any property that was nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise seized by the Cuban Government . . . without the property having been returned or adequate and effective compensation [paid]—not in a particular interest in confiscated property,” and “regardless of … when the trafficking took place.””

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS, LTD. [1:19-cv-23591; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Hogan Lovells US LLP (defendant)

LINK To Norwegian’s Motion For Certification For Interlocutory Appeal

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. [1:19-cv-23590; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

LINK To Defendant’s Motion For Certification For Interlocutory Appeal

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. MSC CRUISES SA CO, AND MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. [1:19-cv-23588; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Venable (defendant)

LINK To MSC Cruises’ Motion For Certification For Interlocutory Appeal

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES [1:19-cv-21724; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Walker (defendant)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

LINK To Carnival Corporation’s Motion For Certification Of Interlocutory Appeal

Spanish Appellate Court Rules Sánchez Hill (non-Libertad Act) Lawsuit Against Meliá Hotels International Has Jurisdiction to Proceed; Discovery Begins

Spanish Appellate Court Rules Sánchez Hill (non-Libertad Act) Lawsuit Against Meliá Hotels International Has Jurisdiction to Proceed; Discovery Begins 

There Is Jurisdiction For The Issue Of Unjust Enrichment  

Melia Hotels International Wants Spanish Courts To Link Lawsuit To Libertad Act So European Union (EU) Blocking Statutes Can Be Invoked

Libertad Act Plaintiffs In United States Will Be Monitoring Discovery Process

Background 

On 12 March 2002, Palma de Mallorca, Spain-based Meliá Hotels International (2019 revenues approximately US$2.1 billion) reportedly offered US$5 million to the descendants of Mr. Rafael Lucas Sanchez Hill as payment to prevent the United States Department of State from using Title IV relating to the Sol Rio de Oro Hotel in response to enactment in 1996 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as "Libertad Act").  

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.  Employees of one Canada-based company is currently known to be subject to this provision based upon a certified claim.   

On 26 March 2002, Sol Melia International, reportedly believing the [George W. Bush Administration; 20 January 2001 to 20 January 2009] United States Department of State would neither implement Title III nor Title IV of the Libertad Act, Melia Hotels International withdrew the offer of US$5 million and proposed US$3,197.75 representing a value (.06%) based upon the twenty-nine (29) acres of land occupied by the Sol Rio de Oro Hotel of the approximately 120,000 acres of land claimed by the descendants of the owners of the property. The US$3,197.75 was determined by Melia Hotels International as the corresponding percentage of the US$5 million tax loss carry-forward amount with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the 1960's.   

On 29 May 2019, descendants of Mr. Rafael Lucas Sanchez Hill, acting as Central Santa Lucia L.C., filed a lawsuit in Spain seeking US$10 million from Meliá Hotels International seeking damages for the use of land upon which a hotel is located in the Republic of Cuba. The lawsuit is not using provisions of Title III of the Libertad Act.   

Title III of the Libertad Act 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. 

On 3 September 2019, the court in Spain dismissed the lawsuit on grounds of jurisdiction.  On 30 September 2019, the plaintiffs filed an appeal.    

In October 2019, Melia Hotels International reported receiving a Title IV letter from the United States Department of State; unknown is which property or properties in the Republic of Cuba were the basis for the letter.  Melia Hotels International has refused to release the text of the Title IV letter, so uncertain whether the letter was a) a request for information about Melia Hotels International operations in the Republic of Cuba to determine whether there may be issues relating to the Libertad Act or b) a notification that executives and their families are to be denied entry into the United States.   

On 18 October 2019, Melia Hotels International filed its 55-page response including reference to European Council (EC) Regulation No. 2271/1996 enacted on 22 November 1996.  

On 4 February 2020, executives of Melia Hotels International reported receiving a letter from the United States Department of State notifying the company that visas had been revoked for senior executives.     

On 18 March 2020, the Spanish Appellate Court ruled the lawsuit against Melia Hotels International would proceed.

Other hotel management companies operating in the Republic of Cuba- those already listed as defendants in lawsuits and those notified by plaintiff attorneys as potential defendants in lawsuits could be impacted by the offer in 2002 by Melia Hotels International S.A., particularly as the company has the largest number of properties under management in the Republic of Cuba.

LINK To Spanish Appellate Court’s Decision (18 March 2020) Spanish
LINK To Spanish Appellate Court’s Decision (18 March 2020) English- Google Translate
LINK To Case Filings

Previous Posts

Spain's Melia Hotels International CEO Confirms He Is Restricted From Entering United States Due To Libertad Act Title IV Letter; Says 50 Other Companies Impacted
February 05, 2020

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2020/2/5/xrylt5h7kirisotb6ay7ptrinqz1ot?rq=Melia%20Hotels%20International

Melia Hotels International Presents In Spain Its Response To Appeal By Plaintiffs Of Case Dismissal; Company Reportedly Receives Title IV Letter
November 23, 2019

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/11/23/melia-hotels-international-presents-in-spain-its-response-to-appeal-by-plaintiffs-of-case-dismissal?rq=Santa%20Lucia

U.S. Shareholders Control 10.04% Of Spain's Melia Hotels; Company Reports Libertad Act/Trump Administration Impact Upon Cuba Operations
November 11, 2019

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/11/10/xnlt2n3jfd0sc3k8yvc0495iqkvfo0?rq=Melia%20Hotels%20International

Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal Of Lawsuit In Spain Against Melia Hotels; Plaintiffs Sue In U.S.; Why Did Melia Hotels Offer US$5 Million Then US$3,197.75?
October 05, 2019

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/10/3/plaintiffs-appeal-lawsuit-dismissal-in-spain-against-melia-hotels-international-plaintiffs-also-have-sued-melia-hotels-international-in-the-united-states?rq=Santa%20Lucia

Court In Spain Dismisses Lawsuit Against Melia Hotels International Relating To Operations In Cuba; Plaintiffs Now Expected To Sue In U.S. Using Libertad Act
September 04, 2019

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/9/4/2sv7ypsuz6wyb8aykm25cseuvcpacu?rq=Santa%20Lucia

Recent Court Filings In Spain (Not United States) Lawsuit Against Melia Hotels International
July 23, 2019

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/7/23/recent-court-filings-in-spain-not-united-states-lawsuit-against-melia-hotels-international?rq=Santa%20Lucia

EC Now Has To Decide What It Perhaps Doesn’t Want To Decide- Iberostar Of Spain Libertad Act Lawsuit Is First To Report U.S. Court Recognizing EC’s Interest In Title III Lawsuits

EC Now Has To Decide What It Perhaps Doesn’t Want To Decide- Iberostar Of Spain Libertad Act Lawsuit Is First To Report U.S. Court Recognizing EC’s Interest In Title III Lawsuits  

For the first time, a Libertad Act lawsuit has a transnational dimension because of a decision by a judge of a United States District Court to recognize the appropriateness of international comity- the principle that United States courts should recognize a foreign country’s sovereign interests in matters before it. 

Mr. Hermenegildo, Altozano, attorney with Madrid, Spain-based Bird & Bird, informed the court that “On April 15, 2020, I filed an Application for Authorisation under Article 5 paragraph 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom, on behalf of the Spanish company Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos S.L.U. ("Iberostar").”

What can the European Commission (EC) do?  What should the EC do?  The potential international relations issues relating to the Libertad Act that were modeled for outcomes in 1996 are now a reality in 2020.  Having said it will consider “all options” what will it do? 

EC may be in a bind.  If EC rules against Iberostar Hoteles, and the United States District Court enters a default judgment against the company, the result will portend substantial long-term liability for the company and require extensive and long running global efforts to protect company assets from a court judgement. 

Potentially a delicate challenge for H.E. Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union Minister for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who was Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation of the Kingdom of Spain.  Iberostar Hoteles is headquartered in Palma, Spain.  

MARIA DOLORES CANTO MARTI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF DOLORES MARTI MERCADE AND FERNANDO CANTO BORY V. IBEROSTAR HOTELES Y APARTAMENTOS SL [1:20-cv-20078; Southern Florida District]

Zumpano Patricios P.A. (plaintiff)
Bird & Bird (defendant)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

LINK To Defendant’s Motion To Stay Proceedings
LINK To Exhibit A- EC Council Regulations
LINK To Exhibit B- Declaration Of Hermenegildo Altozano (Bird & Bird)
LINK To Court Order Granting Iberostar’s Motion To Stay

LINK To Case Filings

LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

LINK To Post: https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2020/4/15/iberostar-hoteles-of-spain-sued-by-former-property-owners-using-libertad-act 

NOTE: Iberostar Hoteles has two properties in the United States: 70 Park Avenue in New York City and Berkeley in Miami Beach, Florida.  Iberostar Hoteles manages eighteen properties in the Republic of Cuba. 

Excerpts From Defendant’s Motion To Stay Proceedings 

1. Iberostar is caught between the conflicting demands of two legal systems: that of the United States and that of the European Union (“EU”). On the one hand, Iberostar must respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint by May 8, 2020. On the other hand, the European Commission requires an EU-based company to obtain authorization before it can file a response to any lawsuit brought under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act (the “Helms-Burton Act” or the “Act”). This requirement arises from the EU blocking statute enacted to counteract the effects of the Helm-Burton Act, expressly prohibiting a Spanish entity such as Iberostar1 from complying “whether directly or through a subsidiary or other intermediary person, actively or by deliberate omission, with any requirement or prohibition, including requests of foreign courts, based on or resulting, directly or indirectly, from the laws specified in the Annex [which expressly includes the Act] or from actions based thereon or resulting therefrom.” See Council Regulation 2271/96, Protecting Against the Effects of the Extra-Territorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country, and Actions Based Thereon or Resulting Therefrom, 1996 O.J. (L 309) 1 (EC) (the “Council Regulation 2271/96”) attached as Exhibit A. 

2. On April 15, 2020, Iberostar filed an application for authorization from the European Commission to respond to the Complaint in this action. See Exhibit B.2 Iberostar has also requested the expedited consideration of its application to the European Commission.  Iberostar does not know how long it will take to obtain a response to its application given that the applicable European legislation establishes no specific deadline for the European Commission to answer the request. Iberostar will be prepared to respond promptly after it receives a response on or after May 8, 2020. To avoid a protracted delay, this request for a stay is limited to no more than 75 days. 

3. Should Iberostar ignore the European Commission’s mandate and actively participate in this action without the Commission’s authorization, each breach would be subject to a penalty of up to EUR 600,000 by the Spanish government pursuant to Spanish Law 27/1998, of July 13, on Sanctions Applicable to Infringements of the Rules Established in Council Regulation 2271/96 (“Law 27/1998”).  See Law 27/1998, art. 5. The potential for sanctions is elevated given the Spanish government’s overt repudiation of Title III of the Act.  

4. However, if Iberostar fails to timely respond to the Complaint, it risks the possibility of not only waiving certain Rule 12(b) defenses, but also the potential entry of a default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. 

5. Therefore, as it awaits a response from the European Commission on its application, Iberostar respectfully requests a brief stay of proceedings based on the principle of international comity that counsels recognition and accommodation by U.S. courts of a foreign jurisdiction’s interests in a matter involving its nationals.  A temporary stay will also conserve the parties’ and the Court’s scarce judicial resources.  If the motion is granted, Iberostar will provide status reports on the progress of its application every thirty (30) days, or as otherwise directed by the Court. Iberostar further warrants that it will continue to press for an expeditious disposition of its pending application before the European Commission.  To that end, Iberostar has already asked the Secretariat of State for Commerce of the Kingdom of Spain to bring to the attention of the European Commission the need to timely address the request for authorization filed by Iberostar.  

Defendant has conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel about the request to stay the proceedings in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), and Plaintiff’s counsel does not agree to the requested relief. 

Excerpt From Judge’s Order Granting Iberostar’s Motion To Stay 

This requirement comes from a European Union blocking statute enacted to counteract the effects of the Helms-Burton Act, and Iberostar faces EUR 600,000 in sanctions for failure to first obtain authorization. (ECF No. 16 at ¶ 3.) Iberostar’s request for authorization has already been filed and is currently pending before the European Commission. (Id. at ¶ 18.) In the interest of international comity, this Court has determined that it is appropriate to stay this case pending the Iberostar’s request for authorization from the European Commission. 

The Court grants Iberostar’s motion for a stay (ECF No. 16), and the case is stayed until the European Union grants Iberostar’s request for authorization.  Iberostar shall submit status reports on its request for authorization every 30 days. In the interim, the Court directs the Clerk to administratively close this case.

Visa & Mastercard Sued Using Libertad Act For Processing Payments For Property In Cuba

ROBERT M. GLEN V. VISA, INC., VISA U.S.A., INC., VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION, MASTERCARD INCORPORATED, MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED [1:19-cv-01870; Delaware District]

Reid Collins & Tsai LLP (plaintiff)
Andrews & Springer LLC (plaintiff)
Sidley Austin LLP (defendant- Mastercard)
Akerman (defendant- Visa)
Ballard Shahr LLP (defendant- Visa)
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor (defendant- Mastercard)

LINK To Case Filings

Excerpts:

Under the Act, a person is liable for trafficking in confiscated property if that person, among other things, knowingly “engages in a commercial activity using or otherwise benefiting from confiscated property,” or knowingly “participates in, or profits from, trafficking . . . by another person.”

7. Defendants operate payment processing networks that facilitate credit card transactions between cardholders, merchants, and banks.

8. Defendants offer their network services to merchants in Cuba, including the four beachfront resorts on the properties confiscated from Glen’s family: the Iberostar Tainos, the Meliá Las Antillas, the Blau Varadero, and the Starfish Varadero.

9. By affirmatively permitting these hotels to collect payment from their guests through Visa- or Mastercard-branded credit card (and by earning revenue in connection with each such swipe), Defendants are engaging in commercial activity that uses or otherwise benefits from Glen’s confiscated property. Defendants are also participating in, and profiting from, trafficking committed by the hotels themselves.

10. Because Defendants have trafficked in confiscated property in violation of the Act, they are subject to Glen’s private action for civil damages under Title III, measured as the greater of the current fair market value of the property, or the value of the property at the time of confiscation plus interest.

11. Glen accordingly brings this statutory action to vindicate his claim to confiscated property and to obtain the compensation that he is rightfully entitled to under the Act.

Teck Resources "Canada’s largest diversified resource company" Is Sued Using Libertad Act

HEREDEROS DE ROBERTO GOMEZ CABRERA, LLC v. TECK RESOURCES LIMITED [1:20-cv-21630; Southern Florida District]

Hirzel Dreyfuss & Dempsey, PLLC (plaintiff)
Roig & Villarreal, P.A. (plaintiff)
Law Office of David A. Villarreal, P.A. (plaintiff)

Statement on 24 April 2020 from Teck Resources: “We are aware of the claim and are reviewing the matter with counsel. We will not comment further on an active litigation.”

LINK To Case Filing

Excerpts:

This is an action brought against pursuant to Title III of the Cuban Libertad and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (the “Libertad Act” or the “Act”), 22 U.S.C. § 6082, for the unlawful trafficking in property that was confiscated by the communist Cuban Government during the regime of Fidel Castro.

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages to properly compensate for the unlawful and unauthorized mining activities and extraction of valuable minerals from the rich ore and mineral mines in the Sierra Maestra region of Cuba, in and around the town of El Cobre, Province of Oriente.

Prior to being confiscated by the communist Cuban Government, Roberto Gomez Cabrera, through his company Rogoca Minera, S.A., was the rightful owner and claimant to the following twenty-one mines located in or around the town of El Cobre, Province of Oriente, Republic of Cuba:

a) Mina Grande;
b) Demasia Mina Grande;
c) Roberston;
d) Jueves Santo;
e) Gitanilla;
f) Lizzie;
g) Demasia de la mina Lizzie;
h) Estrella;
i) Capitana;
j) Maria Luisa;
k) Cristina;
l) Cobrera;
m) Trewinse;
n) Santa Rita;
o) Demasia de la Mina Maria Luisa;
p) Perla;
q) Resurrecion;
r) Preferencia;
s) Demasia de la mina Preferencia;
t) Ruinas Grandes; and
u) Reconstruccion.

The above-identified mining concessions total in size of approximately 253 Hectares or 624.91 Acres.

Plaintiff In Libertad Act Lawsuits Against Cruise Lines Now 4 For 4 In Dismissal Rulings Reversals By One Judge

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES [1:19-cv-21724; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Walker (defendant)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

LINK To Omnibus Order (4/20/20)
LINK To Amended Complaint (4/20/20)
LINK To Exhibit “A” (4/20/20)
LINK To Exhibit “B” (4/20/20)

Excerpts From Omnibus Order:

“Since the time that the parties briefed the two pending motions, after an extensive review of the issues raised in Plaintiff’s cases under Title III, the scope of the Certified Claim, and the nature of Plaintiff’s property interest in the Subject Property, the Court has reconsidered its interpretation of the Act in the Dismissal Orders and has concluded that the orders were premised on errors of fact and law. See NCL Case, ECF No. [53]; MSC Case, ECF No. [55]. Specifically, in the Related Cases, the Court has since concluded that its “ruling in the Carnival Order was consistent with the language and purpose of the Act,” the Court’s reasoning in the Dismissal Orders “incorrectly conflate[d] the Certified Claim with Havana Docks’ former interests in the Subject Property,” and that the Dismissal Orders’ holdings were “at odds with the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in Glen II and the district court’s reasoning in Glen I, which the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.” See NCL Case, ECF No. [53] at 17, 19; MSC Case, ECF No. [55] at 17, 19. Therefore, the Court has subsequently vacated the Dismissal Orders, reopened the Related Cases, and granted Plaintiff leave to amend its complaints. See NCL Case, ECF No. [53]; MSC Case, ECF No. [55]. Notably, the Court has rejected arguments that amendment is futile under Title III. See NCL Case, ECF No. [53] at 28; MSC Case, ECF No. [55] at 28. The Motion and the Motion for Reconsideration, accordingly, are ripe for consideration.”

Pernod Ricard Files Motion To Dismiss Libertad Act Lawsuit: "Plaintiffs Failed To... Plausibly State A Claim"

MARLENE CUETO IGLESIAS AND MARIAM IGLESIAS ALVAREZ V. PERNOD RICARD [1:20-cv-20157; Southern Florida District]

Law Offices of Andre G. Raikhelson LLC (plaintiff)
Ainsworth & Clancy PLLC (plaintiff)
Carlton Fields P.A. (defendant)

Excerpts From Defendant Motion To Dismiss:

“The Complaint should be dismissed under any of four separate and independent provisions of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, the Court lacks general and specific personal jurisdiction over PRSA, a French company headquartered in Paris. PRSA does not do business in Florida, is not licensed in Florida, and does not have an office or physical presence in Florida; therefore, the Court accordingly lacks general personal jurisdiction over PRSA. Further, PRSA’s declarant also explains that PRSA does not manufacture cognac in Cuba, and it does not distribute Havana Club branded rums in Florida or anywhere in the United States, since Cubanorigin spirits cannot be sold in the U.S. pursuant to U.S. embargo regulations. Plaintiffs cannot, consequently, establish specific personal jurisdiction over PRSA.While Plaintiffs seek to establish personal jurisdiction over PRSA on agency or alter-ego theories, none of the required legal elements of an agency relationship or alter-ego finding are alleged.

Second, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs lack standing. Plaintiffs’ claim that the Cuban government expropriated Conac Cueto’s property in Cuba, folded Conac Cueto’s described assets into a new company and rebranded its offerings “Havana Club,” fails to allege an injury, or even the exacerbation of an injury, that is fairly traceable to PRSA.

Third, Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently or plausibly state a claim under Title III. The Act requires that a plaintiff make plausible allegations that the defendant “knowingly and intentionally” trafficked in the specific property at issue; here, assets that once allegedly belonged to Conac Cueto. There are no plausible allegations that, if credited, establish that the rum products PRSA began distributing in 1993 from Cuba to countries other than the U.S. (in light of the Cuban embargo) are produced from assets seized from Conac Cueto in 1963, or that, if they are, PRSA had any knowledge of such connection.

Fourth, Plaintiffs failed to properly serve PRSA in accordance with the Hague Convention and French law for service of process. The notice of service was not addressed, directed to, or 7 served on a person authorized to accept service of process in accordance with French law.

For all of these reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6).”

LINK To Defendant Pernod Ricard S.A.’S Motion To Dismiss The First Amended Complaint Under Fed.R.CIV.P.12(B)(1), 12(B)(2), 12(B)(5) And 12(B)(6), And Memorandum Of Law In Support

LINK To Case Filings

LINK To Post: https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2020/4/15/pernod-ricard-of-france-sued-by-former-property-owners-using-libertad-act

NOTE: The United States is the largest market for Pernod Ricard brands, representing 18% of global sales. Pernod Ricard has offices in New York City and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Havana Club rum is a brand distributed by Pernod Ricard outside of the United States.

Five Years Later…. What Did New York State Companies Get For Governor Cuomo’s Estimated US$150,000.00+ 27-Hour Visit To Cuba?

Five Years Later…. What Did New York State Companies Get For Governor Cuomo’s Estimated US$150,000.00+ 27-Hour Visit To Cuba?

Was a US$10,000.000 “Advance” Trip Necessary If A Consultant Was Paid US$25,000.00?
What’s Happened- Where’s The Yogurt And Milk And Healthcare Products?
Why No Representatives From PANYNJ, NYSDAM?
Governor Staff To Company Ratio Was More Than 2:1
Why Did He Ignore Financial Institutions?

Five years ago, or 1,781 days, The Honorable Andrew Cuomo (D), Governor of the State of New York, embarked on a twenty-seven (27) hour quixotic journey to the Republic of Cuba with a foundation anchored far more upon his focus to be the “first” governor to visit the archipelago since the 17 December 2014 statements by President Barack Obama and President Raul Castro than by his role as the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) of the State of New York.

To date, there have been no published reports of exports of products to the Republic of Cuba from the seven (7) companies participating in the 20 April 2015 to 21 April 2015 visit.

The Governor and his staff have embraced the “planting seeds” analogy… There are few seeds that do not create something within five years.

The planning process and follow-up to the April 2015 visit was the third-least transparent of the twenty-one (21) governors who visited the Republic of Cuba since 1999. The visits by West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin and Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant were the least transparent.

LINK To Complete Analysis

Amazon & Susshi International Respond To Libertad Act Lawsuit: Plaintiff Has Again Not Made Its Case

DANIEL A. GONZALEZ VS. AMAZON.COM, INC., AND SUSSHI INTERNATIONAL, INC., D/B/A/ FOGO CHARCOAL [1:19-cv-23988; Southern Florida District]

Cueto Law Group, P.L. (plaintiff)
Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford (defendant- Susshi International)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (defendant- Amazon)

Link To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss The Amended Complaint With Prejudice

Link To Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint And Memorandum Of Law

Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus Corporation Sells 96 Trucks To Cupet In Cuba

“Press release

Mitsubishi Fuso wins fleet deal of 96 trucks in Cuba
Deal marks the largest sale to date for FUSO trucks in Cuba.
Trucks to support industrial facilities and customers of CUPET using LPG tanks.

Havana, Republic of Cuba/Kawasaki, Japan — Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus Corporation (MFTBC) is pleased to announce a large fleet order of 96 light-duty Canter trucks from Cuba Petróleo Union (CUPET).

The order, which consists of 77 Canter light-duty trucks (GVW 5.7t), 13 double-cabin Canter light-duty trucks (GVW 6t), and 6 Fighter medium-duty trucks (GVW 15.1t), marks the largest deal to date for FUSO vehicles in Cuba. The sale was agreed upon through the general distributor MCV Comercial S.A., which is also the official importer for other Daimler vehicles in Cuba. The delivery of vehicles have been completed within last month.

CUPET is the Cuban state organization in charge of supplying fuels, lubricants and LPG throughout the country. It is involved in the extraction of petroleum deposits as well as the refining and distribution of petroleum products. In conjunction with CIMEX, the largest commercial corporation in Cuba, CUPET operates a chain of gasoline and diesel filling stations. The new trucks will be used to provide support to industrial facilities and customers using LPG tanks.

Besides the Canter, Mitsubishi Fuso provides products such as the light-duty Rosa bus, and medium-duty trucks to the Cuban market, as BU vehicles from the Mitsubishi Fuso Bus Manufacturing (MFBM) plant in Toyama and the MFTBC plant in Kawasaki, respectively. MCV, which has the largest dealer network for commercial vehicles in Cuba, began distributing FUSO vehicles in the country in 1995. The presence of the FUSO brand has grown steadily in recent years, as sales volumes from 2019 exceeded that of the previous year. In 2019, FUSO also achieved double-digit year-on-year growth in units sold within other markets in the greater Central American and Caribbean region, such as the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica.

MFTBC at a Glance

Based in Kawasaki, Japan, Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus Corporation (MFTBC) is one of Asia’s leading commercial vehicle manufacturers. MFTBC sells light, medium, and heavy-duty trucks and buses under the FUSO brand, with 89.29% of its shares owned by Daimler Truck AG and 10.71% by various Mitsubishi group companies. MFTBC is an integral part of the Daimler Group’s global truck and bus business.

(MFTBC is an integral part of Daimler Truck AG, the commercial vehicles business of the Daimler Group. From its headquarters based in Kawasaki, Japan, MFTBC manufacturers trucks, buses, and industrial engines for over 170 markets around the world, offering products ranging from the iconic light-duty Canter truck to the heavy-duty Super Great. In recent years, MFTBC has served as a development center for electric and autonomous drive technologies within the larger Daimler Truck network. MFTBC also operates under the umbrella of Daimler Trucks Asia, together with its partner organization Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (DICV). This strategic unit allows the entities to collaborate on areas such as product development, parts sourcing and production to provide the best value to customers.”

Lawsuits Continue: Judge Reverses Two More Libertad Act Rulings Against Royal Caribbean Cruises & MSC Cruises

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. [1:19-cv-23590; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

LINK To Omnibus Order Denying Motion For Judgement On The Pleadings

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. MSC CRUISES SA CO, AND MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. [1:19-cv-23588; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Venable (defendant)

LINK To Order Granting Motion For Reconsideration

Pernod Ricard Of France Sued By Former Property Owner In Cuba Using Libertad Act

MARLENE CUETO IGLESIAS AND MARIAM IGLESIAS ALVAREZ V. PERNOD RICARD [1:20-cv-20157; Southern Florida District]

Law Offices of Andre G. Raikhelson LLC (plaintiff)
Ainsworth & Clancy PLLC (plaintiff)
Carlton Fields P.A. (defendant)

NOTE: The United States is the largest market for Pernod Ricard brands, representing 18% of global sales. Pernod Ricard has offices in New York, New York, and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Havana Club is a rum brand distributed by Pernod Ricard outside of the United States.

LINK To Case Filings

Excerpts From Plaintiff Complaint

13. Plaintiff, a U. S. national as defined by 22 U.S.C. § 6023(15), is the rightful owner of a 100% interest in certain property of Conac Cueto, C.I.A, a Cuban company, originally located at Avenue 25 #5401, Almendares, Buena Vista, Havana, Cuba (the “Subject Property”, “Conac Cueto” or “Company”).

14. Plaintiff’s family were well known in the Havana area and owned various businesses and properties.

15. Specifically, Plaintiff’s father, Fernando Tomas Cueto Sanchez, founded Conac Cueto in the early 1950s.

16. Conac Cueto produced and sold cognac and other spirits in the Republic of Cuba throughout the 1950s and until 1963 when the communist Cuban Government confiscated the Subject Property. The Conac Cueto product line included Conac Cueto Extra Viejo, Conac Cueto Anejo V.S., Conac Cueto Extra Dry, Champagne Conac Cueto, Aguardiente Cueto and others.

17. The Company’s assets included intellectual property, oak barrels, bottles, labels, corks, tasters, meters and other assets the Company used in the production and sale of cognac. The Company employed a house chemist, a house taster, staff accountants, a general manager, and numerous employees and sales representatives.

18. The communist Cuban Government confiscated the Subject Property and forcefully took possession and control of all Company assets, the Company market segment and the Company intellectual property. In 1963, the communist government of Cuba gathered all Company assets and took them to the rum company of the Cuban government, “Cuban Government Rum Company,” which was the result of the Cuban government nationalizing other spirit companies including the now infamous, Jose Arechabala S.A, who was the original owner of Havana Club brand. Similar to the fate of Jose Arechabala S.A and the Havana Club brand, the Company’s brand Conac Cueto Extra-Viejo and all other assets were forcefully transferred to the Cuban Government Rum Company and eventually rebranded as Havana Club.

19. The communist Cuban Government maintains possession of the Subject Property and has not paid any compensation to Plaintiff for its seizure. The Cuban Government has partnered with the Defendant to distribute the Havana Club brand as well as other ventures to be found in discovery.

20. The communist Cuban Government expropriated, and seized ownership and control of the Subject Property. The Subject Property has not been returned and adequate and effective compensation has not been provided. Further, the claim to the Subject Property has not been settled
pursuant to an international claims settlement agreement or other settlement procedure.

21. More specifically, the communist Cuban Government seized ownership and control of the Subject Property since 1963 and used the rights in the Subject Property to produce and sell the Company’s product lines and utilize the intellectual property of the Company under the name Havana Club without consent from or compensation paid to Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen.

22. Plaintiff never abandoned her legitimate interest in the Subject Property.

23. Plaintiff’s interest in the Subject Property is based upon an uncertified claim, and Plaintiff did not have the ability to bring a claim under the Settlement of International Claims Act of 1949.

24. Upon information and belief, beginning on or about 1993 and continuing to today, the Defendants knowingly and intentionally commenced, conducted, promoted and distributed its Havana Club brand and line of products worldwide using the Subject Property by using the assets
and intellectual property of the Subject Property without the authorization of Plaintiff.

25. Upon information and belief, beginning on or about 1993 and continuing for at least a year thereafter, the Defendants also knowingly and intentionally participated in and profited from the communist Cuban Government’s possession of the Subject Property without the authorization of Plaintiff.

26. The Defendants’ knowing and intentional conduct with regard to the confiscated Subject Property is trafficking as defined in 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A).

27. As a result of the Defendants’ trafficking in the Subject Property, the Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for all money damages allowable under 22 U.S.C § 6082(a).

28. Plaintiff timely provided the Defendants with written notice by certified mail of Plaintiff’s intent to commence this action with respect to the Subject Property in accordance 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(3).

Excerpts From Defendant Motion To Dismiss

The Complaint should be dismissed under any of four separate and independent provisions of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

First, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over PRSA, a French company headquartered in Paris, on the face of the Complaint and on the declaration being presented simultaneously to the Court. This evidence demonstrates that PRSA does not do business in Florida, is not licensed in Florida, and does not have an office or physical presence in Florida. The Court accordingly lacks general personal jurisdiction over PRSA. PRSA’s declarant also explains that PRSA does not manufacture cognac in Cuba, and it does not distribute Havana Club branded rums in Florida or anywhere in the United States, since Cuban origin spirits cannot be sold in the U.S. pursuant to U.S. embargo regulations. Cueto cannot, consequently, establish specific personal jurisdiction over PRSA. Don King Prods., Inc. v. Mosley, 2016 WL 3950930, *3–4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2016) (Williams, J.) (dismissing for lack of specific 1 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added and internal citations and quotations omitted.-2- jurisdiction where no “connexity” between claim and defendant’s contacts with forum).

Second, Cueto failed to properly serve PRSA in accordance with the Hague Convention and the prescribed laws of France for service of process. The notice of service was not addressed, directed to, or served on, a legal representative, the representative’s proxy, or a person empowered to accept service of process in accordance with French law.

Third, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Cueto lacks standing. Cueto’s claim that the Cuban government expropriated Conac Cueto’s property in Cuba, folded Conac Cueto’s described assets into a new company and rebranded its offerings “Havana Club,” fails to allege an injury, or even the exacerbation of an injury, that is fairly traceable to PRSA.

Fourth, Cueto has failed to sufficiently or plausibly state a claim under the Helms-Burton Act. That Act is not generally applicable; it has a host of specific elements that must be pled and proved to sustain a claim and which are noticeably absent from the Complaint.

For all of these reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6).

Iberostar Hoteles Of Spain Sued By Former Property Owner In Cuba Using Libertad Act

MARIA DOLORES CANTO MARTI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF DOLORES MARTI MERCADE AND FERNANDO CANTO BORY V. IBEROSTAR HOTELES Y APARTAMENTOS SL [1:20-cv-20078; Southern Florida District]

Zumpano Patricios P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

NOTE: Iberostar Hoteles has two properties in the United States: 70 Park Avenue in New York City and Berkeley in Miami Beach, Florida. Iberostar Hoteles manages eighteen properties in the Republic of Cuba.

LINK To Case Filings

Excerpts From Plaintiff Complaint

10. In March 1909, Fernando Canto Granda acquired the real property located at Calle Enramadas, Esq. Santo Tomás, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba, 90200.

11. Thereafter, in or about March 1909, Fernando Canto Granda began developing the building that in 1916 housed a hotel named “El Imperial” that had a restaurant and bar, as well as the La Francia department store, which was owned and operated by Fernando Canto Granda. All property1 that was located at Calle Enramadas, Esq. Santo Tomás, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba, 90200, and all property of the La Francia retail business is collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Subject Property”.

12. In 1942, Fernando Canto Granda died intestate in Cuba. At that moment, ownership of the Subject Property passed to his four heirs, two of which died thereafter with no descendents, thereby passing their respective interest in the Subject Property to their two living siblings, Fernando Canto Bory and Rosa Canto Bory, in equal parts, by operation of Cuban law.

13. Therefore, Fernando Canto Bory inherited a one-half interest in the Subject Property.

14. In 1961, with the adoption of a series of Cuban laws published in the Cuban Official Gazette2, the communist Cuban Government3 nationalized, expropriated, and seized ownership and control of the Subject Property without authorization by or compensation to the Subject Property rightful owners, thereby confiscating4 the Subject Property.

15. At such time, Fernando Canto Bory became the owner of a one-half interest in the claim to the confiscated Subject Property.

16. Fernando Canto Bory was a U.S. citizen as of 1972 and later died in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1992.

17. Upon his death, Fernando Canto Bory’s interest in the claim to the Subject Property passed to his wife, Dolores Martí Mercadé, who was also a U.S. citizen as of 1972.

18. Thereafter, Dolores Martí Mercadé died on February 27, 2007.

19. To the extent such interest in the claim to the confiscated Subject Property did not ultimately transfer to Dolores Martí Mercadé, the Estate of Fernando Canto Bory maintains and owns such remainder interest.

22. In accordance with the Act, decedents Fernando Canto Bory and Dolores Martí Mercadé were not eligible to file a claim with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under Title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (22 U.S.C. § 1643 et seq.) because Fernando Canto Bory and Dolores Martí Mercadé were not U.S. citizens at the time the Subject Property was confiscated.

25. Upon information and belief, since it confiscated the Subject Property, the Cuban Government has continued to operate and manage a hotel on and using the Subject Property, thereby trafficking5 in the Subject Property by, including but not limited to, knowingly and intentionally: 1) acquiring, holding an interest in, managing, possessing, obtaining control of, and using the confiscated Subject Property; 2) engaging in commercial activity using and benefitting from the confiscated Subject Property, in part by entering into commercial arrangements with Iberostar, and other entities, to use and otherwise benefit from the confiscated Subject Property; and 3) causing, directing, participating in, and profiting from its commercial arrangements with Iberostar and other entities to use and benefit from the confiscated Subject Property, without any authorization by or compensation to Plaintiff.

26. Upon information and belief, since at least as early as November 2016 Iberostar has been blatantly trafficking in the confiscated Subject Property.

27. Upon information and belief, beginning approximately November 2016, Iberostar entered into a commercial arrangement with the Cuban Government to co-manage and co-operate the Iberostar Imperial hotel6, which currently includes the La Francia Restaurant, Parrillada La Joya Snack Bar, Don Fernando Lobby Bar, and El Dorado Roof Garden, all of which sit on and are part of the Subject Property.

28. In co-managing and co-operating the Iberostar Imperial Hotel, Iberostar has been and is currently engaging in commercial activity using and otherwise benefitting from the Subject Property.

34. In addition, Iberostar named the Iberostar Imperial Hotel lobby bar “Don Fernando Lobby Bar” after decedent Fernando Canto Bory without having obtained decedent Fernando Canto Bory’s or Plaintiff’s authorization to use decedent Fernando Canto Bory’s name—a clear indication of Iberostar intentionally and knowingly engaging in commercial activity using and otherwise benefitting from the Subject Property.

35. Moreover, upon information and belief, as previously mentioned, Iberostar has entered into commercial agreements with a host of corporations that own and operate travel booking websites (the “Online Booking Providers”), whereby the Online Booking Providers provide room booking services for the Iberostar Imperial Hotel and market and advertise the Iberostar Imperial Hotel and its features for the Online Booking Providers’ own profit and benefit, including in the form of fees and commissions, for the bookings completed on their websites.

36. The Online Booking Providers include, but are not limited to Booking Holdings Inc., which owns and operates the websites booking.com and kayak.com, and Expedia Group, Inc., which owns and operates the website expedia.com, and owns other entities that operate hotels.com, orbitz.com, travelocity.com, trivago.com, and cheaptickets.com.

37. Therefore, the Online Booking Providers have entered into commercial arrangements with Iberostar and/or the Cuban Government at least as early as November 2016 to both use and benefit from the confiscated Subject Property without authorization by or compensation to Plaintiff.

38. As such, the Online Booking Providers have also been causing, furthering, participating in, and profiting from Iberostar’s and the Cuban Government’s engagement in commercial activity using or otherwise benefitting from the Subject Property.

39. And, in turn, Iberostar has been causing, furthering, participating in, and profiting from the Online Booking Providers’ engagement in commercial activity using or otherwise benefitting from the Subject Property.

OFAC Publishes Fact Sheet For COVID-19 Donations To Cuba

Publication of a Fact Sheet on the Provision of Humanitarian Assistance and Trade to Combat COVID-19

On April 16, the United States Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a Fact Sheet ​highlighting the most relevant exemptions, exceptions, and authorizations for humanitarian assistance and trade under the Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Ukraine/Russia-related​ sanctions programs. The Fact Sheet also outlines specific guidance for OFAC-administered sanctions programs related to personal protective equipment (PPE) and other Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related humanitarian assistance and trade.​

For more information regarding the scope of any sanctions programs’ requirements, or the applicability or scope of any humanitarian-related authorizations, please contact OFAC’s Sanction Compliance and Evaluation Division at (800) 540-6322 or (202) 622-2490, or by email at OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov.

LINK To FACT SHEET

Judge Reverses Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Norwegian Cruise Line

Excerpts….

“Following an extensive review of the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs and in the arguments addressed at the hearing, the issues raised in each of Havana Docks’ cases under Title III, and the limited relevant caselaw concerning the LIBERTAD Act, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that reconsideration of its NCL Order is warranted to correct errors of fact and law that, when compounded, led the Court to incorrectly dismiss the instant action with prejudice.”

“C. Leave to Amend

Based on the errors in the Court’s NCL Order, the Court concludes that good cause exists to vacate its NCL Order, reopen this case, and permit Havana Docks to file its Amended Complaint.

Allowing Plaintiff to file the Amended Complaint is warranted because Havana Docks reasonably relied on the Court’s holding in its Carnival Order in gauging the sufficiency of the allegations plead in the instant action.15 Additionally, the errors of fact and law in the Court’s NCL Order also support permitting Havana Docks to file its Amended Complaint.

Moreover, the Court disagrees with NCL regarding the futility of permitting Plaintiff to file its Amended Complaint. Instead, the Court finds that Havana Docks can sufficiently allege a claim under Title III, in light of the Court’s discussion above with regard to the express language and purpose of the Act and the additional allegations in the Amended Complaint regarding Havana Docks’ various property interests. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint would also not fail as a matter of law because, contrary to the Court’s previous conclusion in its NCL Order, the liability provision of Title III does not contain any temporal limitation. Likewise, the Court finds the allegations in the Amended Complaint to be sufficient to assert a claim under Title III because Plaintiff has adequately alleged that it owned a Certified Claim to an interest in the Subject Property that was wrongfully confiscated and that NCL knowingly trafficked in the confiscated Subject Property.

Thus, the Court concludes that allowing Havana Docks to file its Amended Complaint would not be futile in this case. See Bryant, 252 F.3d at 1164 (concluding that the district court’s finding of futility “ignore[d] the fact that the district court earlier had found the complaint sufficient, thus justifying, until [the Eleventh Circuit’s] opinion, the plaintiffs’ belief that they did not need to include any further allegations in the Amended Complaint”). Finally, given the significant factual and legal errors contained within the NCL Order, the Court believes it necessary to vacate its NCL Order in its entirety.

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. [44], is GRANTED.
2. The Court’s Order on Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [42], is VACATED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN the above-styled case. The Court will enter a separate order resetting all trial and pre-trial deadlines.
4. Plaintiff must separately refile its Amended Complaint, ECF No. [44-1], by no later than April 21, 2020.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida on April 14, 2020.”

LINK To Court Decision

In Pan American Day Proclamation, President Trump Defines Cuba As "Authoritarian" And "Tyrannical" Regime"

The White House
Washington DC

13 April 2020

PAN AMERICAN DAY AND PAN AMERICAN WEEK, 2020
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

This year marks 130 years since the spirit of cooperation, hope, and progress brought together the nations of the Americas at the First International Conference of American States. This historic meeting chartered the course for the establishment of the Organization of American States in 1948, an institution that has ever since worked toward peace and prosperity throughout the Americas, encouraging the nonviolent resolution of conflict and promoting mutual social and economic growth. As we celebrate our remarkable progress this Pan American Day and Pan American Week, let us also reaffirm our resolve to uphold and bolster liberty, democracy, and freedom in our Hemisphere.

As part of our commitment to advancing dignity and freedom, my Administration will always work to combat human trafficking. This work requires enhanced border security and a well-functioning immigration system. Through our cooperation with the Governments of Mexico and our Central American partners, we have instituted reforms that help ensure the security and well-being of our peoples. By signing the United States-Mexico Joint Declaration last June, the Government of Mexico affirmed its commitment to reducing the number of illegal immigrants who arrive at our southern border. We have also signed agreements with the Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to enhance our countries' cooperative efforts. These partnerships have helped expand humanitarian protections for asylum seekers, combat transnational criminal organizations, strengthen border security, and reduce human slavery and smuggling.

My Administration also remains committed to implementing trade deals that will bolster the economies of the United States and our allies in the Americas. I am proud to have delivered on my promise to end the outdated and unbalanced North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by signing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) into law, modernizing and rebalancing trade in a manner that supports robust economic growth throughout North America. Additionally, through the América Crece initiative, we are deepening private-sector investment in energy and infrastructure, enhancing economic opportunity and growth across the Americas, and continuing an historic period of cooperation.

We also recognize that citizen-responsive democratic governance, characterized by free and fair elections, is essential to peace and security, and we therefore remain committed to advocating for freedom and democracy for those living under authoritarian regimes in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

As part of the growing global consensus of nearly 60 countries that have recognized the legitimacy of interim President of Venezuela Juan Guaido, we are doing everything we can to support the Venezuelan people, address the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela and the region, peacefully restore democracy, and return Venezuela to its status as a stable and prosperous nation. In February, I was pleased to host interim President Guaido as an honored guest at my State of the Union address. During his visit, I reaffirmed the dedication of the United States to bringing the full range of diplomatic and economic tools to bear on the Maduro regime until its illegitimate rule comes to an end.

The United States also remains committed to helping the people of Cuba and Nicaragua create stable and free countries. Together with our regional partners, we will ensure the realization of the democratic dreams of those oppressed by tyrannical regimes.

We are grateful for the blessings of freedom enjoyed in the United States and in so many other parts of the Western Hemisphere. We also remain steadfast in our determination to secure a freer and more democratic Western Hemisphere for all. On this day and during this week, let us celebrate the liberty we have fostered together with our regional partners and pledge our continuing support for a future where it is enjoyed even more widely throughout our Hemisphere.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 14, 2020, as Pan American Day and April 12 through April 18, 2020, as Pan American Week. I urge the Governors of the 50 States, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the officials of the other areas under the flag of the United States of America to honor these observances with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fourth.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Two Tweets From US Assistant Secretary Of State Michael Kozak Devoid Of Important Context And Details; He's Done It Before

The Honorable Michael G. Kozak, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, used Twitter for the following comments:

Michael G. Kozak @WHAAsstSecty
Apr 6
Since 1992, the U.S. has authorized the export of billions of dollars of medicine and medical equipment to #Cuba.

Michael G. Kozak @WHAAsstSecty
Apr 6
These are the facts: The U.S. routinely authorizes the export of humanitarian goods, agricultural products, medicine, and medical equipment to support the Cuban people. In 2019, the U.S. exported millions of dollars of U.S. medical goods to #Cuba.

Michael G. Kozak @WHAAsstSecty
Apr 6
As the world unites in the struggle against #COVID19, some look to divide international efforts through unsourced, unattributed disinformation campaigns. CASTRO’s cronies and ECHO CHAMBER/APOLOGISTS/MOUTHPIECES should know better. #Cuba

Response:

Statements on 6 April 2020 by Assistant Secretary Kozak are misleading; the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council previously engaged with him in September 2019 when he published statements relating to agricultural commodity and food product exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba. LINK: https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/9/24/clarification-to-tweet-from-michael-kozak-us-assistant-secretary-of-state-about-us-exports-to-cuba?rq=Michael%20Kozak

Assistant Secretary Kozak’s statement “Since 1992, the U.S. has authorized the export of billions of dollars of medicine and medical equipment to Cuba” should have been afforded due context and his statement “In 2019, the U.S. exported millions of dollars of U.S. medical goods to Cuba” is not accurate because the generally-accepted definition of “exports” is to sell rather than to donate; what was paid and what was donated should have been identified.

The use of the phrase by Assistant Secretary Kozak “to support the Cuban people” is designed to suggest the healthcare products were provided by the United States government- which is not true. The exports are not benevolent gesture by the United States government; they are statutorily authorized.

The export of healthcare products (medical equipment, medical instruments, medical supplies, medicines, pharmaceuticals) are specifically authorized by the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992. The export of agricultural commodities and food products are specifically authorized by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000.

Healthcare product donations in 2019 by the private sector from the United States to the Republic of Cuba were US$2,655,289.00 while private sector exports (meaning that the Republic of Cuba paid for the products) was US$1,096,505.00.

Total reported healthcare product commercial (paid) exports from 2003 through 2020 are US$26,391,326.00.

Through the Clinton Administration, Bush Administration, Obama Administration and thus far through the Trump Administration, United States exporters have been encouraged by the United States Department of Commerce to submit export license requests with gross estimates, often aspirational, so that they would not need to repeatedly seek licenses. Most licenses are valid for two years. The process was initiated at the recommendation of United States exporters to lessen often repetitive paperwork and was enthusiastically accepted by the United States Department of Commerce.

Important to note that the values placed in the license applications often are done without any input from the Cuba-based importer. As a result, the overall authorized values are often aspirational- based upon discussions with Republic of Cuba-based importers.

This is not the first time an administration has misused the data- and previous administrations have corrected the context by which they have used the data. LINK To 5 January 2017 Article From The Miami Herald: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article124707644.html

Exports of healthcare products (medical equipment, medical instruments, medical supplies, medicine, pharmaceuticals) to the Republic of Cuba are subject to provisions of the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992, which require end use-verification, but are not subject to cash-in-advance payment requirements. Exports have included: Medicaments (penicillin and insulin); Dentifrices (toothpastes); Laboratory regents; Ultrasonic scanning equipment; Artificial limbs; Medical appliances; Surgical appliances (dental); Opthalmic (eye); Cannulae (tubing) and gelatin capsules.

The primary impediments for United States healthcare product companies exporting to the Republic of Cuba include: 1) The Republic of Cuba’s lack of foreign exchange 2) The Republic of Cuba’s preference to source from companies/countries where there is government/private sector long term credit/financing available 3) the perception by United States companies that the licensing process is complicated and 4) there have been issues where financial institutions are overly cautious relating to any transaction involving the Republic of Cuba.

Healthcare product exports are not subject to cash-in-advance payment terms as required for agricultural commodities and food product exports under provisions of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000.

Cuban Democracy Act

“(c) Exports of medicines and medical supplies. Exports of medicines or medical supplies, instruments, or equipment to Cuba shall not be restricted-- (1) except to the extent such restrictions would be permitted under section 5(m) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 [50 USCS Appx § 2404(m)] or section 203(b)(2) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [50 USCS § 1702(b)(2)]; (2) except in a case in which there is a reasonable likelihood that the item to be exported will be used for purposes of torture or other human rights abuses; (3) except in a case in which there is a reasonable likelihood that the item to be exported will be reexported; and (4) except in a case in which the item to be exported could be used in the production of any biotechnological product.”

The end-use verification is within (c) above- 1,2, and 3. Due to the work in the mid-1990’s of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, on behalf of healthcare product member companies, healthcare product companies were permitted to self-verify that exports met the requirements of the CDA.

There has never been an officially reported incident where use of a healthcare product export to the Republic of Cuba under provisions of the CDA have been found by the United States government to be in violation of provisions of the CDA.

HEALTHCARE PRODUCT EXPORTS- Exports of healthcare products (medical equipment, medical instruments, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals) to the Republic of Cuba are subject to provisions of the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992, which require end use-verification, but are not subject to cash-in-advance payment requirements. Exports have included: Medicaments (penicillin and insulin); Dentifrices (toothpastes); Laboratory regents; Ultrasonic scanning equipment; Artificial limbs; Medical appliances; Surgical appliances (dental); Opthalmic (eye); Cannulae (tubing) and gelatin capsules.

2003-2020 Healthcare Product Exports Under 1992 CDA
2020 US$418,162.00
2019 US$1,096,505.00
2018 US$3,492,553.00
2017 US$5,663,254.00
2016 US$6,121,425.00
2015 US$5,003,169.00
2014 US$879,267.00
2013 US$2,155,024.00
2012 US$234,718.00
2011 US$103,771.00
2010 US$226,563.00
2009 US$85,408.00
2008 US$320,420.00
2007 US$436,773.00
2006 US$814,866.00
2005 US$404,001.00
2004 US$468,485.00
2003 US$9,416.00
Total US$26,391,326.00

Courts Delay Libertad Act Lawsuits; Plaintiffs Have Issues

Helms-Burton Suit Against Airlines Paused For COVID-19
By Nathan Hale

Law360 (April 6, 2020) -- A Florida federal judge agreed with American Airlines on Monday that the coronavirus outbreak warrants pausing a suit accusing the carrier and Chile's LATAM Airlines of illegally profiting from Cuba's main international airport, rejecting the plaintiff's objections to a stay.

In a two-page order, U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez cited the situation caused by the pandemic as his reason for suspending José Ramón López Regueiro’s case, which was one of the first to bring claims under the Helms-Burton Act that a company had unlawfully trafficked in property confiscated by Cuba’s communist government.

Judge Martinez said he was ordering the litigation temporarily closed “[g]iven the inability to proceed with the orderly progress of the case due to the uncertainty regarding the duration of the restrictions and worldwide pandemic, and to conserve the parties’ and judicial resources.”

The judge indicated that he found the rights of the parties would not be prejudiced by this action. He said he will restore the case upon motion by the parties, ordering them to file a status report with the court on May 1 and every month thereafter.

Regueiro filed his suit last May after the Trump administration lifted a suspension of Title III of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act to allow U.S. nationals to sue over property seized by Cuba’s Castro regime.

The Miami man is seeking monetary damages against the two airlines based on his assertion that he is the rightful owner of Havana’s José Martí International Airport, which he said was illegally confiscated from his family by the government in 1959.

The order came down the same day that Regueiro voiced his objections to a motion American filed on Friday requesting a 60-day stay of all proceedings on account of the pandemic and the severe impact it has had on the airline industry.

Regueiro said that he had agreed to discuss a 60-day extension of pretrial and trial deadlines, but he did not think a stay on discovery was appropriate because of American’s failure to comply with his requests predated the pandemic.

“American had the opportunity to and should have done the basic work related to its production obligations months ago, rather than rely on objections that are not well-founded,” Regueiro said. “American should not be allowed to further delay and evade production of discovery due at least four months ago under cover of a crisis that has befallen the country in the last two weeks.”

With a discovery hearing scheduled for Wednesday, after several cancellations, including due to one magistrate judge’s recusal, Regueiro argued that a stay was not the right step.

“Staying defendants’ discovery obligations would only reward their stalling tactics and unreasonably delay the resolution of this matter in contradiction to the instruction of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 that mandates the ‘just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action,’” he argued.

American invoked the pandemic in its motion, pointing to states of emergency declared at the national level and in Texas and Florida and “stay at home” orders imposed by Dallas and Tarrant counties in Texas and Florida’s Miami-Dade County, where it has significant personnel.

It also cited the financial and logistical challenges facing its business, with nearly one-third of all passenger planes grounded worldwide and its own stock price having fallen as much as 70%.

“American’s strained operations and limited time and resources are now focused on protecting its business, employees, and passengers in these very challenging times,” the company said. “A stay of the instant proceedings will allow American to focus on the safety of the general public and the survival of the airline industry through, and after, the COVID-19 pandemic.”

American Airlines recently pointed to a decision dismissing another Helms-Burton case against Amazon and an importer of Cuban charcoal as evidence that Regueiro’s suit should be tossed as well. Counsel for American Airlines declined to comment. Counsel for Regueiro did not immediately respond to an inquiry late Monday.

Regueiro is represented by Andres Rivero, Jorge A. Mestre, Alan Rolnick and Carlos A. Rodriguez of Rivero Mestre LLP and Manuel Vazquez of Manuel Vazquez PA. American Airlines is represented by Ricardo H. Puente, Christopher R.J. Pace and Karl Remón Thompson of Jones Day. LATAM is represented by Pedro A. Freyre and Naim S. Surgeon of Akerman LLP. The case is Jose Ramon Lopez Regueiro v. American Airlines Inc. et al., case number 1:19-cv-23965, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

LINK To Response In Opposition To American Airlines Inc.’s Motion To Stay

LINK To Administrative Order Closing Case For Statistical Purposes And Placing Matter In Civil Suspense File

LINK To Defendant American Airlines, Inc.’s Motion To Stay Proceedings (multiple files)

U.S. Ag/Food Exports To Cuba Decrease 45.2% In February 2020; A 44.5% Year-To-Year

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
April 2020

February 2020 Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Decrease 45.2%- 1
61st In February 2020 Of 212 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
Cuba Ranks 59th Of 212 Ag/Food Export Markets- 2
February 2020 Healthcare Product Exports US$189,397.00- 2
February 2020 Humanitarian Donations US$389,429.00- 3
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue To Increase- 3
US$1.5 Million In Tractors Exported To Cuba- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 16

FEBRUARY 2020 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA DECREASE 45.2%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in February 2020 were US$14,809,161.00 compared to US$27,048,523.00 in February 2019 and US$26,122,933.00 in February 2018.

Total 2020 exports to the Republic of Cuba are US$28,230,821.00 compared to same period in 2019 total exports of US$50,933,209.00 representing a decrease of 44.5%.

Thus far for 2020, the Republic of Cuba ranks 59th of 212 agricultural commodity and food product export markets for the United States.

The 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.

LINK To Report