Libertad Act Devouring Plaintiffs, Protecting Defendants, Helping Cuba. Is This What President Trump And U.S. Congress Intended? What, If Anything, Will They Do? Can Do?

Libertad Act Devouring Plaintiffs, Protecting Defendants, Helping Cuba.  Is This What President Trump And U.S. Congress Intended?  What, If Anything, Will They Do? Can Do? 

U.S. Governments Avoid Direct Negotiations- Even Before Cuba Indicted It May Owe Nothing 

The Castro-to-Castro-to-Diaz-Canel succession and transition was not anticipated by advocates of the Libertad Act 

In 1995 and 1996, authors and supporters of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”) were forceful, unyielding in promoting it would do what successive occupants of The White House had failed to due since 1960- hold directly and indirectly accountable the government of the Republic of Cuba for the expropriation without compensation of assets belonging to United States citizens (certified claimants) and, uniquely (at the expense certified claimants), of assets belonging to individuals who were Republic of Cuba nationals (non-certified claimants) at the time of the expropriation without compensation. 

Important to note that in 1995 and 1996 there was no collective effort or public effort by the largest certified claimants to advocate for enactment of the Libertad Act.  Since Title III lawsuits were permitted in 2019, .08% of the 5,913 certified claimants have filed lawsuits.   

In March 1996, when President Bill Clinton signed the legislation into law, neither advocates nor opponents anticipated suspension for twenty-three years of the Title III provision (permitting lawsuits) in the law- first by the Clinton Administration, then Bush Administration, then Obama Administration and then through the first two years of the Trump Administration.    

No one too predicted implementation of Title III would arrive after H.E. Fidel Castro, President of the Republic of Cuba, would die and be succeeded by his brother H.E. Raul Castro, President of the Republic of Cuba; who in turn would serve, retire and be succeeded by H.E. Miguel Diaz-Canel, President of the Republic of Cuba.  The Castro-to-Castro-to-Diaz-Canel succession and transition was and remains disruptive for advocates of the Libertad Act.   

And, no one predicted Title III would be implemented after the world’s three-largest cruise lines (all United States-based) would operate itineraries to the Republic of Cuba; the world’s largest hotel company (United States-based) would manage a property (with plans for a second) in the Republic of Cuba; and the seven-largest United States-based airlines would provide regularly-scheduled services from the United States to the Republic of Cuba.  Remarkably, some of the travel-related United States-based companies operating in the Republic of Cuba were/are certified claimants.   

The nineteen-year delay implementing Title III has been responsible, in part, for the dismissal of some lawsuits filed since permitted in May 2019.  Some of the original owners of certified claims and non-certified claims have died; some of their heirs have died.  There have been issues with the texts of wills and testaments. 

The language in Title III of the Libertad Act, which plaintiff attorneys and defendant attorneys concur was written imprecisely, has also resulted in lawsuit dismissals based upon plaintiff standing (do they “own” the claim), were they United States citizens by 1996, the definition of “inheritance,” and the definitions of “trafficking” and “lawful activities” which are fundamental to the skeleton of the Libertad Act.     

Thus far, United States District Courts have provided a blueprint as to what would need be changed in the Libertad Act to provide non-dismissible remedies.   

New legislation may be required to do what the first legislation said it would do after it became law. 

But, changes to the Libertad Act may not achieve a desired result.  Might there also need be an amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)?  Of the twenty-six Title III lawsuits filed since 2019, only one lawsuit is against entities controlled by the government of the Republic of Cuba- and this lawsuit may be dismissed due to sovereign immunity.   

Changes to the FSIA could include: Language to define acts of a sovereign in a more expansive manner, particularly relating to commercial actions.  The Republic of Cuba could lose its ability to claim sovereign immunity in Title III lawsuits.  Language could be inserted to recognize any country listed among State Sponsors of Terrorism would lose sovereign immunity protections and be subject to lawsuits for commercial actions- The Trump Administration seems to be moving towards returning the Republic of Cuba to the list.  The doctrine of retroactivity would need be accommodated, but for 9th largest certified claimant Exxon Mobil Corporation which has filed a Title III lawsuit, it has a second certified claim which could then be used as a basis for a new lawsuit using a revised FSIA. 

With the current dismissals and language of the rulings by the judges, might few, if any of the initially-filed twenty-six Title III lawsuits be upheld by a judge, upheld during appeals, and then result in a plaintiff collecting on a judgement against a defendant?  The odds today are not promising. 

There was always another pathway: The United States and the Republic of Cuba would directly, government-to-government, negotiate a settlement.  This is precisely what the United States and the Republic of Cuba have done with countries throughout the world.  This is precisely what the certified claimants expected and continue to expect the United States government to do on their behalf.  Thus far during the 21st Century, the Obama Administration had the best opportunity for negotiation.  However, it along with the [Raul] Castro Administration recklessly squandered their moments. 

Unfortunately, to date, not one of the eleven men who have occupied the Oval Office since 1960 focused upon a public, determined effort to negotiate a settlement, including current President Donald Trump- who has for decades promoted his negotiating prowess. 

There remains concern, however, the Republic of Cuba has no intention of making payments to certified claimants (or non-certified claimants) for assets expropriated without compensation.   

In defending itself against a Title III lawsuit filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation, the Republic of Cuba’s attorneys wrote: “Many countries have acted upon the principle that, in order to carry out desired economic and social reforms of vast magnitude, they must have the right to seize private property without providing compensation” and ““measures of defence against external threats” are among the exceptions to the requirement of compensation for taking foreign nationals’ property.” 

Question: If the Libertad Act language is faulty, if the FSIA protects the government of the Republic of Cuba, if successive United States administrations have refused to focus upon a negotiated resolution, if court filings cast doubt upon interest by the Republic of Cuba to accept responsibility for compensating certified claimants, what, if any, option(s) exist for certified claimants (and non-certified claimants)?   

The President of the United States has responsibility to negotiate a resolution to the issue of the 5,913 certified claims against the Republic of Cuba.  To date, eleven occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW have failed to do so. 

Will President Trump during his second term or a President Joe Biden during his first term do what predecessors have not done? 

More than sixty years (21,958 days) has passed since the first expropriation by the government of the Republic of Cuba. 

Previous Analysis: Does Cuba Have Intention Under Any Circumstances To Compensate Certified Claimants? Court Arguments Suggest It Does Not, Will Not, No Matter What (24 June 2020)  

Libertad Act Lawsuit Statistics

26 Lawsuits Filed (10 Certified Claimants & 16 Non-Certified Claimants)
US$163,700.00 Court Filing Fees
55 Law Firms
162+ Attorneys
8,600+ Filed Court Documents
US$4.5+ Million Law Firm Billable Hours (estimated 85% by defendants)
14 Countries Impacted
80 Plaintiffs (some in multiple cases)
4 Class Action Requests
50 Defendants (including corporate parent, subsidiaries; some sued in multiple lawsuits)
20 United States Defendants (not including subsidiaries)
5 Republic of Cuba Initial Defendants (two remaining)
20 Non-United States Defendants
5 European Union-Based Defendants
5 Companies Notified As Potential Defendants

Lawsuits filed in United States District Courts in Southern Florida (20), Washington DC (1), Western Washington State (1), Nevada (1), Southern District New York (1), Northern Texas (1) and Delaware (2).  Some cases have been transferred and some cases have been consolidated; one dismissed by Plaintiff.  

55 Law firms retained by plaintiffs/defendants: Ainsworth & Clancy; Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman; Akerman; Andrews & Springer; Arent Fox; Aronovitz Law; Baker & McKenzie; Ballard Spahr; Bird & Bird; Boies Schiller Flexner; Bracewell; Carlton Fields; Coffey Burlington; Colson Hicks Eidson; Creed & Gowdy; Cueto Law Group; Duane Morris, Dubbin & Kravetz; Ewusiak Law; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Hirzel Dreyfuss and Dempsey; Hogan Lovells; Holland & Knight; Jones Day; Jones Walker; Kantrowitz, Goldhamer, & Graifman; Kelly Hart & Hallman; Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton; Law Office of Andre G. Raikhelson; Law Office of Alexander Villarreal; Law Offices of Paul Sack; Law Offices of Robert L. Muse; Mandel & Mandel; Manuel Vazquez PA; MoloLamken; Margol & Margol; Mayer Brown; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell; Pacifica Law Group; Potter Anderson & Corroon; Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman; Reed Smith; Reid Collins & Tsai; Rice Reuther Sullivan & Carroll; Rivero Mestre; Roig & Villarreal; Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess; Scott Douglass & McConnico; Sidley Austin; Steptoe & Johnson; Venable; Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford; Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor; Walden, Macht & Haran; Zumpano Patricios.  

Countries impacted: Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Netherlands, Panama, Republic of Cuba, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States. 

Certified Claimant Participation: Of the 5,913 claimants certified by the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (USFCSC), these (original claim value in parenthesis) have filed Libertad Act lawsuits: 2nd largest certified claimant North American Sugar (US$97,373,414.72); 9th largest certified claimant Exxon Mobil Corporation (US$71,611,002.90 and US$173,157.12); 31st largest certified claimant Havana Docks Corporation (US$9,179,700.08); 88th largest certified claimant Julies Shepard (US$2,033,959.17); 195th largest certified claimant Javier Garcia-Bengochea (US$547,365.24). 

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 and on Spain-based company are currently known to be subject to this provision based upon a certified claim. 

Suspension History 

Title III has been 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 United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (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$8.7 billion.  

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 third-largest certified claim valued at US$97,373,414.72 is controlled by New York, New York-based North American Sugar Industries, Inc.  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.

Cuba Creates Portal Designed To Encourage Trade and Investment

From the government of the Republic of Cuba:

https://vuceregulaciones.mincex.gob.cu/ is a portal that allows you to know step by step, from the user's perspective, the main procedures to carry out the activity of Foreign Trade in Cuba. The site contains the requirements, deadlines, costs and the institutions responsible for the process of your interest. Plus, it makes it easier for you to access forms and interact with administration. 

The platform is coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Foreign Investment (MINCEX) with technical assistance from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and with the support of the DESOFT Computer Applications Company. Our team seeks to provide a quality service in order to attract investment opportunities to the country and improve international competitiveness indicators.

Carnival's Cuba Case Dismissal Will Be Appealed; Plaintiff Retains Appellate Counsel

“NOTICE IS GIVEN that the Plaintiff, Javier Garcia-Bengochea, in the above named case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit the following: (i) the Order Granting Carnival Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 120) entered on July 9, 2020; (ii) the Order of Final Judgment (Doc. 121) entered on July 10, 2020; and (iii) all prior adverse orders (if any) subsumed within the final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Fed. R. App. P. 3&4.”

JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA V. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINE, A FOREIGN CORPORATION [1:19-cv-21725 Southern Florida District; 20-12960 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals]

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

Notice Of Appeal (6 August 2020)
Notice Of Appearance (6 August 2020)

U.S. Ag/Food Exports To Cuba Decrease 70.7% In June 2020; Year-To-Year Decrease 46.9%

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©

August 2020

June 2020 Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Decrease 70.7%- 1

81st In June 2020 Of 223 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2

Year-To-Year Exports Decrease 46.9%- 2

Cuba Ranks 61st Of 223 Ag/Food Export Markets- 2

June 2020 Healthcare Product Exports US$0.00- 2

June 2020 Humanitarian Donations US$162,024.00- 3

Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue To Increase- 3

U.S. Port Export Data- 16

JUNE 2020 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA DECREASE 70.7%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in June 2020 were US$5,507,338.00 compared to US$18,815,665.00 in June 2019 and US$21,225,971.00 in June 2018.   

Exports in June 2020 include chicken legs, chicken leg quarters, chicken meat, preserved/prepared chicken; woodpulp, and bean seeds. 

Total 2020 exports to the Republic of Cuba are US$82,236,262.00 compared to the same period in 2019 of US$154,937,855.00 representing a decrease of 46.9%. 

Thus far for 2020, the Republic of Cuba ranks 61st of 223 agricultural commodity and food product export markets for the United States. 

TSREEA exports reported since December 2001 are US$6,215,108,958.00.

The report 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. 

The data represents the U.S. Dollar value of product exported from the United States to the Republic of Cuba under the TSREEA. The data does not include transportation charges, bank charges, or other costs associated with exports; the government of the Republic of Cuba reports unverifiable data that includes transportation charges, bank charges, and other costs. 

Complete Report In PDF Format

American Airlines Case Dismissed In Texas; Carnival Corporation Requests Court In Florida Use Same Reasoning In Libertad Act Case

“Carnival submits the Northern District of Texas’ August 3, 2020 decision in Glen v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 4:20-CV-482-A, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which dismissed a Helms-Burton suit for, among other reasons, failure to plead Article III standing, as supplemental authority in support of its argument that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing.”

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)

Carnival Corporation’s Notice Of Supplemental Authority In Support Of Its Motion To Dismiss (4 August 2020)

ROBERT M. GLEN V. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., [1:19-cv-23994; Southern Florida District; 4:20-cv-00482-A Transferred To Northern Texas District 13 May 2020]

Reid Collins & Tsai (plaintiff)
Ewusiak Law, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Day (defendant)
Kelly Hart & Hallman (defendant)

Final Judgement (3 August 2020)
Memorandum Opinion & Order (3 August 2020)

ROBERT M. GLEN V. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., [1:19-cv-23994; Southern Florida]

Reid Collins & Tsai (plaintiff)
Ewusiak Law, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Day (defendant)

Transfer Order (13 May 2020)
Complaint (26 September 2019)

Does New Charge d’Affaires in Havana Have An Unspoken Goal? Get Thrown Out By 3 November 2020

On Friday, 31 July 2020, Mr. Timothy Zuniga-Brown, Coordinator- Office of Cuban Affairs within the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs of the United States Department of State in Washington DC replaced Dr. Mara Tekach as Charge d’Affaires at the United States Embassy in Havana, Republic of Cuba.  Dr. Tekach will replace Mr. Zuniga-Brown as Coordinator- Office of Cuban Affairs.  

While unspoken and denied, unsurprisingly would be a goal for the Trump Administration to entice the Republic of Cuba to expel Mr. Zuniga-Brown prior to United States elections on 3 November 2020.  The plan: “pick a fight and make it look like they started it.” 

There are individuals within the Trump Administration, in the United States Congress, and at the Trump-Pence Presidential Campaign Committee who advocate exactly that timeline because they believe an expulsion will be of value- with voters. 

The expulsion of Mr. Zuniga-Brown would permit, in rapid sequence, the Trump Administration to expel H.E. Jose Cabañas, who had been the Chief of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington since 2012 and presented his credentials on 17 September 2015 to President Barack Obama as the Republic of Cuba’s first ambassador to the United States in more than 50 years.  His appointment came two months after a restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries.   

With an expulsion, the embassies in Washington and Havana could be downgraded, again, to Interests Sections.  Thus, furthering disruption of the bilateral relationship, further delegitimizing the government of the Republic of Cuba, and hoping to finally extinguish interest by United States companies.   

For the [Miguel] Diaz-Canel Administration in Havana, the questions are how much disruption, interference, provocative behavior will it tolerate from a United States diplomat? 

Given the impact upon the Republic of Cuba by decisions of the Trump Administration, the economic implosion of Venezuela impacting substantial commercial support to the Republic of Cuba, added to the impact by COVID-19 upon a primary revenue source (tourism) for the country, and a chronic shortage of foreign exchange from which to be current with its bilateral and multilateral debt accords, President Diaz-Canel would need exercise caution as to how to respond.  His most expected strategy will be to complain, but do nothing until the results are known of the elections on 3 November 2020.   

For Mr. Zuniga-Brown, the next ninety-three days provide a relatively clear flight pathway to do and say what he wants to do and say.  However, he may want to be packed the morning of 3 November 2020, just in case…   

If President Trump is defeated, Mr. Zuniga-Brown is likely to remain through the inauguration on 20 January 2021 after which instructions received from Foggy Bottom may be altered. NOTE: A [Joseph] Biden Administration is likely to seek to install a United States Ambassador in Havana and Ambassador Cabanas would likely be replaced for a new face to begin the Biden Administration.

If President Trump wins, and Mr. Zuniga-Brown has veered past acceptable verbal and written markers established by President Diaz-Canel, then there would likely be an expulsion. 

The unknowns also include whether the Diaz-Canel Administration may adopt (or co-opt) the Trump Administration plan to “pick a fight and make it look like they started it” because it’s a good optic for domestic politics in the Republic of Cuba.   

As The Honorable Thomas “Tip” O’Neill (D- Massachusetts), 47th Speaker (1977-1987) of the United States House of Representatives, once said “All politics is local.”   

Previous Posts: 

Cuba's Ambassador to Washington Is A Hostage- If He Departs, He Won't Be Replaced (25 February 2018)

Could Statement By U.S. Department of State Be Precursor To Expulsion Of Cuba's Ambassador To U.S.? (23 November 2019) 

Melia Hotels International 35 Properties (14,781 Rooms) In Cuba Report 97.1% Decline In REVPAR For First Half 2020

Palma de Mallorca, Spain-based Melia Hotels International S.A. (2019 revenues approximately US$2.3 billion) is the 19th largest hotel company in the world according to Hotelsmag.com and has the largest portfolio of properties and rooms in the Republic of Cuba. 

Occupancy 

Occupancy represents the total number of room nights sold divided by the total number of room nights available at a hotel or group of hotels for a given period.  It measures the utilization of the hotels' available capacity. Management uses occupancy to gauge demand at a specific hotel or group of hotels in a given period.  Occupancy levels also help management determine achievable average daily rate levels as demand for hotel rooms increases or decreases. 

Average Room Rate (ARR) 

ARR represents hotel room revenue divided by total number of room nights sold for a given period. It measures average room price attained by a hotel. and ARR trends provide useful information concerning the pricing environment and the nature of the customer base of a hotel or group of hotels. ARR is a commonly used performance measure in the industry. and management uses ARR to assess pricing levels that the Company is able to generate by type of customer. as changes in rates have a different effect on overall revenues and incremental profitability than changes in occupancy. as described above. 

Revenue per Available Room (RevPAR) 

RevPAR is calculated by dividing hotel room revenue by total number of room nights available to guests for a given period.  Management considers RevPAR to be a meaningful indicator of the Company's performance as it provides a metric correlated to two primary and key drivers of operations at a hotel or group of hotels: occupancy and ARR. RevPAR is also a useful indicator in measuring performance over comparable periods for comparable hotels. 

LINK: First Half 2020 Report PDF

LINK: First Half 2020 Report Excel

OFAC Continues To Target Cuba Banking- Even In United Kingdom

Update to Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury’s list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) and Blocked Persons 

HAVANA INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD., 20 Ironmonger Lane, London EC2V 8EY, United Kingdom [CUBA]. -to- HAVIN BANK LIMITED (a.k.a. HAVANA INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD), 4th Floor, 189 Marsh Wall, London E14 9SH, United Kingdom; Edificio Atlantic, Oficina 4H, Calle D No. 8 entre 1ra. y 3ra., Vedado, Plaza de la Revolucion, Havana 10400, Cuba; SWIFT/BIC HAVIGB2L; Website www.havanaintbank.co.uk; alt. Website www.hib.uk.com; Company Number 01074897 (United Kingdom) [CUBA]. 

resulting in the following new [CUBA] entries: HAVANA INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD. a. HAVIN BANK LIMITED), 4th Floor, 189 Marsh Wall, London E14 9SH, United Kingdom; Edificio Atlantic, Oficina 4H, Calle D No. 8 entre 1 ra. y 3ra., Vedado, Plaza de la Revolucion, Havana 10400, Cuba; SWIFT/BIC HAVIGB 2L; Website www.havanaintbank.co.uk; alt. Website www.hib.uk.com; Company Number 01074 897 (United Kingdom) [CUBA]. 

NOTE: The name of the bank was reportedly changed to its current name in 2005.

Federal Register Filing

From Havin Bank Ltd: 

“Havin Bank Ltd., formerly Havana International Bank Ltd. (HIB), was set up on October 3, 1972, as a Private Limited Company, by means of a Certificate of Incorporation issued by "Companies House", under the laws and regulations of the United Kingdom and is under the supervision of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which was created as a substitute for the activities that were previously carried out by the Bank of England. 

The Bank of England authorised Havin Bank Ltd. to operate as a bank, in August, 1973, being the only bank with entirely Cuban capital established outside Cuba, in which Banco Central de Cuba is a shareholder.  Banco Nacional de Cuba issued Havin Bank Ltd. a License to establish a Representative Office in Cuba by means of Resolution No. 88, of 1991. The Office was officially set up in May, 1995. 

From the beginning, HIB has known how to take advantage of its location in the City of London, one of the major financial centres of the world, and from having and developing an extensive understanding of the Cuban market, its enterprises, perspectives and peculiarities.  This unique position, together with the efficiency and professionalism of its personnel, has allowed it to conceive, develop and consolidate the Cuban market by arranging financing through the Bank and assisting its clients with a wide variety of banking services which, among others, enable it to perform the following operations: To attract, receive and keep funds in demand or time deposits, in suitable forms and at a very competitive rate of interest.  To grant various types of financing.  To carry out all types of operations with negotiable commercial paper.  To carry out all forms of international banking activity.  Its ample network of over 400 correspondents throughout the world, enables Havin Bank Ltd. to provide a whole variety of banking services requested by its clients in different currencies and markets. 

Havin Bank Ltd is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority.  FCA authorisation can be checked on the FCA's Register at: www.fca.gov.uk/register”  

LINKS TO: 

Annual Report and Financial Statements 2019

Pillar 3 Disclosure 2019

Country by Country Reporting 2018

Report and Accounts 2003

Total Assets 2014-2018

UK Exempts Cuba From Advice Against Travel; United States Remains Restricted.

Excerpts… 

Summary (24 July 2020)  

From 24 July, Cuba is exempt from the FCO advice against all non-essential international travel. This is based on the current assessment of COVID-19 risks. 

Travel to Cuba is subject to entry restrictions. 

Entry to Cuba on incoming legs of current repatriation flights is permitted only to Cuban nationals and foreign nationals with valid residency visas or permits for Cuba, and requires a 14 day period of quarantine. 

Tourists can enter Cuba on international charter flights arriving directly into these destinations: Cayo Coco, Cayo Cruz or Cayo Guillermo (served by Jardines del Rey airport); Cayo Santa Maria (flying into Santa Clara airport), or Cayo Largo del Sur. 

The British Embassy in Havana is closed to the public. If you need emergency consular assistance you should telephone the Embassy +53 7 214 2200 and select the option for emergency consular assistance (note there is a short time delay to connect to the officer). We are receiving an unprecedented number of calls so it may take some time to be connected. We are also receiving a high volume of email enquiries and may not be able to deal with your individual enquiry straight away. 

The hurricane season in Cuba normally runs from June to November. You should monitor weather updates and track the progress of approaching storms.  

In September 2019, the Cuban government announced that it was taking measures to manage electricity and fuel supplies in view of limited stocks and deliveries of oil. Government measures included prioritising supplies for essential services, and reducing transport services. The situation had normalised but services and stocks are now affected by Coronavirus. 

Crime levels are low and mainly in the form of opportunistic theft.  

Be cautious when travelling in Cuba. Driving standards are variable.  

UK health authorities have classified Cuba as having a risk of dengue, and Zika virus transmission. For more information and advice, visit the website of the National Travel Health Network and Centre website. You should take steps to avoid being bitten by mosquitoes. 

Although there’s no recent history of terrorism in Cuba, attacks can’t be ruled out.  Most visits to Cuba are trouble free.

LINK To Advice

1,919 Pages Too Much To Read In 30 Days... Judge Gives Attorneys Additional 45 Days To Read, Review, Respond To Cuba Defendants; Judge & Clerks & Interns Must Also Read

In June 2020, Defendants provided 1,919 pages. Plaintiff had thirty days to respond. Plaintiff used thirty days and then requested additional forty-five days. Defendants did not oppose request. Now Plaintiff attorneys, the Judge and his law clerk(s) and his intern(s) have meaningful summer reading.

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION V. CORPORACION CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), CORPRACION CIMEX, S.A. (Panama), AND UNION CUBA-PETROLEO [1:19-cv-01277; Washington DC]

Steptoe & Johnson (plaintiff)
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C. (defendant)

Order (14 July 2020)
Plaintiff’s Consent Motion For Extension Of Time And Entry Of Scheduling Order (13 July 2020)
Proposed Order (13 July 2020)

Cuba Government Files 1,919 Pages In Response To Exxon Mobil Libertad Act Lawsuit (18 June 2020)

Order Text:

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Consent Motion for Extension of Time and Entry of Scheduling Order, the Court issues the following Order:
1. The Motion is granted.
2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Action with Prejudice and for Other Relief (Dkt. Nos. 42 & 43) (the "Motion") no later than September 29, 2020. Defendants shall file a reply, if any, within forty-five ( 45) days from the filing and service of Plaintiffs opposition. The parties may advise the Court of their views with respect to the need vel non for jurisdictional discovery as to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's jurisdictional immunities ("FSIA jurisdictional discovery") in the opposition and reply briefs, without need to make a motion for leave to take jurisdictional discovery.
3. To the extent that the Court's treatment or disposition of the Motion does not render their compliance with Rule 26(:f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure moot, the parties, consistent with any relevant rulings by the Court in its treatment or disposition of the Motion, shall: comply with Rule 26(:f) with respect to FSIA jurisdictional discovery; and, pursuant thereto, meet and confer under Rule 26(:f) within thirty (30) days of entry of the Court's order on the Motion, and submit a discovery plan in accordance with Rule 26(f), with respect to FSIA jurisdictional discovery (including for the litigation of any objections by Defendants to, or with respect to, FSIA jurisdictional discovery).
4. Nothing in this Order, or Plaintiff’s motion for or Defendant’s consent to the entry of same, shall be construed to waive, limit or prejudice any party’s rights, positions or arguments regarding: jurisdictional discovery; appeal from or petition for appellate review of the Court’s order or orders on the Motion or otherwise; arguments pertaining to jurisdictional discovery that may be raised on appeal or appellate review; or any party’s other rights, positions or arguments.

Judge Amit P. Mehta

Judge Amit P. Mehta was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on December 22, 2014. Born in Patan, India, Judge Mehta received his B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Georgetown University in 1993 and his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1997. After law school, Judge Mehta worked in the San Francisco office of the law firm Latham & Watkins LLP before clerking for the Honorable Susan P. Graber of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following his clerkship, Judge Mehta worked at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP from 1999 to 2002. In 2002, Judge Mehta joined the District of Columbia Public Defender Service as a staff attorney. Judge Mehta returned to Zuckerman Spaeder in 2007, where his practice focused on white-collar criminal defense, complex business disputes, and appellate advocacy. Judge Mehta served on the Board of Directors of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project and is the former co-chair of the District of Columbia Bar’s Criminal Law and Individual Rights Section Steering Committee. He is also a former Director of Facilitating Leadership in Youth, a non-profit organization dedicated to after-school activities and mentoring for at-risk youth.

Judge Amit P. Mehta's Court Webpage

Clerkship Information: Judge Mehta has completed hiring clerks for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 terms. Consistent with the Federal Law Clerk Hiring Plan, Judge Mehta will consider applicants for the 2023-24 term in the summer of 2021. Judge Mehta has three law clerks.

Internship Information: Judge Mehta selects two to three interns for the fall, spring, and summer terms. Interns are required to work a minimum of 15 hours per week during academic semesters and 40 hours per week during the summer. If applicable, interns also may receive academic credit for the internship. Judge Mehta has completed internship hiring for Fall 2020. Interested applicants for Spring 2021 should submit a cover letter, resume, writing sample, and transcript with at least one semester of grades to Mehta_Internship@dcd.uscourts.gov.

Five (.08%) Of 5,913 Certified Claimants Have Since Permitted Filed Libertad Act Lawsuits

Of the 5,913 claimants certified by the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (USFCSC), these (original claim value in parenthesis) have filed Libertad Act lawsuits: 2nd largest certified claimant North American Sugar (US$97,373,414.72); 9th largest certified claimant Exxon Mobil Corporation (US$71,611,002.90 and US$173,157.12); 31st largest certified claimant Havana Docks Corporation (US$9,179,700.08); 88th largest certified claimant Julies Shepard (US$2,033,959.17); 195th largest certified claimant Javier Garcia-Bengochea (US$547,365.24).

The Trump Administration on 2 May 2019 made operational 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. 

LINK: Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Honduras Expropriation Lawsuit May Be Illustrative For Cuba Libertad Act Lawsuits

“Investors Can Seek Discovery In Honduras Expropriation Fight

By Enna Whitford 

Law360 (July 6, 2020) -- A Florida federal judge on Monday dismissed Honduras' assertion that a magistrate judge erred in allowing a group of nearly 100 U.S. real estate investors to seek discovery on Honduras' sovereign immunity defense to claims that it expropriated their development.

U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Barber said the court did not misapply relevant statutes or case law in May, when it allowed the investors to seek discovery on 12 topics to confirm if Honduras qualifies for a takings exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn's May 22 order was "neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law," Judge Barber wrote Monday.

Honduras is hoping to skirt the investors' January 2019 claim that the country expropriated their 420-home residential development in the northern city of San Pedro Sula.

The investors allege that the government of Honduras backed thousands of squatters who surrounded the development starting in 2012, effectively halting construction and tanking home sales. This amounts to the unlawful taking of an asset belonging to U.S. citizens, an FSIA exception, according to the complaint.

In June objections to Judge Barber's order, Honduras dismissed the discovery request as overbroad.  "The order improperly granted plaintiffs' motion for jurisdictional discovery on twelve general topics despite the plaintiffs' inability to identify any specific 'crucial' fact required to establish jurisdiction," Honduras said.

The plaintiffs countered in a response that Judge Flynn's order was carefully considered.  "Despite having issued a nine-page order summarizing the complaint's allegations, reviewing the applicable case law, and dismissing defendants' arguments against granting any discovery, defendants blithely claim that the magistrate judge accepted plaintiffs' request 'without analysis,'" the investors said.

Reached for comment Monday, counsel for the investors celebrated the discovery order.  "The plaintiffs believe that this discovery will further cement their allegations that the Republic of Honduras expropriated their investment," said Carlos Gonzalez of Alvarez Gonzalez Menezes LLP. "While FSIA litigation presents countless challenges for any plaintiff, today's ruling provides my clients with an important tool to overcome Honduras' claim that it is immune from jurisdiction in U.S. courts."  Counsel for Honduras did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The investors — including numerous individuals and estates — claimed last year that squatters built homes, roads and made other "improvements" to the surrounding land in San Pedro Sula, creating their own makeshift city. They also alleged the squatters received help from Honduras' national power company, which supplied them electricity, and the state-owned Instituto de Propiedad — the Property Institute.

Honduras countered in a motion to dismiss that there was no taking of the investors' properties, and therefore no FSIA exception. The squatters only occupied land adjacent to the investors' development, Honduras said.

The real estate investors are represented by Ignacio M. Alvarez and Carlos F. Gonzales of Alvarez Gonzalez Menezes LLP.

Honduras is represented by Juan C. Basombrio and Mark S. Sullivan of Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Robert K. Jamieson of Wiand Guerra King PL.

The case is Agurcia et al. v. Republic of Honduras, case number 8:19-cv-00038, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.”

LINK To Complaint (1/7/2019)

LINK To Order Overruling Defendants’ Objection To May, 22, 2020

Teck Resources Of Canada After Nearing 90 Days, Has Yet To Identity Attorneys And Confirm Receipt Of Summons

On 20 April 2020, the court provided to Plaintiff Herederos De Roberto Gomez Cabrera “a summons in a civil action” to Defendant Toronto, Canada-based Tech Resources (2019 revenues approximately US$8 billion).

The summons listed “TECK RESOURCES LIMITED, through its U.S. agent, Teck American Incorporated, c/o registered agent: Phillip A. Pesek, 501 North Riverpoint Boulevard, Suite 300, Spokane, Washington 99202.”

“A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney.”

To date, Teck Resources has neither provided to the court the names of attorneys representing the company nor has the court confirmed service of the summons.

LINK To Amended Complaint And Demand For Jury Trial [due to “minor scrivener’s error (watermark)] (7/8/2020)

LINK To Summons In A Civil Action (4/20/2020)

Previous Post

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

Carnival Corporation Obtains Dismissal Of One Libertad Act Lawsuit- Could Be Template For Other Judges; Likely Appeal To 11th Circuit In Atlanta

JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA V. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINE, A FOREIGN CORPORATION [1:19-cv-21725; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)

Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)

Jones Walker (defendant)

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (defendant)

Akerman (defendant)

Excerpts: 

“Carnival attaches two exhibits to its pleading to show that Plaintiff inherited the claim (if at all1) under a will executed in January 2000 by his cousin Desiderio Parreño, a Costa Rican national (see DE 52-1 at 4), who had previously inherited the certified claim from Albert Parreño (see DE 52-2 at 3).  Carnival now moves for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that (1) the bequest from Desiderio to Plaintiff was ineffective under Costa Rican law; and (2) Plaintiff did not acquire the claim until January 2000 at the earliest, and thus after the March 1996 cutoff under the Act. See Mot., DE 54.” 

“Here, Plaintiff does not dispute that Desiderio Parreño (a Costa Rican national) attempted to transfer his claim under his will to Plaintiff (a U.S. national) after Helms-Burton was enacted on March 12, 1996. As a non-U.S. national, Desiderio had no ability to bring suit under Helms-Burton himself, so transferring his claim to Plaintiff would enable Plaintiff to take advantage of the Helms-Burton remedy. But this appears to be the very thing Congress intended to eliminate by adding § 6082(a)(4)(B) to the Act. Thus, allowing Plaintiff to maintain this suit would frustrate Congress’s stated purpose. As a result, the Court finds that this action is barred under § 6082(a)(4)(B), and that Carnival is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

LINK To Order Granting Carnival Corporation’s Motion For Judgement On The Pleadings

Appeal To 11th Circuit Is Next

The plaintiff is expected to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District whose headquarters is located in Atlanta, Georgia.

The appeal needs to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of the judgement.   

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/

Court In Spain Rules Against Melia Hotels Effort To Obtain Ruling By Court Of Justice Of the European Union

A court in Palma de Mallorca, Spain, has rejected a motion by Palma de Mallorca, Spain-based Meliá Hotels International (2019 revenues approximately US$2.1 billion) to suspend procedure and to refer a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Against this resolution, there is reportedly only an appeal for reconsideration that would be before the same judge.  If, as expected, Melia Hotels International files an appeal, plaintiff counsel believes the court will again reject motion/appeal based upon the same arguments.

The court did formally require within ten days the defendant provide original documents.

LINK To Interlocutoria (6 July 2020)

LINK To Antecedentes De Hecho (6 July 2020)

LINK To Defendant Document Requirement (6 July 2020)

LINK To Letter From Attorney For Melia Hotels International (15 June 2020)

Related Post

Spanish Appellate Court Rules Sánchez Hill (non-Libertad Act) Lawsuit Against Meliá Hotels International Has Jurisdiction to Proceed; Discovery Begins April 28, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vozpopuli (Madrid, Spain) 10 July 2020

https://www.vozpopuli.com/economia-y-finanzas/melia-cuba-tribunales_0_1371764169.html

Translation:

“New setback for Meliá. The Court of First Instance number 24 of Palma de Mallorca has issued a resolution dated July 6, in which it rejects the three requests raised by the Spanish hotel company in its war with the Cuban family Sánchez Hill for the exploitation of two of its hotels in Cuba, as recorded in the documentation consulted by Vozpópuli.

Specifically, Meliá had transferred to the judge that the Sánchez Hill lawsuit is a “covert attempt” to avoid the effects of community regulations regarding the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country. It had also requested that the judge refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for indications on how to proceed and, finally, he had requested the adoption of measures aimed at maintaining the confidentiality of the process. The court has rejected everything.

In the first place, Meliá points out that Central Santa Lucía is a company incorporated with the sole objective of claiming compensation for the confiscations of the Castro dictatorship and claims that the present case is a claim based, indirectly, on the Helms-Burton Act , which has no effect in Spain thanks to the Blocking Statute of the European Union.

The Sánchez Hill, advised by the lawyer Alejandro Gimeno-Bayón, do not resort to the controversial law in their argumentation and support their thesis in the so-called unjust enrichment, on which the Spanish justice can pronounce itself. The court agrees with this argument and recalls that the procedure "will resolve only and exclusively a claim for unjust enrichment." Thus, it rejects both the procedural and the preliminary questions.

Regarding the maintenance of the confidentiality of the process, Meliá expresses his fear that the Sánchez Hills may collect documentation that they can use against the hotelier later in a proceeding in the United States. The Escarrer hotel company, which has signed Garrigues for its defense, had asked the Sánchez Hill to sign a document that they would refrain from revealing or disseminating the documentation of the process or from initiating actions under the Helms-Burton in the United States.

The court assures not to appreciate cause that justifies the adoption of measures "so restrictive and contrary to the general principle of the publicity of the actions, essential in a democratic society". In addition, she adds that Meliá has not demonstrated that the Sánchez Hills have any idea of using this procedure to initiate actions in the United States.

When asked about this matter, the hotel company assures Vozpópuli that "it is not surprised by the decision taken by the Court not to raise the procedural incident of a preliminary ruling before the CJEU, since the judge considers that it can be resolved with strict application of applicable Spanish law ". Likewise, Meliá insists that "there are evident factual and legal elements for the claim to be dismissed in its entirety."

A year of judicial swings

This is the last chapter of a judicial battle that started a year ago, in June 2019, when the family of Cuban origin Sánchez Hill filed a lawsuit against the hotel chain for "unjust enrichment" by operating two hotels, Paradisus Rio de Oro and Sol Rio and Luna Mares, in land that was expropriated after the Castro Revolution of 1959.

The lawsuit reached the Spanish courts after the United States reactivated the controversial Helms-Burton Act, the regulation that allows nationalized Americans and Cubans to claim compensation for the goods that were confiscated by Fidel Castro, although Spanish Justice cannot assess this matter and, therefore, the lawsuit is not based on said law.

Three months later, the Court of First Instance nº 24 of Palma de Mallorca filed the case due to the absence of jurisdiction and lack of international judicial competence of the Spanish courts. However, the process that seemed buried took an unexpected turn in April, with the reactivation of the lawsuit by the Provincial Court of Palma de Mallorca, which upheld the appeal filed by the Sánchez Hill.

The judicial body understands that the Spanish courts do have jurisdiction and international judicial competence to process a procedure against a company domiciled in Spain in the exercise of what it seems to identify as a personal action for compensation. With which, he returned the case to the Court of First Instance number 24 in Palma.

Now the magistrate has rejected Meliá's attempt to suspend the procedure and, with this resolution, the chain has only one last bullet left: the appeal for reinstatement before the same court in the five days following the notification, that is, before of Saturday. The plaintiffs claim compensation from Meliá for at least ten million dollars.”

Amazon Fined By The OFAC For Processing Orders For Embassies, Including Cuba

"Amazon also accepted and processed orders on its websites for persons located in or employed by the foreign missions of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria."

“Settlement Agreement between the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and Amazon.com, Inc.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today announced a $134,523 settlement with Amazon.co​m, Inc. (“Amazon”). Amazon, a Seattle, Washington-based company that provides retail, e-commerce, and digital services to millions of customers worldwide, has agreed to pay $134,523 to settle its potential civil liability for apparent violations of multiple OFAC sanctions programs. As a result of deficiencies related to Amazon’s sanctions screening processes, Amazon provided goods and services to persons sanctioned by OFAC; to persons located in the sanctioned region or countries of Crimea, Iran, and Syria; and to individuals located in or employed by the foreign missions of countries sanctioned by OFAC. Amazon also failed to timely report several hundred transactions conducted pursuant to a general license issued by OFAC that included a mandatory reporting requirement, thereby nullifying that authorization with respect to those transactions. The settlement amount reflects OFAC’s determination that Amazon’s apparent violations were non-egregious and voluntarily self-disclosed, and further reflects the significant remedial measures implemented by Amazon upon discovery of the apparent violations.”

LINK TO SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT IN PDF FORMAT

US Department Of Energy Lists Six Countries As "Foreign Adversaries"; Only Two Are Also "State Sponsors Of Terrorism"

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [DOE–HQ–2020–0028] Securing the United States Bulk-Power System AGENCY: Office of Electricity, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for information (RFI). SUMMARY: Pursuant to Executive Order 13920 (E.O. 13920) issued May 1, 2020, titled ‘‘Securing the United States BulkPower System,’’ the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is seeking information to understand the energy industry’s current practices to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities in the supply chain for components of the bulk-power system (BPS).

On May 1, 2020, the President issued Executive Order 13920, which has four main pillars: (1) Prohibit any acquisition, importation, transfer, or installation of BPS electric equipment by any person or with respect to any property to which a foreign adversary or an associated national thereof has any interest, that poses an undue risk to the BPS, the security or resiliency of U.S. critical infrastructure or the U.S. economy, or U.S. national security;

‘‘Foreign adversaries’’ are defined as any foreign government or foreign nongovernment person engaged in a longterm pattern or serious instance of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the U.S. or its allies or the security and safety of U.S. persons.

The current list of ‘‘foreign adversaries’’ consists of the governments of the following countries: The People’s Republic of China (China), the Republic of Cuba (Cuba), the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran), the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), the Russian Federation (Russia), and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Venezuela).

This determination is based on multiple sources, including ODNI’s 2016–2019 Worldwide Threat Assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the 2020– 2022 National Counterintelligence Strategy, and the 2018 National Cyber Strategy of the United States of America (see https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2018/09/NationalCyber-Strategy.pdf). Note, the abovementioned countries identified as ‘‘foreign adversaries’’ are here identified as such only for the purposes of E.O. 13920.

COMPLETE DOCUMENT IN PDF FORMAT

The United States Department of State lists four countries as “State Sponsors of Terrorism”: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Iran, Sudan, and Syria. LINK

U.S. Exports To Cuba Decline 25.3% In May 2020; Decrease 44.3% Year-To-Year

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©

July 2020

May 2020 Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Decrease 25.3%- 1

52nd In May 2020 Of 223 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2

Year-To-Year Exports Decrease 44.3%- 2

Cuba Ranks 60th Of 223 Ag/Food Export Markets- 2

May 2020 Healthcare Product Exports US$0.00- 2

May 2020 Humanitarian Donations US$98,433.00- 3

Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue To Increase- 3

U.S. Port Export Data- 16

MAY 2020 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA DECREASE 25.3%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in May 2020 were US$20,650,953.00 compared to US$27,657,054.00 in May 2019 and US$29,169,203.00 in May 2018.

Exports in May 2020 include chicken legs, chicken leg quarters, chicken meat, soybeans, calcium phosphate, woodpulp, and kraftliner.

Total 2020 exports to the Republic of Cuba are US$75,728,924.00 compared to the same period in 2019 of US$136,122,190.00 representing a decrease of 44.3%.

Thus far for 2020, the Republic of Cuba ranks 60th of 223 agricultural commodity and food product export markets for the United States.

TSREEA exports reported since December 2001 are US$6,209,601,620.00

The report 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.

The data represents the U.S. Dollar value of product exported from the United States to the Republic of Cuba under the TSREEA. The data does not include transportation charges, bank charges, or other costs associated with exports; the government of the Republic of Cuba reports unverifiable data that includes transportation charges, bank charges, and other costs.

Complete Report In PDF Format

Engineer In Cuba Shares About First China-Built Biomass-Fired Power Plant

Power

Rockville, Maryland

1 July 2020

Cuba’s First Biomass-Fired Power Plant Inaugurated

The first biomass-fired power plant in Cuba—located adjacent to Ciro Redondo sugar mill in the central province of Ciego de Ávila—recently synchronized its two boilers to the grid. The 60-MW plant is expected to provide about 50% of the province’s power demand.

The first stone for the plant was symbolically placed in April 2017 by ambassadors from the UK and China. Construction began in March 2018. The original schedule projected commercial operation by November 2019, but Hurricane Irma delayed completion. The first boiler erected was tested for 72 hours in mid-January, generating about 1,550 MWh and consuming about 2,120 tons of marabou during the period. The unit was first synchronized to the national grid on March 16. The second boiler was synchronized to the grid on April 24. Currently, both boilers are operating satisfactorily, and the last work on road systems and administrative buildings is expected to be completed this year.

The plant will supply steam (about 122 tons/hour) and all the electricity needed by the sugar mill (about 8 MW), while the remnant power will be delivered to the national grid. The facility is capable of consuming about 2,100 tons of bagasse and 1,200 to 1,500 tons of marabou every day. It is expected to save about 100,000 barrels of oil per year and the emission of about 300 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually.

The plant is expected to consume marabou biomass from June to November, and sugarcane bagasse from December to May, which will be supplied by the sugar mill along with condensate. This will eliminate the emanation of bagacillo, an organic byproduct generated in the surroundings of the sugar mill that affects the community neighboring the sugar plant.

The plant was erected at a cost of about $180 million from an association between the British company Havana Energy and the Cuban company Zerus, part of the Azcuba group, thus creating a mixed enterprise named BioPower S.A., which is assigned to administrate the plant. The Chinese company Shanghai Electric was designated for engineering, procurement, construction, and startup of the facility. The Chinese specialists will continue operating the plant along with Cuban personnel for two years, until the guarantee period expires, according to the signed contract.

About 325 Chinese specialists and technicians labored during the construction phases, while near 200 Cuban workers and 40 engineers of different specialty areas were involved in the task. This is the first time that Cuba has generated electricity from marabou biomass. There are plans to erect another 18 units adjacent to the same number of sugar mills across the country by 2030 (Figure 1), with a total capacity of 755 MW.

Currently, there are two units under construction in Cuba. One is near the Jesús Rabí sugar mill in Matanzas province (20 MW) and the other is adjacent to the Hector Rodríguez sugar factory in Villa Clara province (20 MW). A 50-MW facility is expected to start construction later this year next to the 30 de Noviembre sugar mill in Artemisa province.

The sugar industry produces its own fuel, which is considered renewable and environmentally friendly because CO2 generated from burning bagasse was originally absorbed by the sugar cane through the photosynthesis route during its growing period. Therefore, it does not increase the presence of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Cuba seeks to expand the use of renewables to reach about 24% of the national electric generation by 2030. About 14% is planned to come from biomass-fired facilities.

Amaury Pérez Sánchez (amauryps@nauta.cu) is a chemical engineer based in Cuba with the University of Camagüey.