U.S. Department Of Commerce Seeks Comments About Food/Ag Cuba Export Licensing Process

Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000 exports reported thus far since December 2001 are US$6,215,108,958.00.  Total 2020 reported exports thus far 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.  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 Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992.

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is requesting public comments on the effectiveness of its licensing procedures as defined in the Export Administration Regulations for the export of agricultural commodities to Cuba. BIS will include a description of these comments in its biennial report to the Congress, as required by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, as amended (TSRA). 

DATES: Comments must be received by October 5, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov—you can find this notice by searching on its regulations.gov docket number, which is BIS-2020-0028. All comments (including any personally identifying information) will be made available for public inspection and copying.  By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. Refer to RIN 0694-XC064. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Salinas, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Telephone: (202) 482-4252. Additional information on BIS procedures and previous biennial reports under TSRA is available at http://www.bis.doc.gov/​index.php/​policy-guidance/​country-guidance/​sanctioned-destinations/​13-policy-guidance/​country-guidance/​426-reports-to-congress. Copies of these Start Printed Page 54983materials may also be requested by contacting the Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 906(a) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) (22 U.S.C. 7205(a)), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) authorizes exports of agricultural commodities, as defined in part 772 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), to Cuba. Requirements and procedures associated with such authorizations are set forth in § 740.18 (Agricultural commodities) of the EAR (15 CFR part 740). These are the only licensing procedures in the EAR currently in effect pursuant to the requirements of section 906(a) of TSRA. 

Under the provisions of section 906(c) of TSRA (22 U.S.C. 7205(c)), BIS must submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation of the licensing system implemented pursuant to section 906(a) for the preceding two-year period. This report must include the number and types of licenses applied for, the number and types of licenses approved, the average amount of time elapsed from the date of filing of a license application until the date of its approval, the extent to which the licensing procedures were effectively implemented, and a description of comments received from interested parties during a 30-day public comment period about the effectiveness of the licensing procedures. BIS is currently preparing a biennial report on the operation of the licensing system for the two-year period from October 1, 2018-September 30, 2020. 

Request for Comments 

By this notice, BIS requests public comments on the effectiveness of the licensing procedures for the export of agricultural commodities to Cuba set forth under § 740.18 of the EAR. Parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. All comments received by the close of the comment period will be considered by BIS in developing the report to Congress.  All comments must be in writing and will be available for public inspection and copying. Any information that the commenter does not wish to be made available to the public should not be submitted to BIS. 

Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2020-19471 Filed 9-2-20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P

LINK To DOCUMENT IN PDF FORMAT

Judge Denies Norwegian Cruise Line Motion To Dismiss In Libertad Act Lawsuit- "... the Court again remains unpersuaded" And Focus On Knowledge

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 Order (1 September 2020)
LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Statistics

Excerpts From 27-Page Order:

“As noted above, Title III took effect on August 1, 1996, seeid. § 6085(a), and liability for trafficking thus attached to conduct on confiscated property beginning on November 1, 1996 (i.e., three months after Title III’s effective date), see § 6082(a)(1)(A). Likewise, President Clinton’s statements regarding the actions taken pursuant to Title III of the Act further buttress the notion that liability for trafficking in confiscated property under Title III could be imposed for conduct occurring on or after November 1, 1996. Thus, contrary to its position in the Motion, NCL’s alleged conduct on the Subject Property was not lawful prior to the suspension being lifted in May 2019. Instead, liability for trafficking under Title III attached beginning on November 1, 1996, and the consistent suspension of the right to bring an action under Title III did not affect this liability. In other words, NCL’s alleged conduct in Cuba occurred after the enactment of Title III,7 and the penalty for liability has remained unchanged since Title III was enacted, thus putting traffickers on notice of their potential liability under § 6082(a)(1)(A) since Title III took effect in 1996."

“Moreover, with regard to NCL’s contention it lacked fair notice that liability under Title III could be imposed for its conduct in Cuba due to the government’s encouragement of relations with Cuba and Title III’s consistent history of ongoing suspensions, the Court again remains unpersuaded."

“Despite the absence of any lawsuits being filed pursuant to Title III since its enactment, NCL was on notice of Title III’s existence from the time it became law in 1996, and it had an obligation to familiarize itself with the mandates of Title III, especially once it began operating in Cuba. Locke, 471 U.S. at 108; Texaco, Inc., 454 U.S. at 532; N. Laramie Land Co., 268 U.S. at 283. Moreover, the government’s encouragement to travel to Cuba and to increase commercial relations with Cuba does not in any way absolve NCL of its obligations to also comply with federal law—namely, by not trafficking in confiscated property without the consent of a claimant. Thus, NCL has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the application of Title III to its conduct in Cuba constitutes a due process violation. See Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 729 (1984) (“It is by now well established that legislative Acts adjusting the burdens and benefits of economic life come . . . with a presumption of constitutionality, and that the burden is on one complaining of a due process violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way.” (quoting Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 15 (1976))). Accordingly, NCL’s Motion is denied as to its due process claim.”

Four Year Experiment Ends In Cuba For Marriott International. Did Trump Administration Require Equipment To Be Returned To U.S.?

"We can confirm that starting tomorrow (Tuesday) Marriott will no longer be operating the Four Points by Sheraton in Havana," said Ms. Kerstin Sachl, the company’s Director of Communication for Latin America and the Caribbean for Marriott International, to Paris, France-based EFE.

NOTE: As of 1 September 2020 the hotel has been renamed Quinta Avenida Habana Hotel

Post From 5 June 2020

Trump Administration Will Not Renew Marriott OFAC License To Manage Hotels In Cuba

Statement of Marriott International: "Marriott International has been notified by the U.S. Department of Treasury that we must wind down our operation of the Four Points Sheraton in Havana, Cuba by August 31, and that we will not be permitted to open other hotels in Cuba that have been in preparation. We entered the Cuban market in 2016, with permission from the U.S. government. Our operating license was reviewed and renewed in 2018. We have recently received notice that the government-issued license will not be renewed, forcing Marriott to cease operations in Cuba. Marriott continues to believe that Cuba is a destination that travelers, including Americans, want to visit. Marriott looks forward to reopening in Cuba if and when the US Government gives us permission to do business there again."  

From the moment in November 2016 when Donald Trump became President-Elect Donald Trump, all licenses from the OFAC to United States companies for commercial activity in Cuba had a bullseye painted upon them.  If President Obama's name was attached to an initiative, it was prepared for execution.   

The Trump Administration decision for the OFAC not to renew the license of Marriott International is not surprising, but is disappointing as the Four Points By Sheraton Havana was the sole space for employees who are Cuban to learn about how a global United States company operates and position them for opportunities in the hospitality sector.   

The Trump Administration viewed the operation by Marriott International similar to how it viewed cruise ship operations- an example of Obama Administration policy failure to change Cuba rather than provide Cuba with additional revenues which are used to forestall necessary commercial and economic changes vital to the country.  

From The Miami Herald: "We recently received a notice that the government-issued license will not be renewed, forcing Marriott to suspend its operations in Cuba," said Kerstin Sachl, the company's director of Public Relations for Latin America and the Caribbean.”   

Second-largest certified claimant, Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International, Inc. (2019 revenues approximately US$21 billion) and its subsidiary, Stamford, Connecticut-based Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide LLC, have a series of two-year licenses from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury in Washington DC to manage two (2) properties located in the Republic of Cuba.      

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 Marriott International; the certified claim also includes land adjacent to the Jose Marti International Airport in Havana, Republic of Cuba.    

The OFAC licenses were first issued in March 2016 during the Obama Administration and were renewed during the Trump Administration, although there has been a reported delay by the OFAC in transferring the licenses from Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide LLC to Marriott International.        

Both properties (one currently through Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide LLC) are in the city of Havana, the 186-room Four Points by Sheraton Havana (which employs approximately 125 Republic of Cuba citizens) and 83-room Hotel Inglaterra (delayed opening without public explanation from December 2016 to December 2017 to December 2019 to “sometime” in 2020).   

Both properties are owned by entities controlled by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of the Republic of Cuba (FAR).      

Marriott International reported that the OFAC-authorized management contract for at least one of the properties requires the investment of millions of United States Dollars; unstated as to the shared responsibility for that investment.     

Judge Orders Discovery To Continue In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Norwegian Cruise Lines

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 Order (27 August 2020)

LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Statistics

Excerpts From Order: 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery concerning Other Cuban Ports (ECF No. 94).1 Plaintiff’s Motion seeks an order overruling Defendant’s objection to responding to certain discovery requests on the grounds that “this case concerns only transactions related to property in Havana – not Cuba generally” (the “geographical objection”).2 Plaintiff avers that the information requested is necessary to challenge Defendant’s asserted lawful travel defense. Defendant responded in opposition to the Motion (ECF No. 98), and generally argues that because the Subject Property is located in Havana, so too discovery should be limited to Defendant’s travel to Havana. 

If NCL was in fact instructed to use the dock for its travel to Havana, this may significantly narrow the scope of discovery relevant to disprove NCL’s assertion of necessity. However, neither the interrogatory answer nor counsel’s explanation at the hearing shed much light on the factual basis for this assertion: discovery has not revealed whether the government communicated this designation to NCL verbally or in writing, to whom, or when, or what was communicated other than NCL contends that it constituted designation of the Subject Property for use. Plaintiff contends it is far more likely the Property selected because of its desirable location in the City of Havana, where most passengers would want to disembark and visit. 

Defendant’s geographic objection to Document Request No. 7 is overruled. The request broadly seeks all documents and communications related to studies created by NCL before and after NCL commenced travel to Cuba. Plaintiff proffers that the documents are relevant to disproving Defendant’s travel defense. Specifically, Plaintiff avers that efforts undertaken by NCL to examine the feasibility of using the Subject Property and/or any alternative options undermine Defendant’s claim that it only used the Property because the Cuban Government told it to. 

With respect to Request No. 11, which seeks documents that would evidence violations of conditions of Defendant’s license to travel to Cuba, Defendant’s Response currently represents that Defendant will search for and produce responsive documents, “if such documents or communications exist.” At the hearing, counsel represented that there are no documents concerning any violation of law, regulation or condition of any license because no such violation has occurred. Defendant is ordered to amend its answer to Document Request No. 11 to accurately so state.7 Plaintiff’s Request to Compel Documents responsive to Document Request No. 11, subheadings (d) and (e), are denied.

Although Dismissal Granted, Pernod Ricard Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit May Continue- Plaintiff Has Standing To Proceed

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

IPS Legal Group, P.A. (plaintiff)
Law Offices of Andre G. Raikhelson LLC (plaintiff)
Ainsworth & Clancy PLLC (plaintiff)
Carlton Fields P.A. (defendant)
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. (defendant)

On 17 August 2020, Judge Kathleen M. Williams of the Southern District of Florida granted a motion to dismiss the case, but with leave for the plaintiff to amend its complaint.  Of consequence, the Court found the plaintiff’s allegations of trafficking gave the plaintiff constitutional standing to proceed with the lawsuit. 

LINK Court Order (17 August 2020) 

Excerpts: 

To determine whether the exercise of specific jurisdiction affords due process, the Eleventh Circuit applies a three-part test. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1355 (11th Cir. 2013). First, courts consider whether plaintiffs have established that their claims “arise out of or relate to” at least one of the defendant’s contacts with the forum. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, courts determine whether plaintiffs have demonstrated that defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the plaintiffs carry their burden of establishing the first two prongs, a court next considers whether the defendant has “ma[de] a compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).  

Plaintiffs have failed to address any of these issues in response to the Motion to Dismiss, and the Complaint fails to provide allegations for the Court to assess whether specific jurisdiction requirements could be met in this case. As such, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendant Pernod is subject to specific jurisdiction in this case. The Court, however, grants Plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to advance allegations to establish specific jurisdiction, if appropriate. 

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction  

Defendant contends that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because Plaintiffs lack standing. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ injuries were not the result of Defendant’s actions and that Plaintiffs cannot establish causation.  

This argument fails, however, because Defendant misapprehends the nature of Plaintiffs’ cause of action. The injury for which Plaintiffs seek to be compensated is not the Cuban Government’s confiscation of Cueto’s property in Cuba, but rather the proceeds obtained by a third party, in this case Pernod, who allegedly intentionally and knowingly trafficked in that confiscated property. Thus, Defendant’s contention that it was not complicit in the 1963 taking by the Cuban Government or has not been empowered to return the property [DE 30 at 24] is not relevant. 

The Act provides a cause of action for U.S. nationals against those entities who knowingly traffic in confiscated property. In other words, an entity or person need not be complicit in the taking of the property at issue to be found liable for money damages under the Act. See Glen v. Club Mediterranee, S.A. 450 F.2d 1251, 1256 (11th Cir. 2006) (stating purpose of Act is to provide a statutory remedy to U.S. nationals who were the victims of the confiscation and to deny traffickers any profits from economically exploiting those wrongful seizures.). Defendant asserts that Pernod’s commercial activities with Corporación Cuba Ron S.A. are not the cause of Plaintiffs’ injury given that the commercial activity occurred with a different product and brand name nearly thirty years after the alleged illegal taking. [DE 30 at 25]. This argument is unavailing because Plaintiffs’ sole cause of action is not based on whether Defendant participated in the illegal taking but whether they knowingly and intentionally trafficked in the confiscated property in which Plaintiffs hold an interest. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Cueto’s intellectual property was taken, so Defendant’s assertion that the product is different after thirty years—even if true—is not sufficient to defeat these allegations. 

Defendant also asserts that there are no allegations in the Complaint that Pernod trades in Conac Cueto products, benefits from Conac Cueto’s intellectual property or that the Cueto family has any rights in the rum products Pernod produces in Cuba [DE 30 at 24, 25]. The Complaint does allege that the intellectual property of Conac Cueto was used in the production and sale of Havana Club brand and line of products.10 The Complaint also alleges that Defendant owns rights in the brand Havana Club [DE 22 at 2] and further alleges that beginning in 1993, Defendant “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” and “participated and profited from the communist Cuban Government’s possession of the Subject Property.” [DE 22 at 6]. Therefore, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant used Cueto property in its product distribution. These allegations are sufficient to establish Plaintiffs’ standing as an injured party due to, as discussed below, the Defendant’s trafficking actions. 

Here, the Complaint alleges that Defendant knowingly and intentionally conducted business—i.e. trafficked with the Cuban government—related to the Havana Club brand even though Defendant knew or should have known, because of the publication in Cuban newspapers and the markings on the materials, that the Cuban government had wrongfully confiscated such property from Cuban citizens. Plaintiffs, therefore, have alleged the requisite scienter sufficient to survive the Motion to Dismiss. To the extent that Defendant contests the veracity of those allegations, such determinations are “inappropriate in deciding a motion to dismiss,” Garcia-Bengochea v. Carnival Corp., 407 F. Supp. 3d 1281, 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (citing Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Hartman, Simons & Wood, LLP, 609 F. App’x 972, 977 (11th Cir. 2015)), and Defendant’s motion is denied on this ground. 

The Defendant fails to cite any case law to support its proposition but instead relies on the pre-enactment testimony of a member of the House of Representatives, and argues that a United States citizen must already own the claim to the confiscated property on March 12, 1996, when the Act was passed. Thus, Defendant contends that in order for Plaintiffs to hold an actionable claim, Cueto would have had to set up a U.S. subsidiary or affiliated entity in the United States and have transferred the claim to that entity. [DE 30 at 30].  

Similar arguments were rejected by the Court in Garcia-Bengochea where the Court described the defendant’s argument for dismissal as follows:  

Carnival argues that even if Plaintiff did acquire ownership of Parreno’s certified claim, Plaintiff still does not own a “direct interest” in the confiscated property because “the claim concerns stock in [La Maritima], which in turn owned the docks.” In Carnival’s view, this requires dismissal because, “[a]s a matter of corporate law, Plaintiff does not own a claim to the docks themselves.” And because La Maritima “is not a United States national capable of bringing a Helms-Burton claim,” Carnival says Plaintiff cannot save his case by attempting to bring the action on behalf of the company.  

407 F. Supp. 3d at 1285 (internal citations omitted). The Court concluded that such an interpretation would undermine Congress’ goal of deterring trafficking and yield an untenable result: any corporation that was nationalized by the Cuban Government once it was confiscated (as Plaintiffs allege occurred in this case) would not qualify as a U.S. national capable of bringing a Helms-Burton claim, nor would any person who held an interest in that Cuban entity qualify. If true, virtually no one could bring an action under the Act. Id. at 1290.  

The Court agrees with the rationale advanced in Garcia-Bengochea and concludes that Plaintiffs’ allegation that they have—albeit through an alleged inheritance—a claim to property once owned by a corporation confiscated by the Cuban Government is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 30] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. To the extent that Defendant’s Motion seeks dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), lack of personal jurisdiction, the Motion is granted. To the extent that Defendant seeks dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper service, failure to state a claim and any other grounds, the Motion is denied. Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order.

Why Didn’t Trump Administration Recognize 60th Anniversary Of First Nationalization By Cuba? Is It Committed To Claimants? Is Lack Of Statement A Message? To Whom?

Why Didn’t Trump Administration Recognize 60th Anniversary Of First Nationalization By Cuba?  Nor Did Members Of Congress.  Are Lack Of Statements A Message?  Is There A Commitment To Claimants?  

President Trump Did What His Three Predecessors Didn’t Do- Now He Ignores It

“The crime of two centuries- they steal US$1.9 billion and sixty years later there is no money, no prosecution, no justice for the 5,913 victims.” Certified Claimant 

From a Washington DC-based attorney: “The big nationalization date was Aug. 6, 1960.  All the big U.S. companies were seized that day- and it was an even-decade anniversary this year, 60 years.  It goes to show how little anyone cares about the claims, not even a State Department statement.” 

Fifteen days ago, 6 August 2020 marked the 60th anniversary of the expropriation of 382 companies by the government of the Republic of Cuba.  The process began on 29 June 1960. 

The first asset to be expropriated was an oil refinery 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 Trump Administration did not recognize the 60th anniversary- even though in 2019 it took a decision specifically focused towards the 5,913 certified claimants and the unknown number of non-certified claimants which had been unavailable since 1996 due to suspension.  Four occupants of White House, including through the first two years of the Trump Administration, had prevented claimants from filing lawsuits to recover assets expropriated without compensation by the government of the Republic of Cuba.   

Not a statement from The White House where the National Security Council has been the architect of United States policy towards the Republic of Cuba since 20 January 2017.   

Not a statement from the United States Department of State- where Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on 2 May 2019 made operational Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”).  The United States Department of State has, however, focused in 2020 upon using the birthdays of H.E. Dr. Fidel Castro and H.E. General Raul Castro as implementation points for decisions relating to the Republic of Cuba.  

Not a statement from the United States Department of the Treasury, whose Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is responsible for implementing regulations relating to the Republic of Cuba. 

Not a statement from a member of the United States Congress- particularly striking the silence from the three members of the United States Senate who are of Cuban descent- The Honorable Marco Rubio (R- Florida), The Honorable Ted Cruz (R- Texas) and The Honorable Robert Menendez (D- New Jersey).  Of note: Senator Rubio is the chair of the Sub-Committee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, and Global Women’s Issues of the Committee on Foreign Relations.  Nor the three members of the United States House of Representatives who are of Cuban descent: The Honorable Albio Sires (D- 8th New Jersey), The Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart (R- 25th Florida) and The Honorable Alex Mooney (R- 2nd West Virginia).  Of note: Representative Sires is chair of the Sub-Committee on Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, And Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

Not a statement from any of the 5,913 certified claimants or from the unknown number of non-certified claimants or from their respective attorneys.

Background 

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 on 6 August 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).  From the certified claim filed by Texaco: “The Cuban corporation was intervened on June 29, 1960, pursuant to Resolution 188 of June 28, 1960, under Law 635 of 1959.  Resolution 188 was promulgated by the Government of Cuba when the Cuban corporation assertedly refused to refine certain crude oil as assertedly provided under a 1938 law pertaining to combustible materials.  Subsequently, this Cuban firm was listed as nationalized in Resolution 19 of August 6, 1960, pursuant to Cuban Law 851.  The Commission finds, however, that the Cuban corporation was effectively intervened within the meaning of Title V of the Act by the Government of Cuba on June 29, 1960.” 

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.   

Title III Lawsuits 

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.   

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). 

In the third quarter of 2019, the then twenty-eight, now twenty-seven member Brussels, Belgium-based European Union (EU) confirmed its intention to issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) to law firms in the United States.  The law firm(s) would be retained to file “amicus curiae” (friend-of-the-court) motions and other motions on behalf of each Libertad Act Title III lawsuit defendant who is domiciled in the EU.  

Since 2 May 2019, some filings have been appealed, consolidated, dismissed, refiled, reversed, and transferred within districts and from district to district.  Some defendants have been dismissed, but the case continues with other defendants. 

Trump Administration Connecting Birthdays To Announce Cuba Sanctions; Could More Be Forthcoming? Four Significant Dates Before November

Thus far in 2020, the Trump Administration has used the birthdays of brothers Fidel and Raul Castro as dates for announcements relating to decisions impacting the Republic of Cuba. The current President of the Republic of Cuba, H.E. Miguel Diaz-Canel was born 20 April 1960, so he escapes this year.

Might then, the Trump Administration look to the remaining days of 2020 and use dates of significant events in the Republic of Cuba to announce decisions impacting the Republic of Cuba? Significantly, there are four (4) dates prior to the United States presidential election on 3 November 2020.

7 October 1886- Slavery abolished in Cuba

10 October 1868- Independence Day

19 October 1960- U.S. imposes embargo on Cuba

31 October 1960- Cuba nationalizes U.S. property

5 November 1999- Elian Gonzalez found in Straits of Florida

25 November 2016- Fidel Castro Dies

2 December 1976- Fidel Castro becomes President of Cuba

26 December 1960- Operation Peter Pan (transporting 14,000 children to U.S.)

Source: Wikipedia Timeline of Cuban History

H.E. Dr. Fidel Castro (13 August 1926 - 25 November 2016), President of the Republic of Cuba

U.S. Department Of Transportation At Request Of Secretary Of State Pompeo, Further Limits Aircraft Operations In Cuba

H.E. General Raul Castro (3 June 1931 - ), President of the Republic of Cuba

On Raul Castro's Birthday... U.S. Department Of State Adds FINCIMEX And Six Cuba Military-Owned Entities To Restricted List; Could It End Western Union Services & Mastercard Usage?

U.S. Department Of Transportation At Request Of Secretary Of State Pompeo, Further Limits Aircraft Operations In Cuba

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on the 13th day of August, 2020

SUSPENSION OF U.S.-CUBA CHARTER AUTHORIZATIONS
DOCKET DOT-OST-2020-0129

By this Order, the U.S. Department of Transportation (the Department) announces action that will suspend all charter flights between the United States and all airports in Cuba, except for authorized public charters to and from Havana and other authorized charter flights for emergency medical purposes, search and rescue, and other travel deemed to be in the interest of the United States.

The Department is taking this action at the request of the U.S. Department of State. By letter dated August 13, 2020, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo wrote to Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao, stating that:

“To advance the Administration’s policy to strengthen the economic pressure on the Cuban regime as a means to restrict the regime’s ability to repress its people and support the illegitimate Maduro regime in Venezuela, and in the foreign-policy interests of the United States, I respectfully request that the Department of Transportation suspend until further notice all charter flights between the United States and all airports in Cuba over which the Department of Transportation exercises jurisdiction, except for authorized public charters to and from Havana, and other authorized charter flights for emergency medical purposes, search and rescue, and other travel deemed to be in the interest of the United States.”

LINK To DOT ORDER

Non-Scheduled Charter Flights (Round-trips)
2020- 1,625
2019- 1,729
2018- 4,813
2017- 4,057
2016- 8,344
2015- 9,077
2014- 8,231
2013- 7,070
2012- 7,543
2011- 7,272
2010- 5,380
Scheduled Commercial Flights (Round-trips)
2020- 2,397
2019- 19,423
2018- 17,010
2017- 20,839
2016- 4,289
2015-36
2014- 2
2013- 11
2012- 3
2011- 3
2010- 16

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United States Department of Transportation

Suspension of Private Charter Flights between the United States and Cuba
08/13/2020 12:59 PM EDT

Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State

Today, I requested that the Department of Transportation suspend private charter flights to all Cuban airports, including Havana. This action will suspend all charter flights between the United States and Cuba over which the Department of Transportation exercises jurisdiction, except for authorized public charter flights to and from Havana and other authorized private charter flights for emergency medical purposes, search and rescue, and other travel deemed in the interest of the United States. This Administration will continue to target and cut the revenue the Cuban government earns from landing fees, stays in regime-owned hotels, and other travel-related income.

The Cuban military and intelligence services own and operate the great majority of hotels and tourism infrastructure in Cuba. We urge travelers of all nationalities to consider this and to make responsible decisions regarding travel to Cuba. The suspension of private charter flights will deny economic resources to the Castro regime and inhibit its capacity to carry out abuses.

Our message to the Castro regime has been clear: The United States will continue to stand up for the Cuban people and against the regime’s abuses and its interference in Venezuela to prop up Maduro’s illegitimate hold on power.

Unfortunately, the Castro regime has not changed its repressive and undemocratic behavior. It continues to imprison journalists and democracy activists, to oversee horrific physical abuse, to perpetuate the de facto dictatorship in Venezuela, to repress freedom of religion or belief, and to silence and intimidate those who speak truth about the reality in Cuba.

After A Long Wait... Nespresso Of Switzerland Announces "For A Limited Time" New Releases Of "Cafecito de Cuba" & "Cafe de Cuba"

From Nespresso (17 August 2020): “Cafecito de Cuba (Original line) and Café de Cuba (Vertuo line) are both on sale now, after being first re-released again in May [2020]…. Nespresso has not changed the price of its coffee. Nespresso’s Original line coffee, Cafecito de Cuba, is US$1.25 and its Vertuo line coffee, Café de Cuba, is $2.00.”

Cafecito de Cuba

Cafecito de Cuba is an intense coffee made from 100% Cuban Arabica beans. The intensely roasted character boasts powerful and delightfully smoky notes of wood and tobacco leaves. Indulge your palate with its dense velvety texture.

Nespresso celebrates the uniqueness of Cuba through its vibrant culture. We hope to transform the simple pleasure of drinking coffee and take you on a memorable journey that engages your senses and imagination. Drink it all in.

INTENSITY- 10 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ○ ○ ○

Cup Size- Ristretto (0.85 oz)

ORIGIN- 100% Cuban Arabica from the Eastern part of Cuban island. With fertile soil and ideal climate conditions, the region offers an excellent coffee growing environment.

ROASTING- To enhance the potential of the beans and highlight their authenticity, Nespresso experts applied a sophisticated split roasting technique. One half of the beans were roasted for a shorter time to a lighter color to bring out all the unique flavors and specific aromas of the coffee. The other half was roasted for a longer time to a much darker color to create a strong body with velvety texture and intense rich flavors.

AROMATIC PROFILE- The dark roasted, intense character of this coffee echoes the passionate rhythms of authentic Cuban culture and boasts powerful and delightful smoky notes of wood and tobacco leaves.

Cafe de Cuba

“Café de Cuba is an intense coffee made from 100% Cuban Arabica beans. The intensely roasted character boasts powerful and delightfully smoky notes of wood and tobacco leaves. Indulge your palate with its dense velvety texture.

Nespresso celebrates the uniqueness of Cuba through its vibrant culture. We hope to transform the simple pleasure of drinking coffee and take you on a memorable journey that engages your senses and imagination. Drink it all in.

INTENSITY- 8 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Cup Size- Coffee (7.77 oz)

ORIGIN- 100% Cuban Arabica from the Eastern part of Cuban island. With fertile soil and ideal climate conditions, the region offers an excellent coffee growing environment.

ROASTING- To enhance the potential of the beans and highlight their authenticity, Nespresso experts applied a sophisticated split roasting technique. One half of the beans were roasted for a shorter time to a lighter color to bring out all the unique flavors and specific aromas of the coffee. The other half was roasted for a longer time to a much darker color to create a strong body with velvety texture and intense rich flavors.

AROMATIC PROFILE- The dark roasted, intense character of this coffee echoes the passionate rhythms of authentic”

Previous Posts:

On 17 August 2017, the first Nespresso product with coffee beans sourced from the Republic of Cuba entered the marketplace: https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2016/8/18/its-here-nespressos-cafecito-de-cuba-capsules-us125-each?rq=nespresso 

LINK To Posts Relating To Nespresso: https://www.cubatrade.org/search?q=nespresso

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.