New President Of Inter-American Development Bank Will Continue Focus Upon Cuba, Venezuela; And Work Closely With OAS

With the appointment of forty-five year old Mr. Mauricio Claver-Carone to a five-year term as President of the forty-eight member Washington DC-based Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Republic of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua will continue to be a direct and indirect aggressive focus for Mr. Claver-Carone, as they have during his service in the Trump Administration. The IDB term begins on 1 October 2020. 

Venezuela, Nicaragua, and China are member countries of the IDB; and each country has commercial, economic, and political relationships with the Republic of Cuba.

Regardless of the outcome of the United States election on 3 November 2020, Mr. Claver-Carone will serve a term which extends through the end of the four-year presidential term, so he and the IDB will have latitude to craft and implement policies where loan recipients vetting will include, officially or unofficially, whether projects provide any benefit to the Republic of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

From The IDB: “The IDB is a multilateral development institution established in 1959.  It is the largest government owned regional source of development finance for Latin America and the Caribbean.  The IDB is owned by 48 countries, including 26 Latin American and Caribbean countries and 22 non-borrowing member countries.”

“The Inter-American Development Bank is a multilateral financial institution supporting Latin America and the Caribbean’s efforts to reduce poverty and inequality, and to bring about development in a sustainable, climate-friendly way.  Established in 1959, it is the leading source of development financing for Latin America and the Caribbean, with a strong commitment to achieving measurable results.”

Mr. Claver-Carone will use the IDB platform to work closely with both leadership and individual members of the thirty-five (35) member Washington DC-based Organization of American States (OAS) to further constrict interaction with the Republic of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua where the interaction is perceived to provide or does provide support to the Miguel Diaz-Canel Administration in Havana, Nicolas Maduro Administration in Caracas, and Daniel Ortega Administration in Managua while promoting policies that penalize leadership in the countries. 

From the OAS: “The Organization was established in order to achieve among its member states- as stipulated in Article 1 of the Charter- “an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.””

“Today, the OAS brings together all 35 independent states of the Americas and constitutes the main political, juridical, and social governmental forum in the Hemisphere. In addition, it has granted permanent observer status to 69 states, as well as to the European Union (EU).  The Organization uses a four-pronged approach to effectively implement its essential purposes, based on its main pillars: democracy, human rights, security, and development.”

In 2020, seventy-two-year-old H.E. Luis Almagro was re-elected to a second and final five-year term as OAS General Secretary.  So, both Messrs. Claver-Carone and Almagro will serve their terms through the 2024 United States presidential election, providing them with focus flexibility implemented irrespective of policies of The White House.

Inter-American Development Bank
Washington DC
12 September 2020

Mauricio J. Claver-Carone was elected President of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) today during an electronic meeting of the Bank’s Board of Governors. He will take office on October 1, 2020, for a five-year term. As President, he will oversee the operations of the IDB Group, which comprises the IDB, IDB Invest and IDB Lab. Claver-Carone will succeed current President Luis Alberto Moreno. The Board of Governors today also issued a resolution expressing gratitude to President Moreno for his service.

Claver-Carone is currently Deputy Assistant to the U.S. President and Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. National Security Council. He previously served as U.S. Representative to the International Monetary Fund and as Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for International Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Rollins College, Juris Doctor from The Catholic University of America and Master of Laws in International and Comparative Law from Georgetown University Law Center.

To be elected President, a candidate must receive a majority of the total voting power of the IDB’s member countries as well as the support of at least 15 of the 28 regional member countries (26 borrowing member countries, plus Canada and the United States). The IDB has a total of 48 member countries, with Headquarters in Washington, D.C., and offices in all borrowing countries as well as in Europe and Asia.

The Board of Governors is the Bank’s highest authority. Each member country appoints a Governor, whose voting power is proportional to the capital in the Bank subscribed by his or her country. Governors are typically finance ministers, central bank presidents, or other high-ranking officials. The Board of Governors holds annual meetings to review Bank operations and make key policy decisions. It also occasionally holds special meetings, including to elect a President.

Mauricio J. Claver-Carone will be the IDB’s fifth President. He follows Luis Alberto Moreno (2005-2020); Enrique V. Iglesias (1988-2005); Antonio Ortiz Mena (1971-1988); and Felipe Herrera (1960-1971).

United States Department of State
Washington DC
12 September 2020

Election of Mauricio Claver-Carone as President of the Inter-American Development Bank

Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State: On behalf of the United States, I congratulate Mauricio Claver-Carone on his election as President of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). In his role at the National Security Council, Mr. Claver-Carone has been a visionary leader in advancing prosperity in the Western Hemisphere and a strong advocate for the democratic institutions and security cooperation that underpin economic growth and development. In partnership with other countries in the region, the United States looks forward to working closely with him during his tenure as president of this essential organization as it revitalizes economies throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

The White House
Washington DC
12 September 2020

Statement from National Security Advisor Robert C. O’Brien

Congratulations to Mauricio Claver-Carone on his election to lead the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). His nomination represented a historic commitment by the United States to help our neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean recover from the coronavirus pandemic and return to the path of economic growth. The strong backing of shareholders today is a testament to the confidence the region has in Mauricio’s commitment to reenergize the IDB as a critical hemispheric institution, and in his strategic vision for accelerating best-in-class private investment in the region.

Mauricio is the embodiment of the energetic and innovative financial leaders who will take the IDB to the next level. He has committed to creating the most inclusive leadership team in IDB history to better represent all members of the bank, both small and large. In further evidence of his broad support, Mauricio was not only nominated by the United States to lead the IDB, but was co-nominated by Guyana, Haiti, El Salvador, Paraguay, and Israel.

Mauricio has served with distinction as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs for the National Security Council. In this role, he has provided strong counsel regarding Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean to President Donald J. Trump and myself. He also served as the United States Representative to the International Monetary Fund and as a senior advisor to the Treasury. His leadership on the América Crece (“Growth in the Americas”) initiative, the Back to the Americas program, and the Western Hemisphere Strategic Framework demonstrate his commitment to the region’s economic growth and development.

We look forward to working with Mauricio Claver-Carone, the IDB, and Latin America and the Caribbean over the coming years to fully realize our hemisphere of freedom.

Carnival Corporation Lawsuit: "Plaintiff's injury is concrete, particularized, and imminent" Says Court- Case To Proceed

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

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

LINK: Omnibus Order (14 September 2020)

Excerpts From 23-Page Order:

The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the Response, the Reply, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.

Under the LIBERTAD Act, trafficking in confiscated property is an invasion of a legally protected interest — i.e. a statutorily constructed property interest in the Subject Property, which conveys a right to prevent third-party use of the same. The remedy for the violation of that right is compensation from third parties for trafficking in the Subject Property. That the legal right and remedy at issue in this case are statutorily constructed does not sway the Court’s analysis in favor of Defendant, because, as discussed in the ensuing sections, Plaintiff’s injury is concrete, particularized, and imminent.

As detailed above, Congress was prompted to enact Title III because the remedies for (1) the wrongful confiscation of property by foreign governments; and (2) the subsequent unjust enrichment and economic exploitation of that property by foreign investors at the expense of the rightful owners, were ineffective. 22 U.S.C. § 6081(10).4 Quite simply, the right identified by Congress was a property interest, and Defendant presents no clear argument why an infringement on a property right lacks concreteness. Defendant appears to argue that the injury here is not concrete because the Subject Property was initially confiscated by the Cuban Government and Plaintiff cannot be injured by its subsequent use. While the injury may have its origin in the confiscation, Defendant does not explain how the continued use of the Subject Property makes Plaintiff’s harm less tangible today. Stated otherwise, Plaintiff’s injury is “real” because it is not receiving the benefit of its interest in the Subject Property, and Defendant’s subsequent trafficking in the confiscated property has undermined Plaintiff’s right to compensation for that expropriation.

Contrary to the conclusion in Glen v. American Airlines that the plaintiff had no standing because there was no allegation of concrete harm, the Court finds that the allegations of profiting from the use of property that was expropriated without obtaining consent or paying adequate compensation to the original owner is sufficient concrete harm for standing purposes.

In sum, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to recover monetary damages for the injuries it sustained as a result of Defendant’s unlawful trafficking in the Subject Property, to which it owns a Certified Claim.

Finally, the Court is unpersuaded by Defendant’s argument that the Court can resolve the purported time bar issue, which is an affirmative defense, at this juncture.

President Trump Continues "Trading With The Enemy Act" Authorities Relating To Cuba

The White House
Washington DC
September 9, 2020

Presidential Determination
No. 2210-10

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

SUBJECT: Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act

Under section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223 (91 Stat. 1625; 50 U.S.C. 4305 note), and a previous determination on September 13, 2019 (84 FR 49189, September 18, 2019), the exercise of certain authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act is scheduled to expire on September 14, 2020.

I hereby determine that the continuation of the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba for 1 year is in the national interest of the United States.

Therefore, consistent with the authority vested in me by section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223, I continue for 1 year, until September 14, 2021, the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba, as implemented by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515.

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register.

DONALD J. TRUMP


50 U.S. Code § 4305. Suspension of provisions relating to ally of enemy; regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold or silver, property transfers, vested interests, enforcement and penalties

(a) The President, if he shall find it compatible with the safety of the United States and with the successful prosecution of the war, may, by proclamation, suspend the provisions of this chapter so far as they apply to an ally of enemy, and he may revoke or renew such suspension from time to time; and the President may grant licenses, special or general, temporary or otherwise, and for such period of time and containing such provisions and conditions as he shall prescribe, to any person or class of persons to do business as provided in subsection (a) of section 4304 of this title, and to perform any act made unlawful without such license in section 4303 of this title, and to file and prosecute applications under subsection (b) of section 4310 of this title; and he may revoke or renew such licenses from time to time, if he shall be of opinion that such grant or revocation or renewal shall be compatible with the safety of the United States and with the successful prosecution of the war; and he may make such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this chapter; and the President may exercise any power or authority conferred by this chapter through such officer or officers as he shall direct.

If the President shall have reasonable cause to believe that any act is about to be performed in violation of section 4303 of this title he shall have authority to order the postponement of the performance of such act for a period not exceeding ninety days, pending investigation of the facts by him.
(b) (1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise— (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and (B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person as may be designated from time to time by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes; and the President shall, in the manner hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in this subdivision either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of this subdivision, and in any case in which a report could be required, the President may, in the manner hereinabove provided, require the production, or if necessary to the national security or defense, the seizure, of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of such person. (2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this subdivision or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this subdivision, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder. (3) As used in this subdivision the term “United States” means the United States and any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof: Provided, however, That the foregoing shall not be construed as a limitation upon the power of the President, which is hereby conferred, to prescribe from time to time, definitions, not inconsistent with the purposes of this subdivision, for any or all of the terms used in this subdivision. As used in this subdivision the term “person” means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation. (4) The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 4604 [1] of this title, or under section 4605 [1] of this title to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18.

Former U.S. Secretary Of State Kerry Shares A Biden Administration Approach To Cuba- And Cuba Won't Like It

The Miami Herald
Miami, Florida
9 September 2020

Biden needs to fine-tune his message on Cuba the way John Kerry has | Opinion

By Andres Oppenheimer

As secretary of State, John Kerry, shaking hands with Raul Castro, oversaw the Obama administration’s normalization of relations with Cuba. Chip Somodevilla Getty Images

Democratic candidate Joe Biden desperately needs to correct his message to Miami’s Cuban-American voters if he wants to carry this crucial state on the Nov. 3. Some of his top campaign surrogates are beginning to do that — and he should waste no time in following their tune.

Until now, Biden and other former Obama administration officials had steadfastly defended the former president’s 2014 normalization of relations with Cuba. Biden has vowed to lift President Trump’s limits on travel and family remittances to the island, while continuing to defend human rights and pro-democracy activists on the island.

But it’s time for Biden to concede that Obama’s opening to Cuba was not as successful as it seemed when it was announced. Obama had vowed to open up economic ties with the island to help promote a vibrant private sector there while stepping up the pressure on Cuba’s dictatorship to respect basic freedoms. Obama did much of the first, but not enough of the second.

So I was pleasantly surprised when John Kerry, secretary of State under Obama, told me in a Sept. 4 interview that he’s somewhat disappointed with the Cuban regime’s response to Obama’s normalization of ties with Cuba.

Kerry, who is campaigning for Biden and is one of the former vice-president’s policy advisers, oversaw the Obama administration’s opening to Cuba six years ago. His admission carries extra weight.

“It’s fair to say that everybody shares a little bit of disappointment about the direction that the government in Cuba chose to go” after the normalization of U.S.-Cuba ties, Kerry told me. He added that, “Cuba seemed to harden down after the initial steps were taken.”

Kerry said that while almost six decades of U.S. trade sanctions on the island failed to bring about democratic changes, and Trump’s recent sanctions should be reversed, a Biden presidency would probably “re-invigorate” America’s human-rights policies on Cuba.

“I think the vice president, as president, will very much want to make it clear that human rights is at the forefront of American foreign policy, that Cuba will need to be called out on some of the human-rights abuses,” Kerry told me.

Granted, Kerry may have said that in an effort to improve Biden’s support among Cuban Americans. Trump currently holds a 38 percentage point lead among likely Cuban-American voters in Miami, according to a Bendixen & Amandi poll released Sept. 8 by the Miami Herald. A separate NBC poll shows Biden and Trump even in Florida, which makes Cuban-American votes a potentially deciding factor in the race’s outcome.

But regardless of whether Kerry’s remarks were part of a campaign strategy or not — for the record, I requested the interview with Kerry through the Biden campaign office — it would be the right policy for a Biden administration to follow.

The Miami Herald
Miami, Florida
29 October 2020

Biden also made direct appeals to Cubans and Venezuelans, many of whom live in South Florida after fleeing their countries. “We have to vote for a new Cuba policy as well,” Biden said. “Trump is the worst possible standard-bearer for democracy in places like Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea. Cuba is no closer to freedom and democracy today than it was four years ago. Trump loves to talk tough, but he doesn’t care about the Cuban and Venezuelan people. He won’t even grant Temporary Protected Status to Venezuelans fleeing the oppressive Maduro regime. I will, but we have to vote.”

The Hill
Washington DC
28 April 2020

“In large part, I would go back,” Biden said in an interview with a CBS affiliate in Miami. “I’d still insist they keep the commitments they said they would make when we, in fact, set the policy in place.”

EFE
Madrid, Spain
27 October 2020
Interview With Senator Kamala Harris (D- California)

CONTINUATION OF THE BLOCKADE TO CUBA

Q: What would a future government of yours and that of the Democratic candidate Joe Biden do to reverse the policies that Trump has adopted towards Cuba? Would you personally advocate for an end to the blockade?

A: The policy of a Biden and Harris Administration towards Cuba would be governed by two principles: first, Americans, especially Cuban-Americans, are the best ambassadors of freedom in Cuba. Second, empowering the Cuban people to determine their own future is vital to America's national security interests.

Trump is deporting hundreds of Cubans back to dictatorship and back to a regime crackdown that has only increased under his presidency. There are nearly 10,000 Cubans languishing in tent camps along the Mexican border due to Trump's anti-immigrant agenda. And it is separating Cuban families through restrictions on family visits and remittances.

We will backtrack on Trump's failed policies. And as he did previously as vice president, Joe Biden will also demand the release of political prisoners and will make human rights a centerpiece in the diplomatic relationship.

The embargo is the law; you need an act of Congress to lift it or you need the president to determine that a democratically elected government is in power in Cuba. We don't expect any of these things to happen anytime soon.

Q: From the US foreign policy perspective, what role do you think Spain can play in relations with Cuba and, in general, with Latin America?

A: Under a Biden and Harris Administration, the US will work with members of the international community, including Spain, to support the Cuban people, as well as promote Joe Biden's vision of the need to work for a safe hemisphere, middle class and democratic.

Washington, 27 oct (EFE).- Kamala Harris, que en solo una semana podría convertirse en la primera vicepresidenta de EE.UU., reconoció en una entrevista con Efe que romper barreras a veces duele y te hace sangrar, pero aseguró que siempre "valdrá la pena, todas y cada una de las veces".

Harris siente una gran responsabilidad para hablar con “voz firme” en nombre de aquellos que aún viven excluidos y prometió que si llega a la Casa Blanca luchará por la igualdad de "todos" los estadounidenses. En una entrevista por escrito con Efe, la senadora reflexionó sobre su carrera y la influencia de su madre y también reveló qué políticas adoptará una nueva Administración demócrata en asuntos como el asilo a refugiados centroamericanos y las relaciones con Cuba, España, la Unión Europea (UE) y la OTAN.

CONTINUACIÓN DEL BLOQUEO A CUBA

P: ¿Qué haría un futuro Gobierno suyo y del candidato demócrata Joe Biden para revertir las políticas que Trump ha adoptado hacia Cuba? ¿Abogaría usted personalmente por el fin del bloqueo?

R: La política de una Administración de Biden y Harris hacia Cuba estaría gobernada por dos principios: primero, los estadounidenses, especialmente los cubano-estadounidenses, son los mejores embajadores de la libertad en Cuba. Segundo, dar poder al pueblo cubano para que determine su propio futuro es vital para los intereses de seguridad nacional de EE.UU. Trump está deportando a cientos de cubanos de vuelta a la dictadura y de vuelta a una represión del régimen que solo ha aumentado bajo su Presidencia. Hay casi 10.000 cubanos que están languideciendo en campamentos de tiendas de campaña a lo largo de la frontera con México debido a la agenda antiinmigrante de Trump. Y está separando a familias cubanas mediante restricciones a las visitas familiares y las remesas. Nosotros daremos marcha atrás en las políticas fallidas de Trump. Y como hizo anteriormente como vicepresidente, Joe Biden, también exigirá la liberación de los presos políticos y hará de los derechos humanos una pieza central en la relación diplomática. El embargo es la ley; se necesita una ley del Congreso para levantarlo o se necesita que el presidente determine que un Gobierno elegido democráticamente está en el poder en Cuba. No esperamos que ninguna de estas cosas ocurra pronto.

P: Desde la perspectiva de política exterior de EE.UU., ¿qué papel cree que España puede jugar en las relaciones con Cuba y, en general, con Latinoamérica?

R: Bajo una Administración de Biden y Harris, EE.UU. trabajará con miembros de la comunidad internacional, incluida España, para apoyar al pueblo cubano, así como para promover la visión de Joe Biden sobre la necesidad de trabajar por un hemisferio seguro, de clase media y democrático.

China Companies Seek Dismissal Of Libertad Act Lawsuit: Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction

NORTH AMERICAN SUGAR INDUSTRIES INC., V. XINJIANG GOLDWIND SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., GOLDWIND INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS (HK) LTD., DSV AIR & SEA INC., BBC CHARTERING USA, LLC, and BBC CHARTERING SINGAPORE PTE LTD., [1:20-cv-22471; Southern Florida District].

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (plaintiff)
Mandel & Mandel (plaintiff
Morgan, Lewis & Bochius (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)
Hogan Lovells LLP (defendant)

LINK: BBS Chartering Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss The Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction And Memorandum Of Law (31 August 2020)

LINK: Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Excerpts From 24-Page Filing: 

Plaintiff alleges that the BBC Defendants, as well as the other defendants, “trafficked” in “Confiscated Property” – that is, property owned by Plaintiff at the time the Cuban government confiscated it in 1959 and 1960 – in violation of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (LIBERTAD) Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6021 et seq. (the “Act”). The U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (“FCSC”) certified all of the Confiscated Property (consisting of a large variety of assets including farmland, livestock, crops, factories, equipment, railroads, etc.) as having a value of over $97 million as of 1959-1960 (Compl. Ex. 1). 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants trafficked in the Confiscated Property by their alleged involvement in the shipment on two vessels of equipment from China to Cuba (with a stop in Florida) and its unloading at a Cuban port known as Puerto Carupano, whose value (including “Docks, Warehouses and other installations”) was certified by the FCSC as having a value of $2,228,000 (Compl. Ex. 1 at 14). 

BBC USA is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in Texas (Compl. ¶ 23; Petersen Decl. ¶ 4). BBC USA does not have an office or any employees in Florida (Petersen Decl. ¶ 5). It is not registered to do business in Florida. 

Plaintiff makes one other allegation in an effort to “rope in” BBC USA. It alleges that the BBC Moonstone carried equipment – in addition to and entirely unrelated to the equipment delivered to Cuba – that was loaded on the vessel before the Cuba-bound equipment was loaded in Tianjin, China; that remained on the vessel when the Cuba-bound equipment was unloaded at Puerto Carupano; and that ultimately was delivered at Port Arthur, Texas “to BBC USA on behalf of [its] parent company BBC Chartering [BBC Logistic]” (Compl. ¶ 140). That unrelated equipment was not unloaded in Cuba and made no use of the Port there. 

Finally, Plaintiff repeatedly makes the incendiary allegation – evidently seeking to tie the BBC Defendants (and the other defendants) to these two voyages and Florida – that all defendants, including the BBC Defendants, deliberately hid and conspired to hide from U.S. authorities that Puerto Carupano in Cuba was the ultimate destination of the cargoes (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 6, 150, 182, 241). 

BBC Singapore is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in Singapore (Compl. ¶ 23; Schoennmann Decl. ¶ 4). It, like BBC USA, does not have an office or any employees in Florida (id. ¶ 5), and is not registered to do business in Florida (see page 2 n.1 above). 

A court’s analysis of whether it may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under Florida law involves two steps. First, the court must determine whether its exercise of personal jurisdiction is appropriate under Florida’s long-arm statute, § 48.193 Fla. Stat.; and second, if the long-arm statute is satisfied, the court must determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause. United Techs., 556 F.3d at 1274; see also Peruyero v. Airbus S.A.S., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (Cooke, J.) (same) (applying § 47.16 Fla. Stat., the predecessor of § 48.193 Fla. Stat.).  

The Court may not exercise general personal jurisdiction over either BBC Defendant because neither is incorporated or has it principal place of business in Florida. The complaint does not allege, nor can it allege, any exceptional circumstances in this case for departing from well-established Supreme Court precedent that, barring exceptional circumstances, general jurisdiction over a corporation exists only where the corporation is incorporated or has its principal place of business. 

25 June 2020: Could Be Politically-Charged: Wind Turbine Company Sued Using Libertad Act By U.S. Company- Case Involves Cuba, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, New York

Is Oil From Venezuela Essential To Prevent "Failed State" In Cuba? What Are Cuba's Options

The U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council submitted three (3) questions to Mr. Jorge R. Piñon, Director- Latin America and Caribbean Energy and Environmental Program at the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy At the University of Texas at Austin Jackson School of Geosciences  

Q. Is there a possibility for a “failed state” scenario in the Republic of Cuba because of the collapse of the Maduro Administration? 

Yes.

Cuba’s current oil demand is approximately 110,000 to 112,000 barrels per day.  Cuba produces approximately 42,000 barrels per day of heavy crude oil which is used as fuel for the electric power and industrial sectors. 

The Island does not have a plan ‘B’, an insurance policy providing it with the approximately US$1 billion required (at current pricing) to replace its oil deficit of approximately 68,000 barrels per day which represents approximately 60% of its daily oil demand. 

In 2020, Venezuela has delivered to Cuba approximately 62,000 barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products (primarily fuel oil and diesel).  Algeria also provides Cuba with approximately 3,500 barrels per day of oil as barter for ophthalmology services and a pharmaceutical join venture. 

Q. What other country besides Venezuela has the oil export capacity and/or financial wherewithal to supply annually the Republic of Cuba with US$1 billion of oil at no cost or with substantial long-term credit terms?   

Algeria, Angola, China, Iran, or Russia are doubtful...long term.   

Cuba can attempt, again, to increase domestic production.  In 2012, this was tried and failed.  Any meaningful source located would require five to seven years to bring online. 

Cuba could redirect US$1 billion from its own revenues and purchase 60,000 barrels per day in the international marketplace.  Does Cuba have US$1 billion to redirect?  Most economists believe they do not. 

Cuba could continue to lessen imports (including food), ration fuels, and ration electricity which would risk social discontent.  Most economists believe this to be the likely first adopted option. 

Critical for Cuba is to keep the lights on.  Approximately 62% of imported fuel is used in the electric power sector- particularly for the tourism sector where facilities must have consistent flows and the use of air conditioning is constant.  The [Miguel] Diaz-Canel Administration has already begun preparing the population for issues with the electrical grid by warning about increases in electricity consumption.   

Approximately 24% of imported fuel is diesel for commercial transport and for electricity. 

Gasoline is approximately 4% of total demand.  Approximately 4%, but an important percentage, is Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) used by most of the population for cooking fuel.   

We estimate Cuba has approximately 45 days of primary and secondary storage for crude oil and refined products.  It would require months to negotiate and implement an agreement or agreements with a third country(s) to supply oil.  Adding to the challenge would be the addition of thirty to thirty-five days for product to arrive to Cuba from the Mediterranean Sea or Black Sea.  Currently, oil arrives from Venezuela in five to six days. 

Q. What could the Trump Administration or a Biden Administration provide to the Republic of Cuba to prevent or constrain a “failed state” ninety-three miles from Key West, Florida? 

The United States does not have a national oil company.  It does, however, have approximately 700 million barrels of crude oil in its Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) located in salt caverns in Louisiana and Texas, each approximately five days sailing from Cuba.  The United States could use a “time trade.”  This is not a sale, as a sale would require approval by the United States Congress.   

In a “time trade” the SPR would supply oil to international oil companies and/or oil trading companies to supply Cuba to be returned on a set schedule (for example five years).  However, a “time trade” is quite aspirational due to questions about who would purchase the oil- US$1 billion to be returned later to the SPR?

LINK TO PDF OF POST

U.S. Ag/Food Exports To Cuba Decrease 48.9% In 2020 Compared To 2019; July 2020 Down 58.9%

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
September 2020

July 2020 Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Decrease 58.9%- 1
60th In July 2020 Of 223 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
Year-To-Year Exports Decrease 48.9%- 2
Cuba Ranks 60th Of 223 Ag/Food Export Markets- 2
July 2020 Healthcare Product Exports US$0.00- 2
July 2020 Humanitarian Donations US$1,397,125.00- 3
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 16

JULY 2020 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA DECREASE 58.9%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in July 2020 were US$12,809,286.00 compared to US$31,176,621.00 in July 2019 and US$15,569,938.00 in July 2018.

Agricultural commodity and food product exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba thus far in 2020 are US$95,045,548.00 compared to US$186,114,476.00 in 2019, representing a decrease of 48.9%.

Since December 2001, agricultural commodity and food product exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba is US$6,227,918,244.00.

This 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.

LINK To Complete Report

Plaintiff Files Appeal Against Expedia In Libertad Act Lawsuit

MARIO DEL VALLE, ENRIQUE FALLA, MARIO ECHEVARRIA V. EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, ORBITZ, LLC, BOOKING.COM B.V., BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. Initial defendants were: TRIVAGO GMBH, BOOKING.COM B.V., GRUPO HOTELERO GRAN CARIBE, CORPORACION DE COMERCIO Y TURISMO INTERNACIONAL CUBANACAN S.A., GRUPO DE TURISMO GAVIOTA S.A., RAUL DOE I-5, AND MARIELA ROE 1-5, [1:19-cv-22619 Southern Florida District; 20-12407 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals]

Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Baker & McKenzie, PPL (defendant)
Scott Douglass & McConnico (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

Appellant’s Initial Brief (2 September 2020)

Excerpts:

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The district court erred for the following reasons:

First, it was error to refuse to exercise personal jurisdiction over appellees under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1) or § 48.193(1)(a)(2), because the order ignored the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations of factors the order itself cited as relevant to personal jurisdiction, mischaracterized what it said had been alleged, and disregarded extensive authority in and out of this Circuit demonstrating the correctness of personal jurisdiction in similar circumstances. The order’s failure to note, let alone credit, those allegations and authorities compels reversal.

Second, it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss the complaint in an order barring any motion for leave to amend, on the first motion to dismiss that was briefed and submitted for decision, during a worldwide pandemic and unprecedented lockdown, with initial discovery pending. The order on appeal improperly assumed that investigating the claim could have easily been done during the confusion and dislocation of the pandemic and lockdown, which frustrated efforts to investigate and conduct discovery as to any allegations in any case. Further, the order’s makeweight footnote, which “noted” in dicta (with no analysis) that amendment would be “futile” for one of the appellants, and “possibly” for another, never could have supported dismissal of the complaint as a matter of law, much less a dismissal without leave to amend, because there are three plaintiff/appellants, not two.

Third, it was an abuse of discretion to deny appellants’ request to wait for jurisdictional discovery that would have indisputably confirmed all jurisdictional allegations (as it has in three related cases). The order on appeal addressed the very first motion to dismiss that was briefed and submitted for decision in this case, during the dislocation of a worldwide pandemic and unprecedented lockdown, while initial discovery requests were pending. It was an abuse of discretion to punish appellees for “failing” to do what couldn’t reasonably have been done.

In sum, the complaint was legally sufficient, the order’s dismissal was error, and even if that were not so, any dismissal should have been with leave to amend.

Plaintiff Files Appeal Against Carnival Corporation In Libertad Act Lawsuit; Seeking US$12 Million

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)

Civil Appeal Statement (18 August 2020)

Excerpts:

Issues proposed to be raised on appeal, including jurisdictional challenges: Whether the Helms-Burton Act provides no remedy to U.S. nationals who, after March 12, 1996, inherited property confiscated by the Castro regime before March 12, 1996?

Is there any case now pending or about to be brought before this court or any other court or administrative agency that (a) Arises from substantially the same case or controversy as this appeal? NO (b) Involves an issue that is substantially the same, similar, or related to an issue in this appeal? YES

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

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

MARIO DEL VALLE, ENRIQUE FALLA, MARIO ECHEVARRIA V. EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, ORBITZ, LLC, BOOKING.COM B.V., BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. Initial defendants were: TRIVAGO GMBH, BOOKING.COM B.V., GRUPO HOTELERO GRAN CARIBE, CORPORACION DE COMERCIO Y TURISMO INTERNACIONAL CUBANACAN S.A., GRUPO DE TURISMO GAVIOTA S.A., RAUL DOE I-5, AND MARIELA ROE 1-5, [1:19-cv-22619 Southern Florida District; 20-12407 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals]

Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Baker & McKenzie, PPL (defendant)
Scott Douglass & McConnico (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

Plaintiff Files Second Amended Complaint Against Pernod Ricard In Libertad Act Lawuit

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)

Second Amended Complaint For Damages (31 August 2020)
Exhibit 1 (31 August 2020)
Exhibit 2 (31 August 2020)

Excerpts:

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), because Plaintiffs’ claims arises under 22 U.S.C. § 6021, et seq., and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $50,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1), 48.193(1)(a)(2), 48.193(1)(a)(6)(a) and 48.193(2) because it maintains and carries on continuous and systematic contacts with Florida, regularly transacts business within Florida, regularly avails itself of the benefits of its presence in Florida.

11. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(l), because Defendant reside or are deemed to reside in the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(2) and (d).

Oak barrels used in the distillery industry have a sustainable life of 100 years of aging production. As commonly known in the distillery industry, oak barrels are re-used time and time again to age spirits.

22. The Havana Club rum, aged to perfection in oak barrels seized by the Cuban Government, was then sold nationally and internationally by the Cuban Government, by and through Cuba Ron, S.A. Upon information and belief, Havana Club rum continues to be aged in the seized barrels which continues to be sold internationally by and through Cuba Ron, S.A. and Defendant.

23. Fernando Tomas Cueto Sanchez passed away on December 8, 1979. At the time of his death, his assets, including rightful ownership to Conac Cueto and the Subject Property, passed from Fernando Tomas Cueto Sanchez to Plaintiff Alvarez through intestate inheritance. The Cueto family believed that Conac Cueto and the Subject Property would eventually pass from Plaintiff Alvarez to Plaintiff Cueto through gift or inheritance. When Plaintiff Cueto reached the age of majority, Plaintiff Alvarez gifted Plaintiff Cueto with 100% ownership interest in Conac Cueto and the Subject Property on September 2, 1986.

As a publicly traded company, and in the exercise of corporate due diligence, Defendant knew or should have known that Havana Club and all associated assets of the Cuban Government were systematically seized by Cuban nationals in the 1950s and 1960s and subsequently nationalized by the Cuban Government.

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

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