In Brussels Will U.S. Secretary Of State Blinken Discuss Cuba, Libertad Act And Venezuela With EC/EU Officials? Will He Rebuff, Sway Or Be Swayed? Quid Pro Quo?

Suspend Title III? Back-Off Title IV?
EU Defendants Total 2019 Revenues US$156 Billion
U.S. Plaintiffs Potentially Entitled To Hundreds Of Billions In Damages
US$6+ Million In Legal Fees So Far

EU Defendants Waiting 341 Days For EC Guidance.  If Libertad Act So Offensive & Disruptive To EU-U.S. Relations, Why No Guidance? 

Will EC Do What UK Did? 

United States Department of State: “Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will travel to Brussels, Belgium, from March 22-25 to attend the NATO Ministerial, engage with European Union leaders, and meet with Belgian officials. The meetings in Brussels reaffirm the United States’ commitment to our Allies and European partners on our shared agenda… In addition, the Secretary will meet [March 24 at 5:30 pm] with European Commission [EC] President Ursula von der Leyen and meet [March 24 at 6:30 pm] with EU [European Union] High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and European Commission Vice President Josep Borrell to discuss Transatlantic goals to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, pursue a sustainable global economic recovery, tackle the climate crisis, and strengthen democracy.” 

A diplomatic challenge for President von der Leyen and Vice President Borrell.  H.E. Dr. von der Leyen served in three cabinet positions and was the longest serving member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cabinet; and Libertad Act Title III defendant Trivago GmbH is headquartered in Dusseldorf, Germany.  H.E. Josep Borrell was Minister of Foreign Affairs, EU and Cooperation of the Kingdom of Spain; and Libertad Act Title III defendants Melia Hotels International S.A. and Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos S.L. are both headquartered in Palma, Spain.   

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” and “Helms-Burton”).  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 (Toronto-based Sherritt International) and one Spain-based company (Melia Hotels International) are currently known to be subject to Title IV based upon a certified claim and non-certified claim. 

EU-based defendants in Libertad Act Title III lawsuits include: Copenhagen, Denmark-based A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S (2019 revenue approximately US$39 billion); Paris, France-based BNP Paribas (2019 revenue approximately US$49 billion); Amsterdam, Netherland-based Booking.com B.V. (2019 revenue approximately US$15 billion); Palma, Spain-based Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos S.L. (2019 revenue approximately US$2.6 billion); Palma, Spain-based Melia Hotels International S.A. (2019 revenue approximately US$2 billion); Paris, France-based Pernod Ricard S.A. (2019 revenue approximately US$10.5 billion); Paris, France-based Société Générale S.A. (2019 revenue approximately US$27.4 billion); and Dusseldorf, Germany-based Trivago GmbH (2019 revenue approximately US$940 million).  Additional lawsuits are expected to be filed. 

Into the third month of the Biden Administration, the Republic of Cuba and Venezuela are rarely mentioned in official readouts of conversations by President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Jake Sullivan with other country leadership.   

Ms. Jen Psaki, Assistant to the President and Press Secretary, and Mr. Ned Price, Spokesperson of the United States Department of State, generally reference the following- with the Libertad Act absent: 

“First, support for democracy and human rights will be at the core of our efforts, because we believe it is the means to empower the Cuban people to determine their own future; and second, as we’ve said before, we also know that Americans, especially Cuban Americans, are in most cases the best ambassadors for freedom and prosperity in Cuba. We are committed to both of these principles. Our review is being animated by both of those principles. We have also committed – and you heard this from Secretary Blinken up on the Hill yesterday – to consult closely with members of Congress as we undertake this review. So it is not that – it is not that this is in any way on the back burner. It is something we’re looking at very closely, and as that review progresses, we’ll consult with members of Congress. And when we have something to share, we’ll let you know.” 

“Well, we’ve talked about this a little bit in here before and nothing has really changed, but I’m happy to reiterate our policy. Our policy, as it relates to Cuba, will be governed by two principles: First, support for democracy and human rights will be at the core of our efforts through empowering the Cuban people to determine their own futures. Second, Americans, especially Cuban Americans, are the best ambassadors for freedom and prosperity in Cuba. A Cuba policy shift is not currently among President Biden's top priorities, but we are committed to making human rights a core pillar of our U.S. policy, and we're committed to carefully reviewing policy decisions made in the prior administration, including the decision to designate Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.” 

The Biden Administration has four reviews underway relating to the Republic of Cuba: 1) comprehensive policy review led by the National Security Council (NSC) and United States Department of State with a focus upon what changes should be made to policies and regulations implemented during the Trump Administration (2017-2021) including whether to nominate a United States Ambassador to the Republic of Cuba 2) reviews led by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and United States Department of State into the cause(s) of injuries to United States government employees in 2016/2017 while they were in the Republic of Cuba 3) whether to suspend again Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as the “Libertad Act”) and 4) whether to remove the Republic of Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List maintained by the United States Department of State.   

Absent a crisis in the Republic of Cuba directly impacting the United States, there has been no demonstrated urgency for completing the four reviews. 

Thirty-six (36) Libertad Act Title III lawsuits have been filed in United States District Courts.  Some of the lawsuits have since 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.   

There are 118 plaintiffs and seventy defendants of which twenty-five are located in the United States.  Fifteen countries are impacted.  Nine defendants are headquartered within member countries of the EU.  Seventy-five law firms have been retained with more than 218 attorneys listed within lawsuit filings.  More than 13,500 documents have been introduced.  Estimated law firm billable hours are US$6+ million.  Countries impacted include Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Panama, Republic of Cuba, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States.  LINK To Lawsuit Filing Statistics. 

In the third quarter of 2019, the then twenty-eight, now twenty-seven member 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.  The RFP has yet to materialize.  

Defendants and plaintiffs have been waiting 341 days for the EC, the administrative body for the EU, to issue guidance as to whether an EU-based defendant may defend itself against a Libertad Act Title III lawsuit filed in the United States. 

On 5 February 2021, the United Kingdom Department of International Trade provided guidance to Bristol, United Kingdom-based Imperial Brands plc (2020 revenue approximately US$45 billion), authorizing the company to defend itself against a Libertad Act Title III lawsuit filed on 6 August 2020 in the United States. 

One lawsuit plaintiff filing: “On April 23, 2020, Defendant Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos S.L. (the “Defendant” or “Iberostar”) moved to stay these proceedings so that it could obtain a ruling from the European Commission on its request for an authorization to file a response to Plaintiff’s Complaint [D.E. 16] (the “Motion to Stay”). In its filing, Defendant specifically limited the requested stay to a period of seventy-five (75) days. Motion to Stay at ¶ 2 (“To avoid a protracted delay, this request for a stay is limited to no more than 75 days.”). The next day, this Court stayed these proceedings indefinitely “until the European Union grants Iberostar’s request for authorization” and required Defendant to submit status reports every thirty days [D.E. 17] (the “April Stay Order”) (emphasis added).” 

One lawsuit defendant filing: “The European Commission acknowledged receipt of Defendant’s Application on May 19, 2020.  On June 15, 2020, Iberostar requested the European Commission to provide an update on the status of the Application.  On June 22, 2020, the European Commission confirmed that it is “currently assessing [Defendant’s] application,” and that the Commission does “[its] utmost to ensure that a decision is taken in due course.”  On August 10, 2020, the European Commission informed Iberostar regarding the procedures involved in the consideration of the pending Application. They explained that it requires “extensive consultation of both the Commission’s services and Member States’ authorities.”  On September 23, 2020, the Commission replied that its “services are actively assessing [Iberostar’s] application.” The Commission highlighted that the “complexity of [Iberostar’s] request requires careful consideration, including extensive consultation of both the Commission services and Member States’ authorities.” Finally, the Commission confirmed that, “[d]espite the challenges presented by the current health situation, [they] do [their] utmost to ensure that a decision is taken in due course.”  On November 19, 2020, the European Commission informed Iberostar regarding the status of its pending Application. They explained that “challenges presented by the current health situation [have] lengthened the process.” Further, it confirmed they “are doing [their]utmost to ensure a timely response.”  On December 20, 2020, the European Commission sent a communication to Iberostar in which it confirmed the Commission has “been actively liaising to complete the required consultations of both the Commission Services and Member States’ authorities, as required.” The Commission “trust[s] any such assessments and investigations will shortly be completed and the authorization process will pursue its course.”  On February 18, 2021, the European Commission sent a new communication to Iberostar in which it confirmed Iberostar’s “application is still undergoing assessment by [the Commission] services.” The Commission added that “the consultation of the Commission services raised questions and possible gaps of information that require further investigation.””

LINK TO COMPLETE POST IN PDF FORMAT

Commander Of United States Southern Command Mentioned Cuba In Statement Before U.S. Senate

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL CRAIG S. FALLER COMMANDER, UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND BEFORE THE 117TH CONGRESS SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE MARCH 16, 2021

These threats include ESAs [external state actors] like the PRC, Russia, and Iran that actively seek to take advantage of the nascent, fragile democracies in this region and look to exploit the region’s resources and proximity to the United States; TCOs that run all forms of illicit activities to turn a profit, at the expense of the rule of law, and more importantly, of the lives of all who are impacted along the way; and malign regional state actors – those countries within our own neighborhood, like Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, that perpetuate corruption and challenge freedom and democracy by opening the door to ESAs and TCOs at the expense of their own people.

Cuba. Cuba remains a regional corrosive influence that enables and inspires autocratic regimes in the hemisphere and is the primary supporter of the illegitimate Maduro regime in Venezuela. Cuba is the entry point for ESA influence in the region and its reach extends beyond this hemisphere. Like the PRC, Cuba uses medical diplomacy to build international goodwill and gain back door access to undermine fragile democracies. Havana has fully exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to reinvigorate its medical outreach, a key revenue generator for the island at a time when it is desperate for income.

LINK To Complete Statement In PDF Format

UK Government Regulation Text Authorizing Imperial Brands To Defend Itself In Libertad Act Lawsuit; EU-Based Defendants Await Guidance; Could UK Be Template For EU?

Defendant Imperial Brands PLC's Fourth Status Report (2/8/21)
Defendant Imperial Brands PLC's Fifth Status Report (1/25/21)

Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
2021 No. 132 PROTECTION OF TRADING INTERESTS TRADE
The Protection of Trading Interests (Authorisation) Regulations 2021
Made - - - - at 9.00 p.m. on 5th February 2021

The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 5, second paragraph, point (a), of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom(1).

Citation
1. These Regulations may be cited as the Protection of Trading Interests (Authorisation) Regulations 2021.

Interpretation
2. In these Regulations, “the Helms-Burton Act” means the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996(2).

Authorisation to comply with Title III of the Helms-Burton Act
3. The person specified in Part 1 of the Schedule is, for the purpose specified in Part 2 of the Schedule, authorised to comply with any requirement or prohibition based on or resulting from Title III of the Helms-Burton Act(3) (protection of property rights of United States nationals). (1) EUR 1996/2271, amended by S.I. 2020/1660. EUR 1996/2271 was incorporated into domestic law at 11 p.m. on 31st December 2020 under section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (c. 16). (2) 22 U.S.C. §§ 6021-6091. (3) Title III of the Helms-Burton Act is codified in 22 U.S.C. §§ 6081-6085.

Signed by authority of the Secretary of State for International Trade At 9.00 p.m. on 5th February 2021
Ranil Jayawardena, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Department for International Trade

SCHEDULE Regulation 3
Authorisation to file motion to dismiss
PART 1 Authorised person Imperial Brands plc(4)
PART 2 Authorised purpose
Filing and litigating a motion to dismiss the complaint brought before the federal judiciary of the United States of America under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act in which Imperial Brands plc is named as a defendant (case number 1:20-cv-23287-DPG).

EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)

These Regulations, which come into force at the time they are made, authorise compliance by a specified person, for a specified purpose, with a requirement or prohibition referred to in the first paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom (EUR 1996/2271, amended by S.I. 2020/1660).

The law of the United States of America referred to in these Regulations may be found online at https://uscode.house.gov/. A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary, or public sector is foreseen.

(4) Imperial Brands plc is a public limited company registered in England and Wales (company number 3236483).

2020 Annual Report
Imperial Brands
US Helms-Burton litigation

Imperial has been named as a defendant in a civil action in federal court in Miami, Florida under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (“Helms-Burton”) filed on 6 August 2020. Title III provides US nationals with a cause of action and a claim for treble damages against persons who have “trafficked” in property expropriated by the Cuban government. Title III is largely untested because it did not come into effect until May 2019. Treble damages are automatically available under Helms-Burton. Although the filed claim is for unquantified damages, we understand the claim could potentially reach approximately $365 million, based on the claimants’ claim to own 90% of the property, which they value at $135 million (and then treble). The claim is based on allegations that Imperial, through Corporación Habanos S.A. (a joint venture between one of Imperial’s now former subsidiaries and the Cuban government), has “trafficked” in a factory in Havana, Cuba that the Cuban government confiscated from the claimants’ ancestor in the early 1960s, by using the factory to manufacture, market, sell, and distribute Habanos cigars. Imperial is subject to an EU law known as the EU Blocking Statute (Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96), which conflicts with Helms-Burton, protects Imperial against the impact of Title III, and impacts how Imperial may respond to the threatened litigation. The EU Blocking Statute continues to apply in the UK during the Brexit “transition period” in place until 31 December 2020. After 31 December 2020, the substance of the law is likely to stay the same in the UK, at least in the near future. On 23 September 2020 the US court granted a stay of the action until 9 February 2021 or until further order of the court, while Imperial awaits the European Commission’s response to its request for authorisation to defend the action. Separately, two other groups of prospective claimants have indicated that they intend to file a lawsuit against Imperial in federal court in Miami, Florida. Neither claim has been filed. The threatened claims relate to other properties in Cuba, which the prospective claimants claim were confiscated from their ancestors by the Cuban government in the 1960s and which they claim are now used by Corporación Habanos S.A for commercial activities. The prospective claimants claim to be entitled to treble damages from Imperial.

UK Approves Imperial Brands To Defend Itself In Libertad Act Lawsuit; Nearing A Year, Iberostar Of Spain Awaiting Answer From EU

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

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

Defendant’s Response To Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion To Lift Stay, And If Denied, Motion For Certification Of Order Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B) (3/17/21) 

Defendant Imperial Brands PLC's Fourth Status Report (2/8/21)
Defendant Imperial Brands PLC's Fifth Status Report (1/25/21)

Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion To Lift Stay, And If Denied, Motion For Certification Of Order Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B) (3/3/21) 

Plaintiffs In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Spain's Iberostar Hotels Want Court To Move Ahead Without Waiting For EU To Respond- Nearing 12 Months  

Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Excerpts From Defendant’s Response (3/17/21): 

This Court granted the Stay to allow Defendant, an E.U. national subject to the laws of the European Union, to seek a mandatory authorization from the European Commission (“Commission”) to submit pleadings responsive to the Complaint, as required by E.U. regulations. Iberostar applied for authorization to the Commission on April 15, 2020 (“Application”), and it has diligently and actively pursued a determination from the European agency since then.  

2. The Stay is not immoderate for multiple reasons. It is framed within reasonable limits, as described in the Order. In its Second Order the Court noted the Stay will extend only as long as it takes for the Commission to decide on Iberostar’s Application. See Second Order, p. 1 [ECF No. 25]. This Court is not declining to exercise jurisdiction over this case, but temporarily abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, with no prejudice to Plaintiff, to allow a European entity to obtain a mandatory authorization to appear in this proceeding.1 Defendant is between a rock and a hard place, and it is strictly following the procedure under E.U. law to defend this litigation.

Iberostar is, however, the first European entity to request the Commission to issue an authorization under the European Council Regulation 2271/96, Protecting Against the Effects of the Extra-Territorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country, and Actions Based Thereon or Resulting Therefrom, 1996 O.J. (L 309) 1 (EC) (“Council Regulation 2271/96”).  

4. As a result, there is no precedent to guide the Commission’s decision, which is of utmost importance for the European Union and its 27 members’ interests. As opposed to the U.S. Department of State or the U.K. Department for International Trade, the Commission operates as a cabinet government with 27 members or commissioners, one member per member state. Each of them needs to be consulted before the Commission makes its decision. This decision will set precedent for other applications relating to, not only the Helms-Burton Act (“Act’”), but also other U.S. legislation covered by Council Regulation 2271/96.

Plaintiff also refers to another Title III case in which Honorable Judge Gayles stayed the action against a British defendant, Imperial Brands PLC, pending authorization to participate in the case. See Rodriguez et al., v. Imperial Brands et al., Case No. 20-cv-23287-DPG (S.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2020).  

30. Plaintiff suggests the authorization was granted in around five months because “the court applied the necessary pressure to obtain the required authorization within a reasonable time.” Motion, p. 5. The authorization, however, was granted in five months because the United Kingdom left the European Union and the Commission did not make the decision, but the U.K. Department for International Trade did instead. Plaintiff’s assertion that, “if the U.K. only needed little over a month to publish its decision regarding Imperial, despite simultaneously undergoing the “Brexit” transition, the European Commission certainly does not need more time” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the European Union, the Commission and the Brexit transition work.  

Finally, the Commission has not, as Plaintiff contends, “defiantly strengthened its opposition to the Helms-Burton Act” since the Stay was mandated. Motion, p. 2. The E.U. has opposed the Act since its passing for 25 years, and Council Regulation 2271/96 is proof of that opposition. Council Regulation 2271/96, nonetheless, provides that an E.U. entity may seek authorization to comply with an order arising out of the Act, as Iberostar has sought.  

On March 16, 2021, Iberostar sent a new request to the Commission, seeking further guidance as to the progress that the Commission has made, the steps that lie ahead, and a timeframe, if possible, for when a determination may be made. Iberostar will inform the Court of the Commission’s response in due course.

2020 Annual Report
Imperial Brands
US Helms-Burton litigation

Imperial has been named as a defendant in a civil action in federal court in Miami, Florida under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (“Helms-Burton”) filed on 6 August 2020. Title III provides US nationals with a cause of action and a claim for treble damages against persons who have “trafficked” in property expropriated by the Cuban government. Title III is largely untested because it did not come into effect until May 2019. Treble damages are automatically available under Helms-Burton. Although the filed claim is for unquantified damages, we understand the claim could potentially reach approximately $365 million, based on the claimants’ claim to own 90% of the property, which they value at $135 million (and then treble). The claim is based on allegations that Imperial, through Corporación Habanos S.A. (a joint venture between one of Imperial’s now former subsidiaries and the Cuban government), has “trafficked” in a factory in Havana, Cuba that the Cuban government confiscated from the claimants’ ancestor in the early 1960s, by using the factory to manufacture, market, sell, and distribute Habanos cigars. Imperial is subject to an EU law known as the EU Blocking Statute (Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96), which conflicts with Helms-Burton, protects Imperial against the impact of Title III, and impacts how Imperial may respond to the threatened litigation. The EU Blocking Statute continues to apply in the UK during the Brexit “transition period” in place until 31 December 2020. After 31 December 2020, the substance of the law is likely to stay the same in the UK, at least in the near future. On 23 September 2020 the US court granted a stay of the action until 9 February 2021 or until further order of the court, while Imperial awaits the European Commission’s response to its request for authorisation to defend the action. Separately, two other groups of prospective claimants have indicated that they intend to file a lawsuit against Imperial in federal court in Miami, Florida. Neither claim has been filed. The threatened claims relate to other properties in Cuba, which the prospective claimants claim were confiscated from their ancestors by the Cuban government in the 1960s and which they claim are now used by Corporación Habanos S.A for commercial activities. The prospective claimants claim to be entitled to treble damages from Imperial.

U.S. Senator Robert Menendez: Biden Administration "Consulting" With Him

On Cuba News
Miami, Florida
17 March 2021

Bob Menéndez says he feels better with the Biden administration than with Obama’s in terms of its stance towards Cuba

According to the Cuban-American senator, this administration is consulting the issue of Cuba with him and other colleagues and does not see an imminent rapprochement with the island.

Cuban-American Democratic Senator Bob Menéndez thinks that the White House’s statements that Cuba is not a priority for the current administration is because the United States is concentrating on fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and other more pressing issues.

“We are meeting the challenge of the global pandemic of COVID-19, we are dealing with the issue of China—a threat to the interests of the United States and a power that we are going to have to confront—, and we continue with economic difficulties in the country. The president’s plan that was passed through the House and the Senate, is now headed for his signature and is important to rescue families in this country, their health and economically speaking. Anyway, all those things have taken a priority,” he affirmed in an interview with the Miami channel America TV.

In the program A Fondo, the senator, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Cuba was the main enemy of the United States in the hemisphere because it had its “tentacles” everywhere, mainly in Venezuela, and denied that various socialized political gestures during the last weeks, such as the request of 80 congresspeople to normalize U.S.-Cuba relations and the presentation of various proposals in that regard, are something new. On the contrary, they have been common in other administrations, he said.

“Many [especially in Florida] see that any performance is always something threatening. If we are going to see the truth, the participation of all colleagues…, with legislation and letters, has existed for a long time. They existed in the time of President Trump, they also existed during the time of President Obama. There is nothing new in their initiatives,” he noted.

However, he underlined that the fact “there is a Democratic president…does not mean that what has existed for years, both in Republican and Democratic administrations, of members of Congress, has new relevance. I think the administration, legitimately, is looking and saying: How can we help the Cuban people? How do we really create the necessary openings for democracy, respect for human rights, and that the people do not have to flee their country? If we are honest…after decades of Republican or Democratic administrations, what we want to achieve has not been achieved: the freedom of the Cuban people. We have to think about what else we can do to achieve it. In this sense, there are several ideas that I am giving to the administration and they are reviewing a policy that could achieve what we want for the Cuban people.”

According to the senator for New Jersey, “within the administration, the National Security Corps and the State Department understand that Obama’s effort did not yield what was expected. The regime did absolutely nothing to change any element in human rights, in economic openings, in cultural openings, for example, like what we have seen with the San Isidro Movement. They saw that it did not work. I think they understand it and that is why they are looking for a path that can give results.”

When asked if the idea of a rapprochement with Cuba could be imminent, he pointed out: “all my instincts and conversations [indicate that] that is not what is going to happen.”

“President Obama did not consult with Congress, I feel better now (we will see later) because we have an administration that first, has not ideologically decided to return to Obama’s policy, and at the same time is consulting with this servant and with others what that policy should be,” said the senator, who stated that he had met with President Biden during his campaign and had not been able to meet with him during his term, although he said that he had agreed to meet soon. However, Menéndez said he has spoken frequently with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and during those conversations “we have spoken to him very clearly about the realities of the Castro regime,” he pointed out.

Regarding the future, Menéndez does not see great changes in the strong-arm stance of the exiles towards the government of the island, like a change in the perception of the Democrats. “I don’t think they are going to perceive the Cuban American community and voters as political enemies,” he said.

“What I do believe is that they are going to have a constructive conversation to determine, as I have said before, what the means is. Because from 1959 to the present we have not had the opportunity to achieve what we want for the Cuban people. We have to do something else because what we have done has not been achieved and we have to recognize that,” he stressed.

Two Additional Libertad Act Lawsuits Filed In New Jersey And Texas: Now Total Is 36 Lawsuits Since May 2019

NORTH AMERICAN SUGAR INDUSTRIES INC., Plaintiff, v. DSV AIR & SEA INC., Defendant. [2:21-cv-00080; New Jersey District].

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (plaintiff)
Morgan, Lewis & Bochius (defendant)

LINK To Complaint (1/4/21)

LINK To Plaintiff’s Notice Of Unopposed Motion To Stay This Action Pending Final Resolution Of Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss The First-Filed Action For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction (1/15/21)

NORTH AMERICAN SUGAR INDUSTRIES INC., Plaintiff, v. BBC CHARTERING USA, LLC, Defendant. [4:21-cv-00012; Southern District Texas]

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (plaintiff)

LINK To Complaint (1/4/21)
LINK To [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion To Stay This Action Pending Final Resolution Of Defendant's Jurisdictional Challenges In The First-Filed Action (1/26/21)

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 TO Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Plaintiffs In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Spain's Iberostar Hotels Want Court To Move Ahead Without Waiting For EU To Respond- Nearing 12 Months

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

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

LINK: Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion To Lift Stay, And If Denied, Motion For Certification Of Order Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (3/3/21)

Defendant Imperial Brands PLC's Fourth Status Report (2/8/21)
Defendant Imperial Brands PLC's Fifth Status Report (1/25/21)

LINK: Defendant’s Status Report (2/18/21)
LINK: Defendant’s Status Report (1/19/21)

Excerpts:

Plaintiff Maria Dolores Canto Marti, as personal representative of the Estates of Dolores Martí Mercadé and Fernando Canto Bory (“Plaintiff”), respectfully moves this Court to lift the stay previously entered on April 24, 2020 [D.E. 17], and if denied, to certify the order denying such motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and in support states as follows:

On April 23, 2020, Defendant Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos S.L. (the “Defendant” or “Iberostar”) moved to stay these proceedings so that it could obtain a ruling from the European Commission on its request for an authorization to file a response to Plaintiff’s Complaint [D.E. 16] (the “Motion to Stay”). In its filing, Defendant specifically limited the requested stay to a period of seventy-five (75) days. Motion to Stay at ¶ 2 (“To avoid a protracted delay, this request for a stay is limited to no more than 75 days.”). The next day, this Court stayed these proceedings indefinitely “until the European Union grants Iberostar’s request for authorization” and required Defendant to submit status reports every thirty days [D.E. 17] (the “April Stay Order”) (emphasis added).

Here, like in Mais, resolving the issue at hand – the propriety of a stay in this context – would certainly materially advance the case and shorten the litigation. To wit, this stay, which is pegged to the European Commission’s authorization can persist indefinitely. And, given the EU’s further opposition to the Helms-Burton Act, which was made clear in its recent Communication, such authorization may never come. Or, at best, such authorization will be substantially delayed. Determining the propriety of such a stay has the potential to move the case forward to resolution more quickly. Moreover, resolving the issue presented herein will likely reduce the amount of litigation necessary on remand because it would prevent the Defendant from repeatedly seeking authorization to participate in this case at every stage of the litigation, preventing this Court from having to stay this case at every such stage. See Section III.C., supra for a more detailed discussion on the piecemeal litigation stemming from staying this case. Even if the European Commission will grant its authorization for Defendant to move to dismiss the case in the interim, the European Commission may not otherwise allow Defendant to participate in this case without first seeking authorization, resulting in re-staying this case again and again.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court vacate the stay and allow this case to proceed. And, if this Court denies Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court certify this Court’s order denying the Motion to the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

U.S. Government Reports Cuba Sought To Support Biden And "Undermine" Trump And Republicans In 2020 Election

Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
National Intelligence Council
Intelligence Community Assessment
Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections
10 March 2021
Washington DC

Excerpts (BOLD text is from document) 

Key Judgment 5: We assess that a range of additional foreign actors-including Lebanese Hizballah, Cuba, and Venezuela-took some steps to attempt to influence the election. In general, we assess that they were smaller in scale than the influence efforts conducted by other actors this election cycle. Cybercriminals disrupted some election preparations; we judge their activities probably were driven by financial motivations.

We assess Cuba sought to undermine former President Trump's electoral prospects by pushing anti-Republican and pro-Democrat narratives to the Latin American community. Cuban intelligence probably conducted some low-level activities in support of this effort. 

LINK To 15-Page Report In PDF Format

President Trump Seeking To Oust Cuban-American Member Of Congress; Exacting Revenge More Important Than Number Of Cuban-Americans In Congress?

Punchbowl News
Los Angeles, California
17 March 2021

“Max Miller, a former White House aide to Donald Trump, is running in a primary against Ohio Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, who supported impeaching the 45th president. Gonzalez is a well-liked former Ohio State football star who played in the NFL and later graduated from Stanford Business School.”  

From Wikipedia: “Gonzalez's Cuban-American father immigrated to the U.S. from Cuba after Fidel Castro took power.” 

Members of the United States Congress identifying as of Cuban descent:   

United States Senate
The Honorable Ted Cruz (R- Texas)
The Honorable Marco Rubio (R- Florida)
The Honorable Robert Menendez (D- New Jersey)

United States House of Representatives
The Honorable Albio Sires (New Jersey; D- 8th)
The Honorable Alex Mooney (West Virginia; R- 2nd)
The Honorable Anthony E. González (Ohio; R- 16th)
The Honorable Mario Díaz-Balart (Florida; R-25th)
The Honorable Carlos Gimenez (Florida; R- 26th)
The Honorable Maria Elvira Salazar (Florida; R- 27th)
The Honorable Nicole Malliotakis (New York; R- 11th)

The Biden Administration will remain concerned about the 435-member United States House of Representatives where the Democratic Party has a nine-seat majority in the 117th United States Congress.  

The 2020 Census is expected to deliver to Florida two (2) additional seats in the United States House of Representatives- which increases the electoral prominence of the state in the 2022 and 2024 elections (24 votes of the required 270 votes for victory in the Electoral College).    

The state legislature in Florida is controlled by Republican Party.  In 2021, the Florida Senate (24- R and 16- D) and the Florida House of Representatives (78- R and 42- D) will expectantly seek to craft favorably the two new districts for the United States House of Representatives and recraft existing districts to lessen the number of Democrats.  There will likely too be court challenges. 

One result will be current Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives from Florida will tact right, meaning against Biden Administration Republic of Cuba initiatives in their primaries or general election. 

There will also be Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate from other states who will oppose perceived lessening of pressures upon the Republic of Cuba. 

What some advocates will promote as a vote of legislative courage others will decry as a shortcut to the unemployment line.

Efforts to request the Biden Administration suspend Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”) made operational on 2 May 2019 by the Trump Administration risks antagonizing an important constituency in Florida and conflicting with President Biden’s appreciation of not interrupting the judicial process from his tenure as Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (1987-1995).   

There have been thirty-three lawsuits filed since 2019 and some are at Courts of Appeals.  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.   

And there are the many unknowns which can influence the 2022 and 2024 elections in Florida and other states: H.E. Nicolas Maduro, President of Venezuela, is removed from office.  H.E. Daniel Ortega, President of Nicaragua, is removed from office.  The government of the Republic of Cuba decides to robustly engage with the Biden Administration; the 5,913 certified claims are resolved.  

The Biden Administration and Democratic Party will continue to appease the State of Florida and its 2020 population of 21.48 million residents (14.5 million registered voters) where the Republican Party has 5,219,015 and the Democratic Party has 5,335,965; and 3,790,478 have no party affiliation.  In the 2020 Presidential Election, Florida voted 51.2% Republican to 47.9% Democratic; in 2016, 49.0% Republican to 47.8% Democratic; in 2012, 50.0% Democratic to 49.1% Republican; and in 2008, 51.0% Democratic to 48.2% Republican.  That data does not suggest a red state.   

Neither the Biden Administration nor the Democratic Party headquarters in Washington DC will abandon Florida and policies relating to the Republic of Cuba will reflect the electoral realities of Florida. 

Cuba’s Return To State Sponsors Of Terrorism List Ricochets To Impact Negotiations For Certified Claimants, Embassy Staffing Levels- Trap Set By Trump Administration? Diplomats Bait?

33 Years On. 6 Years Off. 64 Days On.
11 Terrorism Lawsuits And US$5.1 Billion In Judgements

Terrorism Lawsuits Again Permitted Against Government Of Cuba
If Cuba Doesn’t Defend Lawsuits, Default Judgements Can Exist In Perpetuity
New Marketing Effort To Sell Judgements- It’s Legal
U.S. Government Can File To Dismiss The Lawsuits

Injured U.S. Diplomats May Now Sue Government Of Cuba
Was This The Secret Strategy Of The Trump Administration?
Will Government Of Cuba Accept Additional U.S. Diplomats If Sued By U.S. Diplomats?

If Biden Administration Removes Cuba From Terrorism List, Attorneys Will Have 45 Days To File Lawsuits

Chairman Of U.S. Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Robert Menendez Will Have Input- And Perhaps Leverage

May There Be A Moment When Neither Current Government In Havana Or Future Government In Havana Will Have The Means Or Desire To Satisfy The Certified Claims And Judgements?

Original 1960 Value Of 5,913 Certified Claims US$1.9 Billion Plus 6% Annual Interest
Terrorism Judgements Come Ahead Of Certified Claimants
Terrorism Judgements Used 100% Of Funds Meant To Compensate Certified Claimants
Cuba Funds Frozen In U.S. To Repay Certified Claimants Used For Terrorist Judgements

When the Obama Administration removed the Republic of Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List on 29 May 2015, there was a certification to leadership of the United States Congress that “the Government of Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding 6-month period; and ... has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.”   

At the time of the removal from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, the President of the Republic of Cuba was H.E. General Raul Castro (2008-2018).  Presumably, the Obama Administration obtained a written or verbal assurance from President Castro.   

Since 2019, H.E. Miguel Diaz-Canel has been President of the Republic of Cuba.  Has or would the Biden Administration need obtain a written or verbal assurance from President Diaz-Canel prior to providing a certification to the United States Congress?  Would President Diaz-Canel provide such certification? 

The Biden Administration has four reviews underway relating to the Republic of Cuba: 1) comprehensive policy review led by the National Security Council (NSC) and United States Department of State with a focus upon what changes should be made to policies and regulations implemented during the Trump Administration (2017-2021) including whether to nominate a United States Ambassador to the Republic of Cuba 2) reviews led by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and United States Department of State into the causes of injuries to United States government employees in 2016/2017 while they were in the Republic of Cuba 3) whether to suspend again Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as the “Libertad Act”) and 4) whether to remove the Republic of Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List maintained by the United States Department of State.   

Impacting the Biden Administration timeline for conclusion of the reviews has among others included: 1) obtaining confirmation in the evenly-divided United States Senate for cabinet secretaries, sub-cabinet officials, agency officials, ambassadors, and judicial appointments 2) obtaining legislative approval for US$1.9 trillion in COVID-19-related funding 3) obtaining legislative approval for US$1+ trillion in infrastructure-related funding 4) approval of a budget  5) obtaining legislative approval for an increase to the national minimum wage and 6) obtaining political support for foreign policy initiatives. 

Absent a crisis in the Republic of Cuba impacting directly the United States, there has been no demonstrated urgency for completing the four reviews. 

On 28 February 2021, Thomson Reuters reported: “The Biden administration also appears to have little sense of urgency for major gestures toward Cuba despite hopes for a softer approach after Trump, often citing its support for Maduro, rolled back historic Obama-era détente with Havana.  Some Biden advisers had suggested earlier that he could start by loosening up the flow of remittances from Cuban Americans and ease restrictions on family travel to the Communist-ruled island.  But while acknowledging such changes could have a positive impact, the official said a Cuba policy shift was not currently among Biden’s top priorities, which include the coronavirus pandemic, economic recovery and rebuilding alliances abroad.  “Frankly, first things first,” the official said.  There has also been no sign of any immediate plans to rescind Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, though Biden officials have said Trump’s last-minute decision to return Havana to the U.S. blacklist is under review.” 

On 3 March 2021, Thomson Reuters reported “Asked about the prospects for loosening up remittances and easing restrictions on family trips, the White House official said: “The best ambassadors are the American people, specifically the Cuban-American people maybe coming in with remittances and travel.  A White House official dampened hopes for a quick Cuba policy shift in an interview with Reuters at the weekend, saying it was not currently among Biden’s top priorities,.…” 

SSTL History (1982-2021) 

The Reagan-Bush Administration (1981-1989) first added the Republic of Cuba to the State Sponsors of Terrorism List on 1 March 1982.   

The Obama-Biden Administration (2009-2017) removed the Republic of Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List on 29 May 2015.   

The Trump-Pence Administration (2017-2021) returned the Republic of Cuba to the State Sponsors of Terrorism List on 12 January 2021.   

The Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) is expected to remove the Republic of Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List.  A forty-five-day advance notification to the United States Congress is required. 

ANECDOTE: From 26 September 2002 to 30 September 2002, while the Republic of Cuba was on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, the [George W.] Bush Administration authorized 923 representatives of United States-based companies participated in the U.S. Food & Agribusiness Exhibition held at the Palacio de Convenciones de la Habana (Pabexpo) in the city of Havana, Republic of Cuba, during which the Republic of Cuba contracted for to purchase US$91.9 million in agricultural commodities and food products from the United States.  More than 154,000 pounds of cargo, including livestock, was transported using four aircraft from the United States to the Republic of Cuba for the exhibition.  This was and remains the single-largest gathering of United States business representatives to visit the Republic of Cuba since 1959.  More than 16,000 Republic of Cuba nationals visited the exhibition, which was held under licenses issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury.  

While the Republic of Cuba was on the State Sponsor of Terrorism List from 1982 to 2015, plaintiffs won primarily in state courts eleven (11) lawsuits using the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).   

Total Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages are US$4,420,592,158.37 plus annual interest for uncollected judgements with the State of Florida permitting 11% annual interest.  According to the Washington DC-based Congressional Research Service (CRS), many of the judgements “involved conduct that occurred prior to Cuba’s terrorism designation, and all were obtained as default judgments without an entry of appearance by the Cuban government.” 

Who Now Can Sue? 

As of 12 January 2021, any individual subject to United States jurisdiction believing they have a personal claim against the government of the Republic of Cuba for acts of terrorism may file a lawsuit in a state court or federal court seeking damages from the government of the Republic of Cuba.   

With the expectation the government of the Republic of Cuba will not appear to defend itself, as in previous lawsuits, almost any legal argument can result in a default judgement.  With eleven of the previous lawsuits obtaining default judgements of US$4.2 billion, likely not a difficult decision to obtain legal counsel, pay court fees, file a lawsuit, and await the default judgement. 

Among those who may file lawsuits could be some of the reported twenty-four (24) United States nationals injured during their posting to the Republic of Cuba in 2016/2017 remain employed by the United States government, including at the United States Department of State and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).  According to the heavily redacted 2018 report from the United States Department of State Accountability Review Board, the health impact for some were “so severe they may never be able to return to their previous jobs.” 

To file a lawsuit, United States law requires a country to be included on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List when a terrorism-related action is taken, although there have been instances where lawsuits were filed, and judgements were rendered for actions attributed to the Republic of Cuba prior to its inclusion on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List.  The United States Department of State could have sought to have courts void the judgements using the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in those instances where the Republic of Cuba was sued for terrorist acts while not on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List.  The United States Department of State declined to do so.  

Did Trump Administration Set A Trap For Biden Administration?   

Perhaps, a trap by the Trump Administration was to use the return of the Republic of Cuba to the State Sponsors of Terrorism List as an enticement for some of the twenty-four injured individuals and/or their families to file lawsuits believing accurately that once lawsuits are filed the bipartisan political atmospherics would be challenging for the Biden Administration to remove the Republic of Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List.  The message then from some Democrats and Republicans in the United States Congress to the Biden Administration- do not remove an opportunity for justice.   

If some of the individuals are injured permanently might they and their families want compensation?  Suing the United States Government is generally problematic.  Suing the Republic of Cuba may provide justice, but not necessarily result in economic pain for the Republic of Cuba because collecting on a judgement is not an easy process.   

Since the Republic of Cuba has maintained it did not cause the injuries and does not know who caused the injuries, it would unlikely present a defense in a lawsuit.  The result would be a default judgement.  If the lawsuit is filed in the State of Florida, the judgement would be subject to an 11% annual interest rate for what remains outstanding.  Judgements are valid for twelve (12) years and may be renewed to endure- and may be transferred, sold, bartered, and inherited.  The ultimate monetary ticking time bomb. 

With a judgment, a plaintiff may seek throughout each of the fifty states and territories of the United States any asset to which the government of the Republic of Cuba has an interest- and then once identified, ask a relevant court to enforce the judgement.  

The Biden Administration can seek to have FSIA lawsuits against the government of the Republic of Cuba dismissed by courts.  One argument is such lawsuits are an interference and hindrance to the conduct of foreign policy by the executive branch. 

Complicating legal and political matters further are the reports that United States nationals employed by the United States Government injured during their posting to the People’s Republic of China and to the Russian Federation have reported injuries similar to those reported in the Republic of Cuba.  Neither the People’s Republic of China nor Russian Federation are on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List. 

A Formidable Political Obstacle From New Jersey 

There are impediments for a removal of the Republic of Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List.  As previous occupants of The White House have done, the Trump Administration reinterpreted the United States statutory definition of “terrorism” which can add time for evaluation and complicates the evaluation process.   

The chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, The Honorable Robert Menendez (D- New Jersey) is of Cuban descent and all issues relating to the Republic of Cuba are personal- particularly the connectivity between a convicted murderer of a New Jersey State Police officer who escaped in 1979 from a correctional facility in New Jersey and resides in the Republic of Cuba.   

In returning the Republic of Cuba to the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, the Trump Administration, like previous administrations, referenced Mrs. JoAnne Chesimard who remains since 2 May 2013 as the first woman to be on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists List.  There is a US$2 million reward.  The Honorable Robert Mueller was Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from 4 September 2001 to 4 September 2013. The Honorable Christopher Christie was Governor of the State of New Jersey from 19 January 2010 to 16 January 2018. 

Connectivity With Kerry, Blinken And Sullivan 

Senator Menendez was previously chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1 February 2013 to 3 January 2015 during the Obama Administration (2009-2017) when Mrs. Chesimard was added to the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists List.  The United States Secretary of State during the period 1 February 2013 to 20 January 2017 was The Honorable John Kerry (D- Massachusetts) who served as chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 6 January 2009 to 1 February 2013.  The Honorable Antony Blinken, United States Secretary of State, was Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor from 20 January 2013 to 9 January 2015 and Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President from 20 January 2009 to 20 January 2013.  The Honorable Jake Sullivan, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, served as Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President of the United States from 26 February 2013 to 1 August 2014.  Mr. Sullivan was Director of Policy Planning at the United States Department of State from 4 February 2011 to 15 February 2013. 

Terrorism Judgements Against The Republic Of Cuba 

“Compensatory damages awarded to plaintiffs are designed to give justice to them after being wronged.  There are two types of compensatory damages- general and actual.  Actual damages are intended to provide funds to only replace what was lost.  General compensatory damages awarded are more complex, as these compensatory damages do not represent a monetary expenditure.  Punitive damages are designed to prevent others from being hurt by the same or similar actions.”

Cuba On The Of State Sponsors Of Terrorism List From Congressional Research Service (CRS)  

The “state sponsors of terrorism list” is mandated under Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (P.L. 96-72; 50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)), under which the Secretary of State makes a determination when a country “has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” 

Both Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act and Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act have provisions similar to Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act in which the Secretary of State may publish a determination that a country is supporting international terrorism. However, the only published determinations by the Secretary of State have been those under Section6(j) and constitute what is known as the “state sponsors of terrorism list.” 

In addition to the terrorism list sanctions imposed by the Export Administration Act, Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (P.L. 90-629; 22 U.S.C. 2781) prohibits the sale or export of defense articles and defense services if the President determines and certifies to Congress, by May 15 of each year, that the country “is not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.” This list has been issued annually since 1997, and currently includes Cuba. 

Cuba was first added to the State Department’s list of states sponsoring international terrorism in 1982 [1 March 1982], pursuant to Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-72). At the time, numerous U.S. government reports and statements under the Reagan Administration alleged Cuba’s ties to international terrorism and its support for terrorist groups in Latin America. Cuba had a history of supporting revolutionary movements and governments in Latin America and Africa, but in 1992 Fidel Castro stressed that his country’s support for insurgents abroad was a thing of the past. Cuba’s policy change was in large part a result of Cuba’s diminishing resources following the breakup of the Soviet Union and the loss of billions of dollars in annual subsidies to Cuba. 

While the Administration provided no explanation in the Federal Register notice as to why Cuba was added to the terrorism list, various U.S. government reports and statements under the Reagan Administration in 1981 and 1982 alleged Cuba’s ties to international terrorism. In addition, a 1998 State Department chronology on U.S.-Cuban relations and a 2003 State Department document provide further explanation of why Cuba originally was designated a state sponsor of terrorism.  The Central Intelligence Agency’s Patterns of International Terrorism 1980, published in June 1981, stated: “Havana openly advocates armed revolution as the only means for leftist forces to gain power in Latin America, and the Cubans have played an important role in facilitating the movement of men and weapons into the region. Havana provides direct support in the form of training, arms, safe havens, and advice to a wide variety of guerrilla groups. Many of these groups engage in terrorist operations.”  

In January 1982, President Reagan stated in his State of the Union address: “Toward those who would export terrorism and subversion in the Caribbean and elsewhere, especially Cuba and Libya, we will act with firmness.” In February 1982, the Department of State published a research paper on “Cuba’s Renewed Support for Violence in Latin America,” originally presented in December 1981 to the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which detailed Cuba’s support for armed insurgencies and terrorist activities in Latin America and the Caribbean.7 The State Department asserted in the paper that Cuba has “encouraged terrorism in the hope of provoking indiscriminate violence and repression, in order to weaken government legitimacy and attract new converts to armed struggle.”  

The paper maintained that Cuba was most active in Central America, especially Nicaragua, where it wanted to exploit and control the revolution, and El Salvador and Guatemala, where it wanted to overthrow the governments.8 Cuba also was reported “to provide advice, safe haven, communications, training, and some financial support to several violent South American organizations.” This included training Colombian M-19 guerrillas, with the objective of establishing a “people’s army.” The State Department’s Patterns of International Terrorism: 1982stated that “both Cuba and the Soviet Union continue to provide financial and logistical support and training to leftist forces in the area [Central America] that conduct terrorist activity.” The report further stated: “In its efforts to promote armed revolution by leftist forces in Latin America, Cuba supports organizations and groups that use terrorism to undermine existing regimes. In cooperation with the Soviets, the Cubans have facilitated the movement of people and weapons into Central and South America and have directly provided funding, training, arms, safe haven, and advice toa wide variety of guerrilla groups, and individual terrorists.”  

A 1998 State Department chronology of U.S.-Cuban relations from 1958 to 1998 notes that the United States added Cuba to the terrorist list in 1982 because of its support for the M-19 guerrilla group in Colombia. In January 1982, State Department officials asserted that Cuba was involved in providing arms to the M-19 in exchange for facilitating U.S.-bound drug smuggling. M-19 was responsible for hijacking a plane from Colombia in January 1982; the incident ended when the hijackers were given safe passage to Cuba. A 2003 State Department document broadened the explanation of why Cuba was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1982. Reflecting the rationale set forth in the documents from 1981 and1982 described above, the State Department maintains that Cuba was added to the list because of its support for terrorist groups in Latin America. It contends that Cuba was providing support for terrorist organizations at the time, including the Puerto Rican nationalist group known as the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN), the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) in El Salvador, and the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) in Nicaragua. It also asserts that “Cuba helped transship Soviet arms to Nicaragua and El Salvador for use by terrorist organizations, trained anti-American insurgents elsewhere in Latin America, and supported insurgencies or war efforts in Angola and Ethiopia.” 

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 (along with 382 enterprises the same day) 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.   

The ITT Corporation Agreement 

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

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

Suspension History 

Title III had 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.

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT

FROM FATF/GAFILAT: Cuba's Progress In Strengthening Measures To Tackle Money Laundering & Terrorist Financing

Cuba's progress in strengthening measures to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing 

AML: Anti-Money Laundering

CFT: Countering The Financing Of Terrorism

MER: Mutual Evaluation Report 

From January 2021: “Cuba continues making significant progress in addressing the Technical Compliance deficiencies identified in its MER and has been re-rated for R.31 (Partially Compliant to Compliant), R.28 (Partially Compliant to Compliant) and R. 35 (Partially Compliant to Largely Compliant). It also maintained its rating of Partially Compliant regarding R.8, and of Compliant regarding R.2, R.5, R.18 and R.21. Finally, it was re-rated in R.15 (from Compliant to Partially Compliant).” 

LINK To Publications 

GAFILAT Fourth Regular Follow-Up Report And Re-Rating Of Cuba (2021) 

GAFILAT Technical Analysis Of FATF Recommendations- Re-Rating Of Cuba (2017) 

GAFILAT Mutual Evaluation Report Of The Republic Of Cuba (2015) 

FATF Methodology For Assessing Technical Compliance With The FATF Recommendations And The Effectiveness Of AML/CFT Systems (2013) 

FATF-GAFI Cuba Profile

“Paris, France-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is the global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog. The inter-governmental body sets international standards that aim to prevent these illegal activities and the harm they cause to society. As a policy-making body, the FATF works to generate the necessary political will to bring about national legislative and regulatory reforms in these areas. 

With more than 200 countries and jurisdictions committed to implementing them.  The FATF has developed the FATF Recommendations, or FATF Standards, which ensure a co-ordinated global response to prevent organised crime, corruption and terrorism. They help authorities go after the money of criminals dealing in illegal drugs, human trafficking and other crimes.  The FATF also works to stop funding for weapons of mass destruction. 

The FATF reviews money laundering and terrorist financing techniques and continuously strengthens its standards to address new risks, such as the regulation of virtual assets, which have spread as cryptocurrencies gain popularity.  The FATF monitors countries to ensure they implement the FATF Standards fully and effectively, and holds countries to account that do not comply.” 

“The purpose of the Financial Action Task Force of Latin America, GAFILAT, (formerly known as Financial Action Task Force of South America (GAFISUD)) is to work toward developing and implementing a comprehensive global strategy to combat money laundering and terrorist financing as set out in the FATF Recommendations.  The effort includes encouraging the creation of the offence of money laundering in relation to serious crimes, the development of legal systems to effectively investigate and prosecute these offences, the establishment of systems for reporting suspicious transactions, the promotion of mutual legal assistance.  GAFILAT also fosters the training of persons involved in anti-money laundering efforts.  GAFILAT enables regional factors to be taken into account in the implementation of anti-money laundering measures.‌ 

The origins of GAFILAT go back to ongoing efforts to integrate anti-money laundering efforts in South America and was encouraged by the creation of other anti money-laundering regional groups that were established following the FATF model.  It was created as GAFISUD on 8 December 2000 in Cartagena, Colombia by means of a memorandum of understanding by representatives of the governments of nine South American countries.  The Organization of American States (OAS) is also a member in an advisory capacity through the Inter-American Commission against Drug Abuse (CICAD).  Following the events of 11 September 2001, GAFISUD expanded its scope to include the countering of terrorist financing. The GAFISUD Plenary of 7-11 July 2014 approved the change of name from GAFISUD to GAFILAT to reflect the expansion of its membership to include all Latin American countries.  

GAFILAT is committed to carrying out mutual evaluations and co-ordinating anti-money laundering training and educational efforts in the region.  Its work mandate is set out in a memorandum of understanding containing specific terms of reference for the group.  GAFILAT is supported by a Secretariat, which serves as the focal point for its activities.  GAFILAT became and Associate Member of the FATF in 2006.”

EC Responds To European Parliament Inquiry About EU Ambassador To Cuba Letter To President Biden- Navarro "Committed Two Major... Failures..."

H.E. Josep Borrell Fontelles
High Representative
Vice President of the European Commission
Brussels, Belgium

Excerpt:

"Ambassador Navarro has acknowledged that it is not within the scope of his functions as a diplomatic representative of the European Union to subscribe to this type of initiative, even less so when they are addressed to the leader of a third country."

LINK To Letter In PDF Format

U.S. Department Of State Appoints Former Ambassador With Focus Upon "Havana Syndrome"

United States Department of State
Washington DC
12 March 2021

Ambassador Pamela Spratlen Designated as Senior Advisor to Department Health Incident Response Task Force

Office of the Spokesperson

The Department has designated Ambassador Pamela Spratlen to serve as the Senior Advisor to the Health Incident Response Task Force (HIRTF), reporting directly to the Department’s senior leadership. Since its creation in 2018, the HIRTF has served as the coordinating body for the Department and interagency’s response to unexplained health incidents for personnel and dependents under Chief of Mission security responsibility, including identification and treatment of affected personnel and family members; investigation and risk mitigation; messaging; and diplomatic outreach.

A career member of the Foreign Service for nearly 30 years, Ambassador Spratlen was formerly Senior Advisor of the Office of Inspector General in the U.S. State Department, Inspections Division. She was the U.S. Ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2015-2018 and Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan) from 2011-2014. She has also served as the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan (2009-2011).

In addition to numerous Washington assignments and a tour as Diplomat in Residence at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Ambassador Spratlen also served in Russia (Moscow and Vladivostok), France (U.S. Mission to the OECD) and Latin America (Guatemala and the U.S. Mission to the Organization of American States).

As Secretary Blinken said, “The selection of Ambassador Spratlen will help us make strides to address this issue wherever it affects Department personnel and their families. She will streamline our coordination efforts with the interagency community, and reaffirm our commitment to make certain that those affected receive the care and treatment they need.”

United States Department of State
Washington DC
12 March 2021

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

QUESTION: (Inaudible) health advisor. In the written announcement, there was nothing said about Cuba or any particular country where these issues may arise. Is that for a reason? Is it broader than that? And then my second question has to do with – it’s one that I brought up before with the Houthis, and that is that this situation seems to be getting worse rather than better – the humanitarian situation – since you guys removed them from the FTO list and since the three leaders were removed from the terrorism part of the SDGT list. And so I’m just wondering, I mean, is there any thought that you guys may have made a mistake in doing that? Thank you.

MR PRICE: Thanks, Matt. To your first question, as we mentioned, we do have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. personnel, their families, and other U.S. citizens. Of course, these health incidents have been a priority for Secretary Blinken even before he was officially Secretary Blinken. He requested a comprehensive briefing on these incidents during the transition when he was secretary-designate. On his first day, full day here at the department, he received an update. He has since received comprehensive briefings.

He also wanted to ensure that the task force that has been established and working on these incidents since May of 2018 had connectivity directly to him, and directly to his senior leadership team. And so that is why we have decided, and he has decided to name Ambassador Spratlen as the senior advisor to the task force.

We didn’t specifically mention countries in that announcement because as you know, Matt, there have been now several countries where these incidents have been reported. We are seeking a full accounting of all of those who may have been affected by these incidents. That will be a large part of Ambassador Spratlen’s role, is to ensure that we know the full extent of these incidents.

There is also an individual on the task force who is responsible solely for engaging with those who may have been victims of these incidents. So we will continue to pay close attention to this. Secretary Blinken will continue to pay close attention to this, because he has no higher priority than the health and the safety and security than the department and dependents of department personnel.

U.S. Department Of State Spokesperson Answers Question About Cuba Policy; Reiterates Previous Positions

United States Department of State
Washington DC
11 March 2021

Mr. Ned Price, Department Spokesperson:

QUESTION: Hey, Ned. On Cuba, the White House says a policy shift with Cuba is not a top priority for President Biden. Does that mean that the administration finds value in the current policy, or is it quite literally just not a top priority and something that you imagine you’ll get to later?

MR PRICE: It is a policy that we are reviewing. Secretary Blinken spoke to this yesterday. He spoke to the core principles that animate that review.

First, support for democracy and human rights will be at the core of our efforts, because we believe it is the means to empower the Cuban people to determine their own future; and second, as we’ve said before, we also know that Americans, especially Cuban Americans, are in most cases the best ambassadors for freedom and prosperity in Cuba. We are committed to both of these principles. Our review is being animated by both of those principles. We have also committed – and you heard this from Secretary Blinken up on the Hill yesterday – to consult closely with members of Congress as we undertake this review. So it is not that – it is not that this is in any way on the back burner. It is something we’re looking at very closely, and as that review progresses, we’ll consult with members of Congress. And when we have something to share, we’ll let you know.

Cuba Targeting Individuals Of Cuban Descent For DFI In Projects Valued At Less Than US$1 Million; Will Cuba Do Same For Individuals Not Of Cuban Descent? Biden Administration Will Support Both.

AFP
Paris, France
10 March 2021

”HAVANA, Cuba (AFP) — Foreign-based Cubans will be allowed to invest in small projects such as rice, orange and avocado plantations, the government revealed on Wednesday in a bid to attract investment from the country's diaspora. "We're focusing on small projects ... that could be worth up to one million dollars," in sectors such as agriculture, fishing, light industry and manufacturing, said Katia Alonso, the official responsible for foreign investments. With just over 11 million inhabitants, Cuba also has a diaspora of 1.5 million people in 40 countries, although the majority live in the United States. Some had previously registered an interest in investing in the island nation but were put off by the multi-million dollar mega projects the communist government previously proposed.

These smaller projects are an attempt to convince the diaspora to take the plunge at a time when Cuba is in the midst of a severe economic crisis, with GDP having fallen 11 per cent in 2020 to its lowest level since 1993. In total the government is proposing 503 projects worth a total of US$12.07 billion. Cuba opened its economy to foreign investment following the fall of the Soviet Union, which plunged the country into a serious economic trouble in the 1990s. But the country is struggling to attract as many foreign companies as it would like as its own bureaucracy and US sanctions have discouraged many investors. According to Alonso, there are around 280 foreign companies from 40 countries operating in Cuba.”

LINK To List Of Available Commercial Opportunities

Analysis

Critical for the Biden Administration will be transparency in the process of evaluating proposals for Direct Foreign Investment (DFI) received from individuals of Cuban descent, particularly those residing in the United States.

Equally important will be for each accepted DFI proposal to be publicly disclosed with details of the DFI structure available for review by the public.

The Biden Administration and Members of the United States Congress will seek confirmation that no implementated DFI proposal includes the use of assets certified by the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (USFCSC).

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 one Spain-based company are currently known to be subject to this provision based upon a certified claim and non-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 (along with 382 enterprises the same day) 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.

The ITT Corporation Agreement

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

Associated Press
New York, New York
10 March 2021

Cuba se abre a inversiones, incluso de cubanos emigrados
Por ANDREA RODRÍGUEZ

LA HABANA (AP) — Cuba promovió una cartera de negocios para inversores extranjeros incorporando proyectos que requieren bajo capital e invitó a los cubanos que residen afuera del país a sumarse, un enfoque novedoso en el estricto marco comercial de la isla.

La directora de Negocios del Ministerio de Comercio Exterior, Katia Alonso, indicó el miércoles que para este año hay 503 oportunidades ofertadas a empresarios del mundo dispuestos a operar con la isla por un monto 12.000 millones de dólares, entre los que se cuentan desde grandes iniciativas de ingeniería o energía, hasta pequeños emprendimientos.

Alonso destacó el cambio de enfoque que significó incorporar negocios no tan voluminosos ni exigentes como los de la cartera de años anteriores, dando la posibilidad incluso a cubanos residentes en el extranjero de participar.

“La idea es ésa: pequeños proyectos que nos vayan resolviendo el problema alimentario y no alimentario”, expresó Alonso. “Pueden ser hasta menos de un millón de dólares los proyectos en que estamos interesados en promover y concretar”.

Aunque la ley no lo rechaza, durante décadas las autoridades cubanas fueron muy celosas a la hora de permitir a los empresarios cubanos emigrados traer sus capitales a la isla bajo la premisa ideológica de ser incompatible con el modelo socialista de la nación.

Además, el grueso de los cubanos emigrados vive en Estados Unidos --muchos protegidos como refugiados—, donde las leyes de las sanciones impuestas por Washington para presionar a La Habana les imponen limitaciones para traer su capital. El tema de la inversión de cubanos es sensible tanto en Cuba como en el extranjero.

“Han existido comentarios de que eso (la inversión de cubanos residentes en el extranjero) no se puede, pero eso nunca estuvo prohibido; ahora todo se va concatenando”, expresó Alonso, quien indicó que un punto es que en general los empresarios cubanos en el exterior no tienen tanto capital para invertir.

“Entonces estamos abogando también por proyectos pequeños y son proyectos más a la medida de los cubanos residentes en el exterior, que son personas que tienen pequeñas y medianas empresas”, agregó la funcionaria.

Alonso incluso indicó que países como China permiten a sus nativos que viven afuera reinvertir en su país de origen. Ni la cartera de oportunidades ni la ley de Inversión Extranjera aplica para los ciudadanos cubanos en la isla.

Por su parte, Idalberto Aparicio, subdirector de Negocios, explicó que ya se hizo efectivo un negocio con la inversión de un cubano residente en el extranjero --no de Estados Unidos-- con un contrato de administración en el área de producción agrícola, aunque no ofreció más detalles.

No es la primera vez que se logran acercamientos para inversionistas cubanos que viven afuera. En 2016 con el influjo del deshielo realizado por el expresidente Barack Obama hacia la isla, el empresario Saúl Berenthal comenzó las negociaciones que luego quedaron paralizadas para traer e instalar una fábrica de tractores de pequeño formato ideales para el agro cubano.

Luego, las presiones de Donald Trump desmotivaron cualquier intención inversora. Los trámites se realizan a través de una ventanilla única, explicó la directora de esa oficina inaugurada el año pasado, Anabel Reloba.

Este mecanismo busca hacer frente a una crítica de muchos empresarios en la isla que lamentan la cantidad de trámites burocráticos que exigen las autoridades. Según Reloba, desde su apertura en enero de 2020 ha realizado 186 trámites y evacuado información de otros 80 inversores potenciales.

Directivos de empresas suelen además lamentar algunos mecanismos vigentes en las leyes y que a su entender los desestimulan, como la contratación indirecta --que debe realizarse a través de una agencia empleadora estatal cubana-- o las dificultades para construir o comprar inmuebles. Reloba aclaró que tales normas seguían vigentes. Actualmente en la isla hay operando 280 compañías extranjeras de unos 40 países.

Hasta menos de un millón de dólares: los cubanos residentes en el exterior podrán realizar 'inversiones de menudeo' en Cuba
'Nunca estuvo prohibido', declaró el MINCEX sobre la posibilidad de invertir en Cuba para los cubanos residentes en el exterior.

DDC
La Habana
10 March 2021

El Gobierno de Cuba atraviesa una grave crisis económica y para ello, al parecer, está dispuesto a echar mano a todo, excepto a la liberación de las fuerzas productivas del país. Uno de sus últimos proyectos radica en la promoción de una cartera de negocios para inversores, específicamente para los cubanos residentes en el exterior, según informó la agencia AP.

La directora de negocios del Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y le Inversión Extranjera (MINCEX), Katia Alonso, dijo a AP que la idea es incorporar el capital de los cubanos residentes en el exterior pero en pequeñas inversiones.

"La idea es ésa: pequeños proyectos que nos vayan resolviendo el problema alimentario y no alimentario. Pueden ser hasta menos de un millón de dólares los proyectos en que estamos interesados en promover y concretar", dijo Alonso.

Según esta funcionaria, para 2021 su Gobierno ofertará 503 oportunidades a los empresarios internacionales dispuestos a operar en Cuba, por un monto de 12.000 millones de dólares. Dichas ofertas incluyen inversiones en el sector de la minería, de la energía y también de "los pequeños emprendimientos".

Alonso confesó confiar en lo efectivo que serán las nuevas ofertas de inversión que, a diferencia de años anteriores, no incorpora negocios que exigen grandes sumas de dinero.

"Han existido comentarios de que la inversión de cubanos residentes en el extranjero no se puede, pero nunca estuvo prohibido; ahora todo se va concatenando", señaló la funcionaria, quien aseguró también que en general, los empresarios cubanos en el exterior no contaban con mucho capital para invertir.

Sobre esto, el subdirector de Negocios del MINCEX, Idalberto Aparicio, anunció que ya se hizo efectivo un negocio con la inversión de un cubano residente en el exterior en materia agrícola. Dicho cubano, cuyo nombre no fue revelado, no reside en EEUU.

Si bien es cierto que las inversiones de los cubanos emigrados no están prohibidas en la Ley de Inversión Extranjera, el Gobierno aprueba esos negocios uno a uno y la regularidad ha sido rechazar las propuestas de los exiliados.

Three Members Of The U.S. Senate Inform Leaders Schumer & McConnell They Will "object to any motions..."

To move legislation in the United States Senate, knowledge of and use of procedure is critical, particularly when there are 50 members who generally vote with the Democratic Caucus and 50 members who generally vote with the Republican Caucus.

From the letter: “We believe the Cuban people deserve no less than the most rudimentary foundations of a free society and therefore, we object to any motions of unanimous consent requests regarding legislation that amends U.S. law towards Cuba.”

On 10 March 2021, three members of the Republican Caucus of the United States Senate wrote to The Honorable Charles Schumer (D- New York), the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, and The Honorable Mitch McConnell (R- Kentucky), the Minority Leader of the United States Senate. They are:

The Honorable Marco Rubio (R- Florida), the Ranking Member of the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, and Global Women's Issues; and Ranking Minority Member of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
The Honorable Ted Cruz (R- Texas)
The Honorable Rick Scott (R- Florida)

LINK To Text Of Letter In PDF Format

U.S. Secretary Of State Blinken Reminds & Emphasizes To Congress That Biden Administration Has Not Yet Made Changes To Trump Administration Cuba Policies- And Congress Will Be Consulted

On 9 March 2021, The Honorable Antony Blinken, United States Secretary of State, answered questions from members of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Affairs.

The Republic of Cuba was a subject during an exchange between Secretary Blinken and The Honorable Albio Sires (D 8th- New Jersey), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration And International Economic Policy of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs. Representative Sires is of Cuban descent.

The Honorable Nicole Malliotakis (R- 11th, New York) and The Honorable Maria Elvira Salazar (R- 27th, Florida) also asked questions relating to the Republic of Cuba. Representatives Malliotakis and Salazar are of Cuban descent.

Representative Sires Questioning LINK To Video

Representative Salazar Questioning LINK To Video

Awaiting Official Transcript

C-Span
Washington DC
10 March 2021
UNEDITED

Representative Sires: secretary begin thank you for testifying today and congratulations as chairman of the embassy i look forward to working with you and your staff to deep in the united states and latin america and the caribbean u.s. policy towards cuba is deeply personal to be an kfirsthand experience of where it is to live under the castro dictatorship i came when i was 11 years old and i thought memories of the military and searching my house and using my father of the merchandise i have all these memories and i made it a priority when i came to congress for democracy and human rights. All over i've been encouraged by the statement of the present invited to the white house regarding in the human rights at the center of our policy towards cuba and our secretary i was wondering what steps can you take promote a lights, civil liberties and then the attacks on human rights defenders in cuba.  

Secretary Blinken: i think across-the-board we share the same goals when it comes to cuba and that's democracy and freedom for his people, inre particular respect for the views and the experiences of our citizens are cuban-american we not only noah but we lived at how your families have lived it and this is something that resonates for me. We are looking at the entire policy right now and we have haven't come to any conclusion, knowing what the goals are freedom and democracy the people of cuba we start with the recognition that obviously no policy in the past has fully succeeded in achieving that but working to be reviewing the policy in close consultation with congress and members who know these issues so well as you have seen there is no early policy changes and certainly weou will not make any changes without fully consulting so i look forward to the opportunity to do that.  

Representative Sires: Venezuela obviously is going to come up i had a hearing in venezuela the other day i was very happy to see that the president designated to the venezuelans about 320,000 of them in this country i think that's the rights that they suffer greatly, my concern for venezuela is russia seems to be more engaged with venezuela and i don't think, i know they tried to destabilize the region i spoke to the ambassadornk of columbia in 2019 russia had 6000 people go through columbia and they expelled three russians. E for russia columbia is not exactly a beach destination so my concern they are using venezuela toex destabilize columbia to get involved in other elections in south america and i would hope the administration would focus on russia's efforts to try to destabilize our neighbors in the western hemisphere. 

Secretary Blinken: I share the concern and we see them venezuela and we seen a resurgence of russian and president of activity in cuba the lastse few years and were very attentive to that across-the-board into the point you made a minute ago i should come back to say your emphasis on spotlighting and combating corruption is absolutely essential and this is something ywe will dedicate more focus, time and resources to because we see it unfortunately is prevalent in so many cases but also a little bit ada's and keeley's heel we could put a spotlight because when people see thet corruption of their leaders that is a good way to undermine support with the civil leaders.  

Representative Salazar: i represent miami which is the capital of the americans and home too thousands and thousands of exiles from all over latin america and it's great to talk to you i want to talk about cuba, columbia, venezuela so that's why i want to use my time effectively i only need a yes or no  

Will you commit to continue implementing the law until the regime opens a democraticye gain in cuba, yes or no? 

Forgive me because i didn't hear. 

Will you commit to continue to implement the Helms-Burton law until the Castro regime opens and democratic in Cuba? Yes or no. 

We are not taking any unilateral actions on cuba in advance of any consultations with congress and we have no plans. 

Is the way to continue to be implemented? 

We will always implement the law. 

It wasn't for 30 years up until the last administration. 

We will implement the law. 

Will you commit to consult with the cuban-american exile community before engaging in any type of economic or political speaking or any type of engagement with the cuban regime will you commit commit to engage with my community before you do? 

We will absolutely consult and engage with the Cuban Americans on anything having to do with Cuba. 

Thank you. With columbia two months ago the colombian media intercepted a dossier coming from cuba which outlines in detail how have and i was plotting to steal columbia's presidential election. Were you aware of this? 

I haven't seen this. 

Is coming from a reputable publication. Maybe you will want to see it. Inin one year, columbia eradicated a record of 130,000 taxpayers, 20 times the size of manhattan, ten times more than the administration in four years. Do you care with they are doing yto eradicate this evil? 

We do and we have to do more and also have to help colombians create alternative livelihoods for people so that they don't get into --- 

Let's go to nicaragua. Are you concerned that the opposition will participate in the upcoming presidential election without real guarantees that those are going to be free and fair? 

We have deep concerns about those and the ability to be free and fair. 

Will you consider the possibility of breaking diplomatic relations with nicaragua and the regime if that is the case? 

Well, we have -- 

Will you consider the possibility if they steal the election? 

We will always consider any possibility but our job and our business at the state department is to continue to find ways to engage countries. 

We havens lots of countries we are dealing with around the world that are doing things. 

But not nicaragua. You didn't answer. Venezuela, would you consider including venezuela on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism? 

If it meets the requirements of the law, yes. 

They engage with hezbollah -- iran. 

The time is expired. 

Yes. 

Can i have one more question? 

No, the gentle ladies time is expired. I now recognize -- 

Representative Spanberger: thank you mr. Chairman and mr. Secretary for joining us today. I look forward to working with you closely. I'd like to focus my questions on the public servants who serve the country at home and abroad. Looking out for their safety is absolutely critical. I will be following up with a number of questions but i'd like to run through a couple in the time thatbe we have. I'd like to ask about the mysterious and harmful attacks on u.s. personnel sometimes referred to as havana syndrome though they haven't been limited to occurring only in cuba. The lack of the coordinated approach has been the ability to receive medical care and management in the pieces of this issue. Well the administration and the department under your leadership set up a whole of government approach to make sure we are addressingng these attacks? Thank you mr. Secretary. If you could share as the government identified the perpetrator or the entities behind these attacks? 

Representative Malliatokis: Some type of negotiation. We are not happy happy with of the administration trying to bring whether it's democracy or humanev rights or ending the dual citizen. To try to spread this to the cuban people and also as you look to reenter the united nations security council, i would urge you if you could please use the leverage to try to help people suffering under human rights conditions around the globe. The fact that they were given a platform by the united nations, human rights council and i think that i would like to know some of your thoughts on the entry.

In New Filing, Plaintiffs In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Expedia, Hotels.com, Booking.com, Orbitz, Argue They Have "Constitutional Standing" & Previous Court Order Was "Mystifyingly Myopic"

DIEGO TRINIDAD v. EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, ORBITZ, LLC, BOOKING.COM B.V., BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. [1:19-cv-22629; Southern Florida District] Case dismissed with leave to amend on 16 November 2020.

Rivero Mestre (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez (plaintiff)
Akerman LLP (defendant- Expedia Group, Inc., Expedia, Inc.)
Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP (defendant- terminated 2/12/20))
Baker & McKenzie (defendant- Booking Holdings, Inc., Booking.com B.V.)

LINK To 48-Page Filing (3/4/21)
Excerpts:

In separate Motions to Dismiss, defendants Booking Holdings Inc. and Booking.com B.V. (the “Booking defendants”2), and Expedia Group, Inc., Hotels.com L.P., Hotels.com GP, LLC, and Orbitz, LLC (the “Expedia defendants”3) (jointly, the “defendants”), demand dismissal of the Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages (D.E. 125) (“Am Comp.” or “complaint”), inter alia, for plaintiffs’ lack of so-called “constitutional standing” to bring their claim, on the notion that there is no causal connection between plaintiffs’ injury and defendants’ trafficking. See Expedia MTD at 5-9; Booking MTD at 12-15. This is a rank mischaracterization of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6021, et. seq. (“Title III” of “the Act”), not to mention Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The express language of Title III and the operative complaint make clear that plaintiffs’ injury in this case is not the Cuban government’s theft of their properties in Varadero, Cuba (the “Properties”).

In their motions, defendants admit that they trafficked in the Barceló Solymar and the Occidental Arenas Blancas (the “Trafficked Hotels”), which were built on the Properties.4 Expedia MTD at 1 (“Decades after the Cuban government allegedly confiscated the Properties, certain subsidiaries of defendant Expedia Group, Inc. (‘Expedia Group’) began to offer travelers the ability to secure reservations at the Resorts through web-based systems . . . .”); Booking MTD at 4 (“[T]he booking.com website only permitted reservations to be completed at the [Trafficked Hotels].”). Plaintiffs’ injury—indeed the sole focus of Title III and this action—is defendants’ trafficking (including benefitting from others’ trafficking) in the Properties, which these defendants have admitted.

In addition to an ill-conceived “constitutional standing” argument, defendants argue that the complaint fails to allege a prima facie case for “doing business” long-arm jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1), despite its easily proven allegations that defendants and their agents have offices in Florida with hundreds of employees, are registered to do business in Florida, are registered as sellers of travel in Florida, and do business in Florida every day of the year, including actively marketing the Trafficked Hotels to Florida residents (using, inter alia, emails sent to targeted Floridians to promote trafficking in the Trafficked Hotels and their locale), and enticing Florida residents to use their interactive websites, through which Floridians can—and do—reserve and pay for rooms at the Trafficked Hotels.

Defendants place unwarranted reliance on a dismissal order in Del Valle v. Trivago, 2020 WL 2733729 (S.D. Fla. May 26, 2020). That order was ill-founded and is under appeal for dismissing the action based on a mystifyingly myopic reading of the complaint’s jurisdiction allegations.6 The allegations here are materially different, far more detailed, and discovery already has confirmed that defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction.

MARIO ECHEVARRIA, ESTHER SANCHEZ, CONSUELO CUEVAS, AND CARMEN FLORIDO V. EXPEDIA, INC., TRIVAGO GMBLJ, A GERMAN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, BOOKING.COM B.V., A DUTCH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, GRUPO HOTELERO GRAN CARIBE, CORPORACION DE COMERCIO Y TURISMO INTERNACIONAL CUBANACAN S.A., GRUPO DE TURISMO GAVIOTA S.A., RAUL DOE 1-5, AND MARIELA ROE 1-5, [1:19-cv-22620; Southern Florida District]. Lawsuit dismissed with leave to amend on 16 November 2020.

Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Baker & McKenzie (defendant- Booking Holdings, Inc., Booking.com B.V.)
Scott Douglas & McConnico LLP (defendant- Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com GP, LLC, Hotels.com L.P., Orbitz, LLC)
Akerman LLP (defendant- Expedia, Inc., Hotels,com GP, LLC, Hotels.com L.P., Orbitz, LLC)

LINK To 49-Page Filing (3/4/21)
Excerpts:

In separate Motions to Dismiss, defendants Booking Holdings Inc. and Booking.com B.V. (the “Booking defendants”2), and Expedia Group, Inc., Hotels.com L.P., Hotels.com GP, LLC, and Orbitz, LLC (the “Expedia defendants”3) (jointly, the “defendants”), demand dismissal of the Amended Complaint for Damages (D.E. 116) (“Am Comp.” or “complaint”), inter alia, for plaintiffs’ lack of so-called “constitutional standing” to bring their claim, on the notion that there is no causal connection between plaintiffs’ injury and defendants’ trafficking. See Expedia MTD at 6-10; Booking MTD at 12-15. This is a rank mischaracterization of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6021, et. seq. (“Title III” of “the Act”), not to mention Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The express language of Title III and the operative complaint make clear that plaintiffs’ injury in this case is not the Cuban government’s theft of their property on Cayo Coco, Cuba (the “Property”).

In their motions, defendants admit that they trafficked in the Pullman Cayo Coco (the “Trafficked Hotel”), which was built on the Property.4 Expedia MTD at 1 (“More than fifty years after the Cuban government allegedly confiscated the Property, certain subsidiaries of defendant Expedia Group, Inc. . . . began to offer travelers the ability to secure reservations at the Pullman Cayo Coco through web-based systems . . . .”); Booking MTD at 4 (“[T]he booking.com website only permitted reservations to be completed at the Pullman Cayo Coco . . . .”). Plaintiffs’ injury—indeed the sole focus of Title III and this action—is defendants’ trafficking (including benefitting from others’ trafficking) in the Property, which these defendants have admitted.

In addition to an ill-conceived “constitutional standing” argument, defendants argue that the complaint fails to allege a prima facie case for “doing business” long-arm jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1), despite its easily proven allegations that defendants and their agents have offices in Florida with hundreds of employees, are registered to do business in Florida, are registered as sellers of travel in Florida, and do business in Florida every day of the year, including actively marketing the Trafficked Hotel to Florida residents (using, inter alia, emails sent to targeted Floridians to promote trafficking in the Trafficked Hotel and their locale), and enticing Florida residents to use their interactive websites, through which Floridians can—and do—reserve and pay for rooms at the Trafficked Hotel.

Defendants place unwarranted reliance on a dismissal order in Del Valle v. Trivago, 2020 WL 2733729 (S.D. Fla. May 26, 2020). That order was ill-founded and is under appeal for dismissing the action based on a mystifyingly myopic reading of the complaint’s jurisdiction allegations.6 The allegations here are materially different, far more detailed, and discovery already has confirmed that defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction.

The White House Addresses Cuba's Presence On The State Sponsors Of Terrorism List

The White House
Washington DC
9 March 2021

Media Briefing, Jennifer Psaki

Excerpt:

Q Jen, just a week -- actually, eight days, precisely, before the President entered the White House, the previous administration put Cuba back on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Does the President share this view?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve talked about this a little bit in here before and nothing has really changed, but I’m happy to reiterate our policy. Our policy, as it relates to Cuba, will be governed by two principles: First, support for democracy and human rights will be at the core of our efforts through empowering the Cuban people to determine their own futures. Second, Americans, especially Cuban Americans, are the best ambassadors for freedom and prosperity in Cuba. A Cuba policy shift is not currently among President Biden's top priorities, but we are committed to making human rights a core pillar of our U.S. policy, and we're committed to carefully reviewing policy decisions made in the prior administration, including the decision to designate Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.