New OFAC Guidance: "Can U.S. persons send remittances to Cuba using digital payments?" Answer: "Yes., provided..."

Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
United States Department of the Treasury
Washington DC

1090. Can U.S. persons send remittances to Cuba using digital payments?

Answer

Yes, provided the underlying remittance transactions are authorized under 31 CFR § 515.570 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) and the digital payment service provider is a U.S.-registered money transmitter or other qualifying banking institution within the definition of that term provided in 31 CFR § 515.314.

For purposes of this FAQ, “digital payments” means transfers of funds sent through mobile money, mobile wallets, digital bank accounts, credit/debit cards, online payments, or other digital technology. Pursuant to 31 CFR § 515.570 of the CACR, OFAC authorizes persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to make certain categories of remittances to persons in Cuba, subject to certain conditions (please see FAQ 732 for an overview of the types of remittances U.S. persons can send and applicable conditions and requirements).

Additionally, pursuant to 31 CFR § 515.572(a)(3) of the CACR, banking institutions, as defined in 31 CFR § 515.314, including U.S.-registered money transmitters, are authorized to provide services in connection with the collection, forwarding, or receipt of authorized remittances. Thus, digital payments service providers that fall within the definition of “banking institution” provided in 31 CFR § 515.314, including U.S.-registered money transmitters, can process authorized remittances to Cuba via digital payments.

A banking institution is expected to conduct a level of due diligence commensurate with its overall risk profile and internal compliance policies and procedures. However, as noted in FAQ 1057, banking institutions, including U.S-registered money transmitters within the context of § 515.572(a)(3), may rely on the statements of their customers that remittance transactions are authorized unless they know or have reason to know a transaction is not authorized. Section 515.572(a)(3) of the CACR does not authorize any transaction related to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving any entity or subentity identified on the State Department’s Cuba Restricted List (CRL).

Generally, OFAC’s general licenses are self-executing. This means that if U.S. persons assess that their transactions fall within the scope of the authorizations in 31 CFR § 515.570 and 31 CFR § 515.572, they may execute such transactions without further assurance from OFAC.

For transactions that do not fall within the scope of these authorizations, U.S. persons may apply for an OFAC specific license. For example, financial institutions that fall outside the scope of 31 CFR § 515.572(a)(3) that seek to provide remittance forwarding services would not qualify for the authorization and would require a specific license.

Consistent with U.S. foreign policy, OFAC will prioritize specific license applications seeking authorization to enable remittances to flow more freely to the Cuban people via digital payments. It is OFAC’s policy to deny specific license requests that involve transactions with CRL-listed entities for the purpose of collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances. Please see OFAC’s License Application Page for additional details regarding the specific licensing process.

Date Released: September 26, 2022

Florida Charter/Travel Company Sues Caribbean Airlines For Providing Services "With A U.S. Nexus" To Cubans Traveling To Guyana, Other Countries, Without License From The OFAC.

1:22-cv-23068-KMW Volando.US, Corp. v. Caribbean Airlines Limited
Kathleen M. Williams, presiding
Date filed: 09/23/2022

Summons Issued as to Caribbean Airlines Limited. (mee) (Entered: 09/23/2022)

Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Kathleen M. Williams. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Chris M. McAliley is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. (mee) (Entered: 09/23/2022)

COMPLAINT against Caribbean Airlines Limited. Filing fees $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-15972664, filed by Volando.US, Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s))(Fasano, Michael) (Entered: 09/23/2022)

Link To Complaint (9/23/22)

Michael S. Hoffman
Hoffman, Larin & Agnetti, P.A.
909 N. Miami Beach Blvd.
Suite 201
N. Miami Beach, FL 33162
305-653-5555
Fax: 305-940-0090
Email: mshoffman@hlalaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY; ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Christopher Fasano
Fasano Law Firm, PLLC
1000 Brickell Avenue
Suite 920
Miami, FL 33131
786-530-5239
Email: mfasano@fasanolawfirm.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Excerpts From Complaint

Volando is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Florida. Volando is a public charter operator and travel agency that (i) arranges charter air transportation services with U.S. and foreign airlines on behalf of individuals who are authorized to travel on public charter flights (the “customers”) and (ii) provides travel services (e.g., making reservations and issuing airline tickets) to such customers. Since 2003, Volando has entered into charter agreements with U.S. and foreign airlines, under which such airlines operate public charter flights between points in the United States and points in Cuba for customers who are licensed by OFAC to travel to, from, and within Cuba.

On September 16, 2021, OFAC issued License No. CU-2018-353672-3 to Volando (the “License”), authorizing Volando to arrange charter air transportation for Self-Reporting Cuban Nationals traveling between Havana, Cuba and Georgetown, Guyana. A true and accurate copy of the License is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 22. The License, which confers a valuable property right on Volando, authorizes Volando to: i. Charter aircraft for flights between Jose Marti International Airport (HAV) in Havana Cuba and an airport in a third country; ii. Receive assistance from U.S. travel agencies and Havanatur (a Cuba-based travel agency) in making reservations and issuing tickets on charter flights; iii. Provide travel services either directly to Cuban Nationals, or indirectly through U.S. persons on behalf of Cuban nationals, who must travel between Cuba and a third country in connection with applications for U.S. travel authorizations; iv. Make payments to the appropriate Cuban authorities for landing fees and ground services that are directly related to the charter flights; and v. Accept payment in U.S. currency and credit cards.

Defendant is a company organized and existing under the laws of Trinidad and Tobago with its principal place of business in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. Defendant operates direct flights to Miami International Airport, accepts United States-based credit card payments for its services, and offers its services through travel agencies and intermediaries located in or doing business in this Judicial District.

The Defendant foreign airline is unabashedly violating the CACR and infringing Volando’s property rights conferred in the OFAC specific license by providing air transportation with a U.S. nexus to Cuban Nationals between Havana, Cuba and Georgetown, Guyana. The impermissible U.S. nexus includes advertising these air transportation services through U.S. based social media sites, receiving airfare paid by U.S. persons on behalf of their relatives in Cuba (the Cuban Nationals), and/or receiving or accepting payments in US dollars or through U.S. bank-issued credit cards.

Upon information and belief, the Defendant is aware it needs a license like that obtained by Volando and has made attempts to obtain such as license without success. Nevertheless, it continues to (a) accept reservations from United States travel agencies, (b) made by U.S. relatives on behalf of their Cuban national family members, (c) accept payment in U.S. dollars or through U.S. bank-issued credit cards, (d) for flights it operates between Havana, Cuba and Georgetown, Guyana either directly or with a short stopover in Port of Spain, Trinidad – all in violation of the CACR. 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant continues to knowingly accept U.S. dollars from U.S. citizens and residents for the subject flights.

20th Anniversary Of U.S. Food & Agribusiness Exhibition. To Date Largest U.S. Contingent Of Representatives To Visit Cuba. US$91.9 Million In Contracts. Set Stage For Billions In U.S. Exports.

From Event Final Report

US$91.9 MILLION IN PURCHASES DURING U.S. FOOD & AGRIBUSINESS EXHIBITION- Approximately seventy companies located in twenty-one states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico signed contracts and agreements valued at approximately US$91.9 million (not including transportation costs) during and immediately following the U.S. Food & Agribusiness Exhibition at the Palacio de Convenciones de la Habana (Pabexpo) in the city of Havana, Republic of Cuba, held 26 September 2002 through 30 September 2002.  Approximately 44% (US$40.4 million) of the products are scheduled for delivery in 2002 and approximately 56% (US$51.4 million) of the products are scheduled for delivery from January 2003 through April 2003.  Approximately US$13 million, including a memorandum of understanding with the Kentucky Department of Agriculture for US$7 million (of which US$3 million has already been contracted), in additional contracts and agreements are expected to be completed by 1 November 2002; and the majority of the products will be for delivery from January 2003 through March 2003, but some of the products will have delivery throughout 2003.   

Value Of Contracts/Agreements Signed At U.S. Food & Agribusiness Exhibition
Total (For Delivery 2002)- US$40,463,999.00
Total (For Delivery 2003)- US$51,466,991.00
Total- US$91,970,990.00

U.S. FOOD, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT EXPORTS TO TOTAL 22% OF 2002 CUBA IMPORTS- Under provisions of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) of 2000, which re-authorized the direct commercial (on a cash basis only) export of food products and agricultural products from the United States to the Republic of Cuba, irrespective of purpose, Republic of Cuba-government-operated entities have, since December 2001, purchased the following U.S. Dollar values of food products and agricultural products, on a cash basis not including transportation costs: Approximately US$4.5 million (December 2001); Approximately US$125 million (January 2002 through September 2002) and approximately US$40 million (October 2002 through December 2002); and contracted for approximately US$50 million (January 2003 through March 2003).  Republic of Cuba government-operated Empresa Cubana Importadora de Alimentos (Alimport), under the auspice of the Ministry of Foreign Trade of the Republic of Cuba, has, for the period December 2002 through 25 September 2002, purchased approximately 712,000 metric tons of agricultural products and food products from United States-based companies, valued at approximately $130 million (not including transportation costs).  There have been more than fifty cargo vessel deliveries during the period December 2001 through September 2002.

FINAL REPORT FOR U.S. Food & Agribusiness Exhibition In PDF Format

Statistics: 2001 To President U.S. Agricultural Commodity And Food Product Exports To Cuba

Plaintiffs In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against China Wind Turbine Company: Court Has Jurisdiction. All Defendants clearly “kn[e]w of the [trafficking] scheme and assist[ed] it in some way,”

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)

LINKS

Plaintiff North American Sugar Industries Inc.’s Objections To Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report And Recommendation On Defendants’ Motions To Dismiss For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction (9/20/22) 

Plaintiff North American Sugar Industries Inc.’s Motion To File Under Seal Its Unredacted Objections To Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report And Recommendation On Defendants’ Motions To Dismiss For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction (9/20/22) 

Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Excerpts:

ARGUMENT: I. This Court Has Jurisdiction Over All Defendants Under The Florida LongArm Statute’s “Tortious Act” Prong II. This Court Has Jurisdiction Over DSV Under The Florida Long-Arm Statute’s “Business Activity” Prong III. The Exercise Of Jurisdiction Comports With Due Process IV. This Court Has Jurisdiction Based On Plaintiff’s Conspiracy Claim

Each of the Defendants directed activities into, otherwise targeted, and/or committed acts within Florida by analyzing, approving, and facilitating the Miami stops, without which there would be no Helms-Burton claim. All Defendants clearly “kn[e]w of the [trafficking] scheme and assist[ed] it in some way,” and are thus subject to jurisdiction based on Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim.

United Airlines Express (Mesa Airlines) Obtains Houston-Havana Flights; United Seeks Delay For Newark-Havana Flights; American Airlines, JetBlue Airways Gain Flights

UPDATE: WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - “The U.S. Transportation Department (USDOT) on Tuesday said it would allow Delta Air Lines (DAL.N) and United Airlines (UAL.O) to temporarily delay resuming flights to Cuba as they work to address logistical issues. United last month said it has been working for months to relaunch Havana service but faces hurdles, while Delta also said it was facing issues in reestablishing service. USDOT said it would require United to resume service no later than Dec. 1 and Delta no later than March 26.”

United Airlines: “Prior to its suspension of service due to COVID-19 pandemic, United operated at Terminal 2. United has previously worked successfully with the Cuban Embassy in Washington, D.C. on visa related matters; however, United must now obtain visas from the Camara de Comercio in Havana. This creates additional challenges as United does not have any in-country representative on a regular basis who can handle and manage visa applications to the Camara and would be immediately available to retrieve visas once they are issued.”

LINKS:
Motion Of United Airlines (USDOT) (9/21/22)
Notice Of Action Taken (USDOT)- American Airlines & JetBlue Airways (9/19/22)
Notice Of Action Taken (USDOT)- Mesa Airlines (9/16/22)
Order Partially Extending Temporary Waivers (USDOT) (9/2/22)

WASHINGTON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - United Airlines (UAL.O) said on Wednesday it is working to resume flights to Cuba later this year that it suspended in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Chicago-based U.S. airline said it has been working for months to relaunch service but faces hurdles. It asked the U.S. Transportation Department (USDOT) for a waiver for 30 additional days as it works to resume service.

United previously flew seven flights weekly to Havana from its Houston and Newark hubs. United said it needs to "undertake significant work including re-negotiating multiple contracts with service providers that have lapsed, building out necessary infrastructure in Terminal 3 at Havana’s airport where United is being relocated." United said given the challenges it is concerned it cannot resume flights by an Oct. 31 USDOT deadline.

On Monday, the Biden administration agreed to expand U.S. flights to Havana, adding 13 weekly American Airlines (AAL.O) departures from Miami and a weekly JetBlue Airways (JBLU.O) departure from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. That is on top of the typical six daily American Airlines flights and three JetBlue flights weekdays to Havana from the Florida airports.

In June, USDOT lifted a series of restrictions on flights to Cuba imposed under former President Donald Trump, including ending a prohibition on U.S. airline flights to smaller Cuban airports outside Havana. At the time, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the action was "in support of the Cuban people, and in the foreign policy interests of the United States." The Trump administration had barred passenger airline flights to smaller Cuban airports. In July, American Airlines received permission to resume service to some smaller Cuban airports. American sought approval for flights from Miami to Santa Clara, Holguin, Matanzas/Varadero and Santiago de Cuba.

Simple Flying
St. Laurent, Quebec, Canada
22 September 2022

This week, the DOT approved the application of American Airlines and JetBlue to increase their weekly number of commercial services between the United States and Cuba. Both companies are now able to offer up to 14 additional weekly flights to the Caribbean country.

By November, it is expected there will be up to 21 weekly flights between both countries, offered by four US carriers, American Airlines, JetBlue, United Airlines (pending the possible waiver), and Southwest.

American Airlines will fly from Miami International Airport to Camagüey (CMW), Havana (HAV), Holguín (HOG), Santiago de Cuba (SCU), Santa Clara (SNU), and Varadero (VRA), offering up to 84 weekly flights. JetBlue will fly to Havana from Fort Lauderdale (FLL) and New York (JFK) with up to 20 weekly flights. Southwest will fly to Havana from Fort Lauderdale and Tampa, with up to 29 weekly flights. United expects to operate 14 weekly services to Havana from Newark and Houston.

Compared to November 2017, there are 15.0% fewer flights scheduled from the United States to Cuba (although only 1.3% fewer seats are available). Using data from Cirium, there are ten routes still inactive and two carriers that have not announced their plans to resume connectivity to Cuba, these being Delta Air Lines and Alaska Airlines.

Iberostar Hoteles Of Spain Again Reports No Decision By European Commission As Company Seeks Authorization To Defend Itself In Cuba Lawsuit

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; 21-11906 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]

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

Links:
DEFENDANT’S STATUS REPORT (9/8/22)
Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics

After 27 Months, European Commission (EC) And Iberostar Hoteles Of Spain Efforts That Delay Libertad Act Court Proceedings Are Now Running On Fumes July 12, 2022

U.S. Department Of State Spokesperson Responds To Comments About Biden-Harris Administration Cuba Policy From Obama-Biden Administration Deputy National Security Advisor

United States Department of State
Washington DC
14 September 2022
Press Briefing With Ned Price, Spokesperson

QUESTION: Very quick question. Former National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes just accused the Biden administration of gaslighting Cuba.

QUESTION: That’s quite a promotion.

QUESTION: Huh? Deputy, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: He wasn’t.

QUESTION: He wasn’t. Okay, all right. Well, former Obama administration official Ben Rhodes accused the Biden administration of gaslighting Cuba. You’re maintaining the same harsh sanctions, the same harsh rhetoric, you’re not opening up. Could you explain that?

MR PRICE: Well, I’ll say a couple things. When it comes to Cuba, our policy has been predicated on the interests of the Cuban people, on the aspirations for greater freedom, greater democracy on the part of the Cuban people. It is true that this administration’s policy is not identical to the policy of the Obama-Biden administration. But it is also true that since 2017, five, six years have gone by. The Cuban regime in some ways has become even more repressive. We saw a stark reminder of that more than a year ago in July of 2021, when peaceful protests expressing aspirations for a brighter future were met with crackdowns and arrests and incarcerations across the island. That’s just one example of the repression that we’ve continued to see on the part of the Cuban regime.

We have taken steps that seek to serve the interests of the Cuban people. We have worked to restart travel and flights between the United States and Cuba. We have worked on programs that can unify and reunify families – separated in some cases by a mere 90 miles between Florida and Cuba – to bring families back together. We have increased our staffing at our embassy in Havana, in large part to provide additional consular support to process visas for, in many cases, this family reunification. And we’ve taken other steps that we think work and help to serve those interests and aspirations of the Cuban people.

LINK To Remarks By Mr. Rhodes: https://news.yahoo.com/former-top-obama-aide-accuses-biden-of-gaslighting-cuba-disappointed-doesnt-begin-to-scratch-the-surface-160058896.html

The White House
Washington DC
14 September 2022

From Yahoo: "White House national security spokesperson. “President Biden’s policy toward Cuba is rooted in supporting the Cuban people and protecting human rights. Our approach to Cuba, just like any other country, takes into account various current political, economic, and security factors,” the spokesperson said. “Over the past few years, conditions in Cuba and in the region have changed, and we have adapted our Cuba policy accordingly.”"

Seaboard Marine Cuba Lawsuit Dismissed. Issues Of Maps, Dates, Usage. Plaintiffs To 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals. Judges In Three Similar Cases Likely To Rule Same. More Appeals.

ODETTE BLANCO DE FERNANDEZ née BLANCO ROSELL, Plaintiff, v. SEABOARD MARINE, LTD., Defendant. [1:20-cv-25176; Southern Florida District].
Horr, Novak & Skipp, P.A. (plaintiff)
Law Offices of John S. Gaebe (plaintiff)
Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP (plaintiff)
Fields (plaintiff)
Barakat Law (plaintiff)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (defendant)

LINKS:
Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Appeal To Eleventh Circuit Court Of Appeals (9/6/22)
Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Appeal (9/1/22)
Final Judgment (8/22/22)
Order On Motion For Summary Judgment (8/19/22)
Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Excerpts From Ruling: 

First, Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant trafficked through the ZEDM is unsupported. 

Second, Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant trafficked in the Zone directly through its own conduct on the Container Terminal is also unsupported. 

Third, regarding the argument that Defendant trafficked in the Zone indirectly through TCM, the Court first notes that Plaintiff appears to set forth a new theory of liability based on TCM, which is not alleged in the Amended Complaint. 

As such, Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant trafficked in the Zone directly or indirectly through the ZEDM or TCM also does not provide a basis for relief for Plaintiff under the Act. 

E. Damages Given the Court’s determination that there is no evidence that Plaintiff owned the property in which Defendant purportedly trafficked, the Court need not reach the issue of damages. 

F. Lawful Travel Exception Given the Court’s determination that there is no evidence that Plaintiff owned the property in which Defendant purportedly trafficked, the Court need not address whether the lawful travel exception applies.

U.S. Agricultural Commodity, Food Product Exports To Cuba Increase 18.3% In July 2022; Decrease 6.2% Year-To-Year. Butter Among Products.

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
September 2022

July 2022 Ag/Food Exports To Cuba Increase 18.3%- 1
52nd Of 224 July 2022 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
Year-To-Year Exports Decrease 6.2%- 2
Cuba Ranked 54th Of U.S. Ag/Food Export Markets- 2
July 2022 Healthcare Product Exports US$974,025.00- 2
July 2022 Humanitarian Donations US$2,264,433.00- 3
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 16

JULY 2022 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA INCREASE 18.3%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in July 2022 were US$23,468,476.00 compared to US$19,832,195.00 in July 2021 and US$12,809,286.00 in July 2020.

January 2022 to July 2022 exports were US$167,653,569.00 compared to January 2021 to July 2021 exports of US$178,774,363.00. A decrease of 6.2%.

July 2022 Exports Included: Woodpulp; Olive Oil; Chicken Leg Quarters (Frozen); Chicken Meat (Frozen); Chicken Legs (Frozen); Coffee; Butter; Popcorn; Cocoa; Corn Chips; Vegetable Juices; Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Deodorants; Soap; Disinfectants; Insecticides.

This report contains information on exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba- products within the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000, Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992, and regulations implemented (1992 to present) for other products by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury and Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce.

The TSREEA re-authorized the direct commercial (on a cash basis) export of food products (including branded food products) and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba, irrespective of purpose. The TSREEA does not include healthcare products, which remain authorized and regulated by the CDA.

Click here for a list of agricultural commodities eligible for export to Cuba under Section 902(1) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000

Complete Report In PDF Format

Started With TripAdvisor Question. Inbound U.S. Travelers From 40 VWP Countries: If Visited Cuba After 12 January 2021, Not Eligible For ESTA To Enter U.S. Now Require Visa Says Embassy. Enforcement?

TripAdvisor
Needham, Massachusetts
24 August 2022

1. Re: ESTA and travel to USA after being to Cuba (Aug 24, 2022, 6:41 PM).  The official ESTA website says (if you type 'Cuba' into the 'help'): "How does Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism impact my travel to the United States using my approved ESTA?  Answer: If a traveler is found to have visited a country designated as State Sponsor of Terrorism, the traveler is no longer eligible to participate in the Visa Wavier Program and must apply for a visa to enter the United States."  Question: "When was Cuba designated a State Sponsor of Terrorism?  The United States Department of State most recently designated Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism on January 12, 2021."  Looks like Cuba was not designated as State Sponsor of Terrorism at the time you visited so looks like both sites agree.  https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g1-i10702-k14084200-ESTA_and_travel_to_USA_after_being_to_Cuba-Air_Travel.html 

Embassy of the United States
Paris, France

NOTICE and RESTRICTIONS: The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act) put new restrictions on the use of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for certain categories of travelers.  Under the 2015 Act, Visa Waiver Program nationals — including French nationals — who have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and/or Yemen since March 1, 2011 AND anyone who is a dual national of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria are ineligible to use ESTA. These restrictions apply to previous ESTA approvals and all current and future ESTA applications. VWP nationals (including French nationals) who have previously received ESTA approvals, but who meet one of these criteria, are no longer eligible to use ESTA.  Additionally, if you have traveled or resided in Cuba on or after January 12, 2021, please be advised that you will need a visa in order to travel to the U.S.  The law does not prohibit individuals in these categories from traveling to the United States, but a traveler not eligible for ESTA cannot be admitted into the country without a valid U.S. visa in his or her passport.  Visa Waiver Program and ESTA - U.S. Embassy & Consulates in France (usembassy.gov) 

There are currently 40 countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP): Andorra (1991), Australia (1996), Austria (1991), Belgium (1991), Brunei (1993), Chile (2014), Croatia (2021), Czech Republic (2008), Denmark (1991), Estonia (2008), Finland (1991), France (1989), Germany (1989), Greece (2010), Hungary (2008), Iceland (1991), Ireland (1995), Italy (1989), Japan (1988), Korea, Republic of (2008), Latvia (2008), Liechtenstein (1991), Lithuania (2008), Luxembourg (1991), Malta (2008), Monaco (1991), Netherlands (1989), New Zealand (1991), Norway (1991), Poland (2019), Portugal (1999), San Marino (1991), Singapore (1999), Slovakia (2008), Slovenia (1997), Spain (1991), Sweden (1989), Switzerland (1989), Taiwan (2012), United Kingdom** (1988).  NOTE: The citizens of the new countries of Curacao, Bonaire, St Eustatius, Saba and St Maarten (the former Netherlands Antilles) are not eligible to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program if they are applying for admission with passports from these countries. 

Travel requirements page for the United States on the United Kingdom (UK) Government website states: “You should be aware that if you have travelled to or have been in Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen on or after 1 March 2011, you are normally not eligible for an ESTA visa waiver and will need to apply for a US visa. You should also be aware that if you have travelled to or have been in Cuba, you may not be eligible for an ESTA visa waiver and may need to apply for a US visa. You should consult the US State Department website to determine which you will need.”

U.S. Customs And Border Protection CBP)
Washington DC
3 September 2022

SEARCH RESULTS 

When was Cuba designated a State Sponsor of Terrorism?  How does Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism impact my travel to the United States using my approved ESTA?  How does Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism impact my travel to the United States using my approved ESTA?  If a traveler is found to have visited a country designated as State Sponsor of Terrorism, the traveler is no longer eligible to participate in the Visa Wavier Program and must apply for a visa to enter the United States. 

United States Department of State
Washington DC
3 September 2022

Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section1754(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961). Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.  Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: Cuba (1/12/2021), the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (11/20/2017), Iran (1/19/1984), and Syria (12/29/1979).  

U.S. Customs And Border Protection CBP)
Washington DC
3 September 2022

What are the eligibility requirements for Visa Waiver Program (VWP) travel? Under the Act, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States, without a waiver, under the VWP:  Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions); and Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Iran, Syria, Iraq, North Korea or Sudan.  These restrictions do not apply to: VWP travelers whose presence in Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, or Yemen was to perform military service in the armed forces of a program country, or To carry out official duties as a full-time employee of the government of a program country.  https://help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1139?language=en_US 

Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is an automated system that determines the eligibility of visitors to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). Authorization via ESTA does not determine whether a traveler is admissible to the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers determine admissibility upon travelers’ arrival. The ESTA application collects biographic information and answers to VWP eligibility questions. ESTA applications may be submitted at any time prior to travel, though it is recommended that travelers apply as soon as they begin preparing travel plans or prior to purchasing airline tickets.

What is the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA)? To strengthen the security of travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, requirements to travel visa-free have been enhanced. Nationals of Visa Waiver Program countries will still be eligible to travel without a visa but will have to obtain an approved travel authorization prior to their travel to the United States.  The Department of Homeland Security and the United States Customs and Border Protection have provided a secure public Web site with an automated form for you, or a third party, to complete in order to apply for a travel authorization. Once you enter the required biographic, travel, and payment information on the secure Web site, your application is processed by the system to determine if you are eligible to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program without a visa. The system will provide you with an automated response, and prior to boarding, a carrier will electronically verify with the United States Customs and Border Protection that you have an approved travel authorization on file. 

The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is an automated system used to determine the eligibility of visitors to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and whether such travel poses any law enforcement or security risk.  ESTA approval authorizes a traveler to board a carrier for travel to the United States under the VWP. Private carriers must be a signatory visa waiver program carrier. See list of Signatory Carriers. CBP recommends that you apply for ESTA at the time you book your travel, but no less than 72 hours prior to boarding.  ESTA is not a visa. It does not meet the legal requirements to serve in lieu of a U.S. visa when a visa is required. Travelers that possess a valid U.S. visa may travel to the United States on that visa for the purpose it was issued. Travelers traveling on valid visas are not required to apply for an ESTA. In the same way that a valid visa does not guarantee admission to the United States, an approved ESTA is not a guarantee of admission to the United States. 

ESTA became mandatory January 12, 2009. VWP applicants are required to complete a blue Customs declaration upon arrival in the U.S. whether or not they have an ESTA authorization. VWP travelers are no longer required to complete the green I-94W card.  Approved ESTA applications are valid for a period of two years, or until the passport expires, whichever comes first, and multiple trips to the United States without the traveler having to re-apply for another ESTA. When traveling to the U.S. with the approved ESTA, you may only stay for up to 90 days at a time - and there should be a reasonable amount of time between visits so that the CBP Officer does not think you are trying to live here. There is no set requirement for how long you must wait between visits.  LINK To Official ETSA Application: https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/

Judge's Rulings Consolidate Libertad Act Lawsuits Against Four Cruise Lines Into One Lawsuit. Rulings About Complicated Calculations Of Damages Could Be Subject To Appeal Once Verdict Reached.

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. MSC CRUISES SA CO, AND MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. [1:19-cv-23588; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Venable (defendant)

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS, LTD. [1:19-cv-23591; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Hogan Lovells US LLP (defendant)

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. [1:19-cv-23590; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

Links:
Order On Defendants’ Motion To Consolidate Cases For Determination Of Damages (9/1/22)
Order On Defendants’ Motion To Confirm Interest Calculation Pursuant To 22 U.S.C. § 6082(A)(1)(B) (8/31/22)
Order On Defendants’ Motion To Confirm The Applicability Of The “One-Satisfaction Rule” (8/31/22)
Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Court Docket

09/01/2022- Civil Case Terminated. Closing Case. (jas) (Entered: 09/01/2022)

08/31/2022- 543 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES; granting 525 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, Carnival ECF No. 525, MSC Cruises ECF No. 374, Royal Caribbean ECF No. 297, Norwegian ECF No. 411, is GRANTED. These cases are CONSOLIDATED for trial on the issue of damages. The parties are directed to file their motions in limine, if any, in Case Number 19-cv-23591. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE case numbers 19-cv-21724, 19-cv-23588, and 19-cv-23590, for administrative purposes only. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 8/31/2022. See attached document for full details. (jas) (Entered: 09/01/2022)

08/31/2022- Cases associated. (nan) (Entered: 09/01/2022)

08/31/2022- 542 ORDER denying 524 Defendants' Motion to Confirm the Applicability of the "One-Satisfaction Rule." Signed by Judge Beth Bloom. See attached document for full details. (ak03) (Entered: 08/31/2022)

08/31/2022- 541 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 513 Defendants' Motion to Confirm Interest Calculation pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(B). Signed by Judge Beth Bloom. See attached document for full details. (ak03) (Entered: 08/31/2022) 

Excerpts from Rulings: 

“Defendants request that the Court consolidate these four cases for the determination of Plaintiff’s damages based upon the fact that these cases present common issues of law and fact with respect to the issue of damages. Defendants further assert that the joint resolution of the issues would conserve resources and avoid inconsistent results. In response, Plaintiff does not oppose a joint trial on damages provided that procedural safeguards are in place to mitigate prejudice to Plaintiff that may arise from trying the cases together. However, Plaintiff opposes the request to the extent that Defendants seek to obtain a judgment against them collectively. Upon review, the Court determines that consolidation of these cases for a determination of damages is appropriate. Plaintiff does not oppose the request for a joint trial on the issue of damages. Moreover, the Court has already addressed, and rejected, in its Order on Defendants’ Motion to Confirm the Applicability of the One-Satisfaction Rule, Defendants’ contention that there is one injury in this case, such that they would be entitled to a single collective judgment in this case, notwithstanding a joint trial.” 

“The Court previously determined that Defendants are liable under Title III of the Helms[1]Burton Act (“Title III”), and the only issue that remains for jury trial is the appropriate award of damages.” 

“Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount which is the greater of the certified claim, plus interest according to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A)(i)(I), or the fair market value of the property according to § 6082(a)(1)(A)(i)(III). The fair market value is “calculated as being either the current value of the property, or the value of the property when confiscated plus interest[.]” 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A)(i)(III). The parties do not intend to put forth evidence regarding the value of the property when confiscated, and therefore, the fair market value is to be calculated solely as the current value of the property.” 

“In the Motion, Defendants request that the Court confirm three aspects of the interest applicable in the calculation of damages: 1) the rate; 2) whether the interest will be simple or compounded; and 3) whether the interest is trebled. Plaintiff agrees with Defendants’ requests, although not their interpretation, and urges the Court to confirm the interest calculation. The requests require that the Court examine the precise language of the statute.” 

“Defendants assert that the Court should confirm how it will calculate the applicable interest because that calculation will determine which amount is the greater amount, and thus, will impact the parties’ presentation of evidence and potential settlement negotiations. Plaintiff asserts that, to present the jury with the damages sum in this case, the Court must compute the amount of interest to be added to the certified claim. However, the parties’ assertions assume that the necessary showing in this case is that the fair market value of the property is greater than the amount of the certified claim plus interest. For the reasons that follow, the Court clarifies, as a preliminary matter, that the necessary showing in this case is that the fair market value of the property is greater than the amount of the certified claim without interest.” 

“As such, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s interpretation is in accordance with the plain language of Title III, and concludes that the applicable rate of interest is the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield. However, contrary to Plaintiff’s suggestion that the Court should apply “effective rates”5 over the period between 1960 and 2019, the proper rate to be applied is the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield for each week over the period between the date of confiscation and the date Plaintiff brought each of these actions against each Defendant. Having resolved the applicable rate of interest, the Court turns to whether the interest is simple or compound.” 

“Defendants argue that because Title III is silent as to whether interest is simple or compound, that silence should be interpreted to require simple interest. Plaintiff responds that even if Title III is silent, compounding interest is proper nevertheless because it is the “norm” in federal litigation. Here again, the Court finds the plain language of Title III to be dispositive.” 

“Thus, if Congress had intended for interest under Title III to compound, it could have provided so by not limiting its incorporation of § 1961 to the “rate set forth in section 1961.” Therefore, interest under Title III does not compound. This conclusion is consistent with the general principle that “adoption by one statute of the specific provisions of another statute references the second statute as it existed at the time of the adoption, absent an expression to the contrary.” Carriers Container Council, Inc., 948 F.2d at 1225.” 

“Upon review, the Court agrees that the plain language of the statute applies the Trebling Provision to the claim and the interest. The Trebling Provision specifically refers to the “amount” determined to be applicable under paragraph (1)(A)(i). 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(3)(C)(ii).”

Cuba Invites Five-Member EEU To Use For Fifty Years A 123-Acre Site To Create Industrial Park. Nearest EEU Member Is 5,646 Miles From Cuba. Two EEU Members Under U.S. And EU Sanctions.

TeleSur
Caracas, Venezuela
2 September 2022

EEU Considers Creating Industrial Park in Cuba's Mariel
By Fernando Casado

Cuba has made a proposal to the UEE for the loan of a 50-hectare plot of land to create an industrial park.  The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) on Friday outlined the initiative, which has been under discussion by the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) and the executive body of the EEU bloc.  Cuba has proposed to the bloc the loan of a 50-hectare (123 acre) plot of land for 50 years to create an industrial park in the Mariel special economic zone. According to the EEU, there are prospects of extending the deeds.  The Director of the EEC's Integration Development Department, Goar Barsegyan, has considered the initiative "potentially attractive." Barsegyan said in a statement that this park would mean a greater opening of the Cuban market to companies from EEU nations, allowing them to enter other Latin American markets.  Such a deal will allow the EEU to set up manufacturing in the industrial park, make direct investments, and close deals handling general management of the facility by itself.  Cuba propone crear un parque industrial en su territorio, según la Comisión Económica Euroasiática.

Twitter: El parque estará en la zona especial "Mariel". La CEE dijo que su apertura hará más accesible el mercado cubano a empresas de la UEEA e ingresar a mercados latinoamericanos. — Fausto Félix (@FaustoCambio21) September 2, 2022  

According to the Eurasian Economic Commission, Cuba proposes to create an industrial park in its territory.  The park will be in the special area "Mariel." The EEC said its opening will make the Cuban market more accessible to EAEU companies and enter Latin American markets.  The director recognized that Russian and Belarusian companies, which "are traditionally represented" in the Mariel zone, have had a positive experience.  This "comprehensive mechanism for deepening trade and economic ties between the EEU countries and Cuba" will make it possible for interested companies from other countries of the bloc to work in the Cuban market actively, Barsegyan said.  Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia currently comprise the economic union, of which Cuba became a full observer in 2020.  

Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) http://www.eaeunion.org/?lang=en

“The Eurasian Economic Union is an international organization for regional economic integration. It has international legal personality and is established by the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union.  The EAEU provides for free movement of goods, services, capital and labor, pursues coordinated, harmonized and single policy in the sectors determined by the Treaty and international agreements within the Union.  The Member-States of the Eurasian Economic Union are the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation.  The Union is being created to comprehensively upgrade, raise the competitiveness of and cooperation between the national economies, and to promote stable development in order to raise the living standards of the nations of the Member-States.”

Wikipedia: “The Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union was signed on 29 May 2014 by the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, and came into force on 1 January 2015.  Treaties aiming for Armenia's and Kyrgyzstan's accession to the Eurasian Economic Union were signed on 9 October and 23 December 2014, respectively. Armenia's accession treaty came into force on 2 January 2015. Kyrgyzstan's accession treaty came into effect on 6 August 2015.  Moldova was granted Observer Status in April 2017.  Uzbekistan and Cuba became observer members on 11 December 2020.  After the presidential elections in December 2021, Uzbekistan is expected to obtain full membership by 2022 or 2023.”

American Airlines Thinking 13-1 Flight Schedule Decision Against Partner JetBlue Is Fair. JetBlue Feels Otherwise. Might U.S.-Cuba Arrangement Be Expanded? More Competition, Lower Airfares?

Dallas Business Journal
Dallas, Texas
2 September 2022

American Airlines, JetBlue fight over plans to expand service to Cuba
American Airlines wants to operate two additional daily flights between Miami and Havana, Cuba, but JetBlue is trying to throw a wrench into those plans.

By Holden Wilen- Staff Writer

American Airlines Group Inc. and JetBlue Airways Corp. have engaged in a public spat over routes to Cuba as both companies look to expand service to the Caribbean nation.

Fort Worth-based American filed a request with the U.S. Department of Transportation last month requesting the agency expedite approval of the carrier’s application to operate two additional daily flights between Miami and Havana, Cuba. If approved, American would operate 14 daily flights between Miami and six Cuban cities. But New York-based JetBlue has thrown a wrench into American’s plans, submitting an application of its own to operate one non-stop trip on Saturdays between Fort Lauderdale, Fla. and Havana. The Transportation Department set a limit of 20 daily round-trips to Havana, meaning the airlines have to compete for the available slots.

The standoff between American (Nasdaq: AAL) and JetBlue (Nasdaq: JBLU) comes as the two carriers prepare to defend a codeshare agreement for their Northeast Alliance in federal court next month. Some industry observers and insiders have doubts about the future of the partnership because of JetBlue’s pending acquisition of Spirit Airlines Inc. (NYSE: SAVE).

American already operates six daily flights to Havana and earlier this summer received approval to fly daily to five other Cuban cities. The company began pushing for the additional Havana flights in early 2020 after JetBlue forfeited some of its slots, but that request came before Covid-19 and the implementation of travel restrictions. JetBlue currently operates three flights each day between Fort Lauderdale and Havana, except on Saturdays when frequency limitations have relegated carriers to operate only one single flight. JetBlue proposes the additional Saturday flights begin service in December using 162-seat Airbus A320 aircraft.

In its request, American argued that the additional frequencies would “maximize public benefits by growing capacity at the gateway with the greatest demand for U.S.-Havana travel while enhancing connectivity using American’s leading network at Miami.” JetBlue argues that its request should be favored over American’s in order to promote competition. In addition to American’s six Miami-Havana flights, Delta Air Lines and Southwest Airlines operate a combined five flights between South Florida and Havana. “In these circumstances, there is no public interest rationale for awarding American additional frequencies while such competitive lopsidedness exists,” JetBlue said in its Aug. 22 letter to do the USDOT. “Of all U.S. carriers, low-fare JetBlue currently holds the authority to offer the fewest number of South Florida-Havana flights on Saturdays, one of the most important days of the week for Caribbean air travel.”

JetBlue also argued American’s application should be considered “stale and moot” and noted previous concerns the USDOT has raised about competition. The agency awarded American one additional Miami-Havana frequency in 2018 when it sought to expand service at the time. “DOT’s logic that American has too many Miami-Havana frequencies was compelling when American had four flights,” JetBlue said, “and is even more compelling now that American has six flights, is seeking to add a seventh and eighth flight, and now holds broad flexibility to downgauge all potential eight flights to small regional aircraft, an ability it did not have when DOT initially made its first Havana frequency awards.”

The Fort Worth-based carrier refuted JetBlue’s claims about wanting to use regional aircraft for flights to Cuba and said its proposed expansion of service will provide the most benefit to the public. American plans to operate the additional Saturday frequency with its 172-seat B-737 aircraft, according to an Aug. 31 letter to the USDOT. American took a shot at JetBlue, in mentioning it “has demonstrated its longstanding commitment to serving Havana by offering multiple daily frequencies, and never having returned such frequencies.”

“JetBlue rehashes its well-worn complaint about a so-called ‘competitive disadvantage’ that is of its own making,” American said in its letter. JetBlue operates the fewest flights between South Florida and Havana on Saturdays because it prioritized obtaining a Boston–Havana Saturday frequency and abandoned the 14 Havana frequencies in question, American said.

American proposed a possible compromise to the USDOT: award JetBlue the Saturday-only frequency and allow American to have the other 13 uncontested frequencies. In a statement to The Dallas Business Journal, JetBlue repeated many of the arguments from its application and said it “remains committed to providing our award-winning service and low fares on routes between” the U.S. and Cuba. The company did not comment on American’s proposal and said the conflict is unrelated to the Northeast Alliance. “An award of one additional Saturday-only frequency to JetBlue would introduce additional competition and help create a more competitive balance in the important South Florida-Havana market,” the company said in its statement. American did not respond to a request for comment.

LINK TO PREVIOUS POST

American Airlines Requests Additional Flights From U.S. To Cuba; Nearing Use Of All Authorized Allocations. Might Other Airlines Object? Re-Negotiate U.S. Arrangement With Cuba? August 16, 2022

As Expected, President Biden Extends Trading With The Enemy Act Provisions For Cuba

The White House
Washington DC
2 September 2022

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

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

Under section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223 (91 Stat. 1625; 50 U.S.C. 4305 note), and a previous determination on September 7, 2021 (86 FR 50831, September 10, 2021), the exercise of certain authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act is scheduled to expire on September 14, 2022.

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

Therefore, consistent with the authority vested in me by section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223, I continue for 1 year, until September 14, 2023, the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba, as implemented by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515.

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

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

UndervaluedShares.com Reports On Debt Recovery "Game-Changing Lawsuit" Filed In London Against Central Bank Of Cuba

UndervaluedShares.com
Isle of Sark, Channel Islands, United Kingdom
2 September 2022

Excerpts:

English law is the world's gold standard for commercial transactions, and English courts regularly become the venue for dealing with complex commercial matters. The Commercial Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in London is now hosting the probably single-most important legal case for resolving the remaining Cuban debt issues.

“Even within the colourful world of distressed debt investing, investing in ancient Cuban debt is truly exotic. It makes for the most fascinating reading. In early 2020, experts for distressed debt �led a lawsuit in London to force payment from the Cuban government. The move sent shock waves through the secretive world of investing in defaulted claims against Cuba. Never before had such a claim been brought to the English court system. How is this story going to unfold? Undervalued-Shares.com had a chance to analyse the court documents, and will put you in the picture. Not only that, a small number of you will also be able to become part of the Cuban debt story (spoiler alert: this article includes an exclusive offer!).”

LINK To Complete 13-Page Article In PDF Format

China Company, Other Defendants Escape (For Now) Libertad Act Lawsuit Due To Court Finding Lack Of Jurisdiction. "...conspiracy claim, even if viable, does not provide a basis to establish..."

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 Report And Recommendation (8/30/22)
Link To Motion Of BBC Chartering Singapore Pte Ltd. To Dismiss The First Amended Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction And Memorandum Of Law (12/6/21)
Link To Defendant DSV Air & Sea, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction And Memorandum Of Law (Including Exhibits A & B) (12/6/21)
Link To Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Excerpts From Report And Recommendation:

Plaintiff also alleges that the Court has specific personal jurisdiction over all Defendants pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(2). Id. at 9. As to the Goldwind Defendants, Plaintiff argues that they affirmatively approved the Jade’s and Moonstone’s stops in Miami; and actively participated in acquiring insurance and other documentation to facilitate the ships’ compliance with United States regulatory requirements. Id. at 10–11, 22–24. As to DSV US, Plaintiff argues that: DSV US “analyzed, agreed to, and facilitated the Miami stops”, as evidenced by its Miamibased employee, Carol Scheid’s (“Scheid”), participation in email correspondence regarding matters of customs compliance and Witkowski’s regulatory analysis of the Miami stops; and DSV US prepared, filed, and furnished customs forms for the ships bearing its Miami office’s address. Id. at 11–15. As to BBC Singapore, Plaintiff argues that it participated in securing legal approval of documentation for the ships, corresponded with Miami-based port agents about the Jade’s stop in Miami, and concealed the Moonstone’s stop in Cuba from McDermott and United States authorities. Id. at 15–19. As to BBC USA, Plaintiff argues that its employees reviewed and approved customs and port documentation for the ships’ stops in Miami; and engaged in discussions about logistics at the Property and concealment of the Moonstone’s stop in Cuba. Id. at 19–22. In sum, Plaintiff argues that, in undertaking these activities, Defendants committed tortious acts within Florida, thereby subjecting themselves to specific personal jurisdiction in this forum under the state’s long-arm statute’s tortious act prong. Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that BBC Singapore’s and Goldwind’s general contacts with the United States subject them to personal jurisdiction in the United States under Rule 4(k)(2); and that jurisdiction over all Defendants is otherwise proper via its conspiracy claim. Id. at 9, 18, 24. Conversely, Defendants contend that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them because they are non-resident defendants that did not take any actions in this forum with respect to the Jade and Moonstone shipments, including their stops in Miami. BBC USA argues that it “had no involvement at all” in the Jade voyage and “no involvement in the cargo on the Moonstone [that was] delivered to Cuba”. See BBC USA’s Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 197 at 6]. BBC Singapore argues that it “merely monitored the voyages after they left [China]” so that it could keep DSV Denmark apprised of their progress. See BBC Singapore’s Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 198 at 6–7]. DSV US argues that it was “not a carrier for or a party to either of the two shipments at issue” and “did not take any actions in Florida or direct any activity at Florida that was related in any way to Plaintiff’s claims”. See DSV US’ Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 201 at 7]. Finally, the Goldwind Defendants argue that they have no presence or contact with Florida, had no control over the decision to have the ships stop in the Port of Miami, and were otherwise uninvolved in the logistics of the Jade and Moonstone voyages. See Goldwind’s Post-Hearing Brief [D.E. 264 at 3–8].

Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to establish that this Court has personal jurisdiction over DSV US based on the Florida long-arm statute’s business activity prong.

Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that it need not have suffered an injury in Florida because Defendants committed a substantial aspect of the alleged tort in Florida, “meaning that those activities were essential to the success of the tort.” See Response [D.E. 218 at 82] (citing Williams Elec., 854 F.2d at 394). However, the record does not support a finding that “a substantial aspect of [the] Helms-Burton Act violation” occurred in Florida. Id. at 83. Rather, the record reflects that neither the Goldwind Defendants nor BBC USA engaged in any Florida-based activities with respect to the alleged trafficking violation, much less any that were “essential to the success of the tort”. Cf. Plaintiff’s Post-Hearing Brief [D.E. 260 at 9–11, 19–24]. As for BBC Singapore, its few communications with Port of Miami agents about the Jade’s stop in Miami do not amount to a “substantial aspect” of the alleged trafficking violation; nor can it be said that these communications were “essential to the success of” the alleged trafficking in Cuba. Id. at 15–19. With respect to DSV US, the record likewise establishes that Scheid’s sparse email activity from her office in Miami, coupled with DSV US’ instruction to furnish certain customs forms in Miami upon the ships’ arrival, do not amount to a “substantial aspect” of the alleged trafficking violation or constitute “activities that were essential to” its success. Id. at 11–15.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim, even if viable, does not provide a basis to establish this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

From Turkiye: Additional Karpowerships Would Help With Cuba's Electrical Issues. Problem: Who Will Pay? Turkiye Government To Provide Support? That's A Challenge.

HAVANA, Aug 31 (Reuters) - Cuba, mired in an energy crisis that has brought frequent blackouts, is negotiating with a Turkish company to have it double the megawatts it currently produces for the country from shipboard generators just offshore, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions.

Cuban officials are in talks with Karpowership, one of the world’s largest operators of floating power plants and part of the Turkey-based Karadeniz Holding, the sources said. The company already has five ships operating off Cuba with a capacity of around 250 megawatts (MW).

The Communist-run country needs to generate more than 3,000 MW to meet minimum demand and currently is producing between 2,000 MW and 2,500 MW. The Cuban National Electric Union did not respond to a request for comment. Karadeniz declined to comment. The sources, who asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the negotiations, said the talks centered on how to ensure lease payments from Cuba. "The (U.S. trade) embargo makes Western financial transactions very difficult and Cuba is cash short and behind on payments with many suppliers and joint venture partners,” one source said.

Experts say the Turkish company would need to add to its fleet off Cuba to produce the required amount of energy. Powerships carry their own generator fueled by oil or gas, anchor close to land and connect to the local electricity grid. They are leased by the host country. The deal, if it moves forward, would provide quick and much-needed relief for the embattled Cuban government as power outages have spread across the island and increased in length. Cuba is desperate for more electricity.

The energy crisis, with blackouts in 4 to 6-hour-blocks twice daily or more in most of the country, is perhaps the most painful symptom of a deeper financial crisis caused by external factors such as U.S. sanctions, the COVID-19 pandemic and poor economic management. Cubans are also living through food, medicine and fuel shortages, forcing them to wait in long lines for the basics. There have been scattered, small protests this summer and U.S. authorities registered a record of more than 175,000 Cubans at the U.S.-Mexican border since October, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency statistics.

Cuban power plants are obsolete, averaging 35 years of age, with a backup system of hundreds of smaller generators at least 15 years old. Just 5% of power comes from alternative energy sources. The government blames lack of funds for its inability to update its decrepit grid, and says breakdowns, not fuel shortages, are the main cause of blackouts. Energy and Mining Minister Livan Arronte Cruz said last week that the country hoped to all but eliminate blackouts by the end of the year, in part by adding “531 megawatts to generating capacity through new investments,” a figure reduced to 450 MW by President Miguel Diaz-Canel at the weekend.

Omar Ramirez Mendoza, deputy director of the state electricity monopoly, said on state-run TV that “240 MW {of the 450 MW} will come from mobile generation,” a euphemism used by officials to refer to the powerships and coinciding with the source accounts. The remainder of the new capacity would come from upgrading existing facilities with the help of foreign partners in the Moa nickel region in eastern Cuba and at the Mariel Special Development Zone just west of Havana, Ramirez said.

Jorge Pinon, Senior Research Fellow at The University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute specializing in the Latin American region, said he believed the powerships would provide the "mobile generation" referred to by Ramirez, but wondered how the extra capacity would be financed “as the Cubans do not have any money.”

LINKS To Related Analyses 

Turkey's Karpowership Delivering Fifth Electric Generation Vessel; More Than 15% Of Cuba's Current Electricity Usage. Company Won't Comment. Contracts Profitable. April 03, 2022

Turkey's Karpowership Adds Fourth Thermal Power Barge In Cuba. Company Generating More Than 10% Of Cuba's Electricity. Good For Turkish Companies. Reinforces Cuba's Energy Production Issues. November 25, 2021 

Karpowership From Turkey Extends And Expands Floating Electricity Generation In Cuba; Joining Turkey's Global Ports Holding Which Manages Cruise Ship Terminal In Havana. November 19, 2021 

Turkey's Karadeniz Holding May Add To “Karpowership” Fleet In Cuba. December 02, 2020 

Karadeniz Holding Of Turkey Update On "Karpowership" Operations In Cuba. March 09, 2020 

Karadeniz Of Turkey Delivering Floating Power Plant To Cuba For 51-Month Contract. April 23, 2019 

Turkey's Karadeniz Holding Reports Electricity Contract With Cuba In October 2018; But, No Contract Signed Five Months Later. April 01, 2019 

Karpowership Background 

“Karpowership is a member of Karadeniz Energy Group, Istanbul, Turkey. The group is a pioneer in innovative energy projects for the last 20 years, with investments in domestic and international markets. The group started its energy investments in 1996, and is the first private electricity exporter in Turkey. Today, the group owns and operates more than 4,350 MW installed capacity globally. 

Karpowership is the only owner, operator and builder of the first Powership (floating power plant) fleet in the world. Since 2010, 25 Powerships have been completed with total installed capacity exceeding 4,100 MW. Additional 4,400 MW of Powerships are either under construction or in the pipeline. 

Starting from the design, and ending with delivery of electricity, Karpowership fully executes all activities in-house including but not limited to construction, site preparation, commissioning, and fuel supply. Utilizing the highest technology, Karpowership provides fast-track delivery, high efficiency, and all integrated “plug&play” project execution. Via these capabilities, Karpowership is able to successfully undertake a variety of commercial structures such as short term IPPs (Independent Power Producer), long-term IPPs, PPAs (power purchase agreements), and rental contracts with its Powership fleet. 

Powerships supplied and have been supplying 60% of Gambia, 26% of Ghana, 100% of Guinea Bissau, 10% of Guinea, 25% of Lebanon, 10% of Mozambique, 15% of Senegal, 80% of Sierra Leone, 10% of Sudan, 10% of Cuba, 30% of North Sulawesi, Indonesia, 55% of East Nusa Teneggara, Indonesia, 80% of Ambon, Indonesia, 10% of Medan, Indonesia, and 16% of Zambia’s and 30% of Southern Iraq’s total electricity generation. 

As of today, Karpowership has more than 2,600 direct employees from 19 different nationalities, creates employment for additional 10,000 co-workers for the construction of the Powerships and is expanding through renewables, Powerships and other innovative energy supply solutions.”

Third Circuit Court Of Appeals Cuba Lawsuit: "Appellees’ wrongfully profiting from his usurped properties...Unjust enrichment." However, Plaintiff Inherited Property After Required Date.

ROBERT M. GLEN V. EXPEDIA GROUP, INC., EXPEDIA GROUP, INC., TRIP ADVISOR LLC, TRIP ADVISOR, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, TRIP NETWORK, INC. D/B/A CHEAPTICKETS, KAYAK SOFTWARE CORPORATION, BOOKING HOLDINGS, INC., HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, HOTELS.COM L.P., TRAVELSCAPE LLC D/B/A TRAVELOCITY [1:19-cv-01809; Delaware District]

Reid Collins & Tsai (plaintiff)
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. (plaintiff; law firm since closed; replaced by Andrews & Springer)
Ewusiak Law, P.A. (plaintiff)
Andrews & Springer (plaintiff)
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell (defendant- Booking Holdings & Kayak Software Corporation)
Baker & McKenzie (defendant- Booking Holdings & Kayak Software Corporation)
Scott Douglass & McConnico (defendant- Expedia, Inc.; Expedia Group, Inc.; Hotels.com, L.P.; Hotels.com GP, LLC; Travelscape LLC d/b/a/ Travelocity; Orbitz, LLC; Trip Network, Inc. d/b/a/ Cheap Tickets)
Potter Anderson & Corroon (defendant- TripAdvisor)
Ballard Spahr LLP (defendant- Expedia, Inc.; Expedia Group, Inc.; Hotels.com, L.P.; Hotels.com GP, LLC; Travelscape LLC d/b/a/ Travelocity; Orbitz, LLC; Trip Network, Inc. d/b/a/ Cheap Tickets)
Cooch & Taylor, P.A. (amicus)

ROBERT M. GLEN V. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., [1:19-cv-23994 Southern Florida District; 4:20-cv-00482-A Transferred To Northern Texas District; 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 20-10903; 15 December 2021- Seeking Review From United States Supreme Court [Denied 1/18/22]

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

ROBERT M. GLEN VS. TRIPADVISOR LLC, TRIPADVISOR, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, TRIP NETWORK, INC. D/B/A CHEAPTICKETS, KAYAK SOFTWARE CORPORATION, BOOKING HOLDINGS, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., EXPEDIA GROUP, INC., HOTELS.COM, L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, and TRAVELSCAPE LLC D/B/A TRAVELOCITY [2:19-cv-01683; Nevada District] On 16 December 2019, plaintiff requested dismissal without prejudice, which was granted; action consolidated with 1:19-cv-01809 in Delaware District  

Rice Reuther Sullivan & Carroll, LLC (plaintiff)
Reid Collins & Tsai LLP (plaintiff)
Andrews & Springer LLC (plaintiff)
Walden Macht & Haran (defendant- Trip Advisor)
Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP (defendant- Trip Advisor)
Scott Douglass McConnico (defendant- Expedia)
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (defendant- Booking)
Dubbin & Kravetz (amicus)
Baker McKenzie (defendant- Booking)
Ballard Spahr LLP (defendant- Expedia)
Morris James LLP (defendant- Booking)
Duane Morris LLP (defendant- Booking)
Cooch and Taylor, P.A. (amicus)

ROBERT M. GLEN V. EXPEDIA, INC.; EXPEDIA GROUP, INC.; HOTELS.COM, L.P.; AND HOTELS.COM GP, LLC [2:19-cv-01538; Washington Western District] 

Pacifica Law Group LLP (plaintiff)
Reid Collins & Tsai LLP (plaintiff)

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

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

CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellant Robert M Glen in District Court No. 1-19-cv-01809. (CLW) [Entered: 04/30/2021 03:38 PM]

ORDER (Clerk) The actions at Nos. 21-1842 & 21-1843 are hereby consolidated for purposes of scheduling, the filing of a single brief, reply brief, and joint appendix by the appellant and for disposition. The appellees are encouraged to consult with one another regarding the contents of their briefs as the Court disfavors repetitive briefs. The appellees may choose to file a consolidated brief or join in or adopt portions by reference. See Fed. R. App.P. 28(i). [21-1842, 21-1843] SEE DOCKET FOR FULL TEXT OF ORDER (CLW) [Entered: 04/30/2021 05:33 PM]

Appellees Booking Holdings Inc, Expedia Group Inc, Expedia Inc, Hotels.com GP LLC, Hotels.com LP, Kayak Software Corp, Orbitz LLC, Travelscape LLC, Trip Advisor Inc, Trip Advisor LLC and Trip Network LLC in 21-1842, and Appellees Mastercard Incorporated, Mastercard International Inc, Visa Inc, Visa International Service Association and Visa USA Inc in 21-1843 verbally granted an extension of time to file brief until 12/02/2021 pursuant to Third Cir. LAR 31.4. [21-1842, 21-1843] (CJG) [Entered: 11/02/2021 01:43 PM]

Excerpts From Opinion:

Appellant Robert Glen challenges the District Court’s dismissal of his claims against Visa, Mastercard, and several online travel agencies under the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

The Helms-Burton Act empowers United States nationals whose property has been confiscated by the Castro regime to recover damages from anyone who “traffics” in that property. § 6082(a)(1)(A). However, the Act limits eligible plaintiffs to those who “acquire[] ownership of the claim [to the confiscated property] before March 12, 1996.” § 6082(a)(4)(B). Glen contends that he satisfies this requirement because his aunt and mother acquired ownership in two beachfront properties prior to 1996 that the Castro regime eventually confiscated and developed into hotels. According to Glen, because he inherited those ownership interests upon the deaths of his aunt and mother in 1999 and 2011, respectively, he should also be the beneficiary of their acquisition dates.

Affirming the dismissal, the Fifth Circuit held that Glen actually did have Article III standing but agreed with the District Court that his acquisition date was the date of his inheritance, rendering him ineligible for relief under § 6082(a)(4)(B). Glen v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 7 F.4th 331, 336 (5th Cir. 2021). Glen then filed a petition for certiorari, which the United States Supreme Court denied. 142 S. Ct. 863 (2022).

In the meantime, in the underlying case here, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware also dismissed Glen’s case against Visa, Mastercard, and the travel agencies. In March 2021, before the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion, the District Court likewise ruled that Glen had standing, but that he acquired his ownership interests 4 upon inheriting them, i.e., after the statutory cut-off. Glen then filed this timely appeal.

Here, we agree with the Fifth Circuit that the harm Glen alleges—namely, Appellees’ wrongfully profiting from his usurped properties—“bears a close relationship to unjust enrichment, which has indisputable common-law roots.” Glen, 7 F.4th at 334. As our sister circuit observed, “[t]he Congressional findings of the Helms-Burton Act recognize as much, stating that the international judicial system ‘lacks fully effective remedies for the wrongful confiscation of property and for unjust enrichment from the use of wrongfully confiscated property.’”

On the merits, Glen contests the District Court’s interpretation of the HelmsBurton Act, but we do not reach his statutory arguments because the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes him from relitigating them here. Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, prohibits “parties from relitigating an issue that has already been actually litigated” when the following criteria are met: “(1) the issue sought to be precluded [is] the same as that involved in the prior action; (2) that issue [was] actually litigated; (3) it [was] determined by a final and valid judgment; and (4) the determination [was] essential to the prior judgment.”

Because Glen’s statutory argument is collaterally estopped, his claims under the Helms-Burton Act fail on the merits and must be dismissed. 

LINK To Opinion (8/18/22)
LINK To Judgement (8/18/22)
LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

American Airlines Requests Additional Flights From U.S. To Cuba; Nearing Use Of All Authorized Allocations. Might Other Airlines Object? Re-Negotiate U.S. Arrangement With Cuba?

American Airlines requests DOT for increased services between Miami and Cuba

AeroTime Hib
Vilnius, Lithuania
15 August 2022

American Airlines (A1G) (AAL) has submitted a request to the US Department of Transportation (DOT) for increased flight operations between Miami and Cuba. In a letter addressed to the DOT’s director Benjamin Taylor and division chief Brett Kruger uploaded on regulations.gov, the airline requested the department to “expeditiously grant” its pending application given on January 28, 2020.

American had requested the allocation of 14 roundtrip, weekly combination flights between Miami International Airport (MIA) to Havana Jose Marti International Airport (HAV). The airline said that the COVID-19 global pandemic began before the DOT was able to act on its request.

The airline now plans to initiate two additional daily nonstop MIA–HAV roundtrips, comprising 14 frequencies weekly, within 90 days of the frequency allocation. American Airlines (A1G) (AAL) mentioned that its request remains consistent with the US-Cuba Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed on February 16, 2016, pertaining to scheduled air transport services, which allows US carriers to operate up to 20 daily roundtrip frequencies for scheduled combination services to and from Havana.

Due to its geographical proximity, Miami has become a convenient location for Cubans to migrate. Plenty of Cuban families also send their children to Miami for education. In 2019, the Cuban-born population in Miami had exceeded 700,000.

LINK: American Airlines Allocation Request (11 August 2022)
LINK: 2016 U.S.-Cuba Civil Aviation Agreement