Despite Government Of Cuba Seeking US$1 Trillion In Reparations From The United States, It Opposed UN Resolution To Seek Reparations From Russia For Ukraine

Resolution 377A(V) authorizes the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to participate in matters of international peace and security when the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is unable to act due to unanimity among its five permanent members: People’s Republic of China, France, United Kingdom, United States, and Russian Federation, each of whom have a veto.  

On 14 November 2022, approximately fifty of the 193 UNGA member nations co-sponsored a resolution on establishing an international mechanism for compensation for damage, loss and injury, as well as a register to document evidence and claims against the Russian Federation.  The resolution stated that the Russian Federation “must bear the legal consequences of all its internationally wrongful acts, including making reparation for injury, including any damage, caused by such acts.” 

Ninety-four member voted in favor of the resolution.  Fourteen members voted against the resolution.  Seventy-three members abstained from voting on the resolution.  

Members who voted against the resolution: The Bahamas, Belarus, Central African Republic, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mali, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syrian Arab Republic, Zimbabwe 

LINK To Related Analysis: 

Cuba Wants US$1 Trillion In Reparations From United States. Claimants Seek US$1.9 Billion For Assets Expropriated After 1959 Revolution. Cuba's Court Filings Indicate Unwillingness To Pay Anything. April 29, 2022

U.S. Agricultural Commodities/Food Product Exports To Cuba In September Increased 88.2%; Remain Up 3.7% Year-To-Year. Cuba Is 55th Largest U.S. Ag/Food Export Market

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
November 2022

September 2022 Ag/Food Exports To Cuba Increase 88.2% - 1
47th Of 226 September 2022 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
Year-To-Year Exports Increase 3.7%%- 2
Cuba Ranked 55th Of U.S. Ag/Food Export Markets- 2
September 2022 Healthcare Product Exports US$1,660,273.00- 2
September 2022 Humanitarian Donations US$4,478,448.00- 3
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 16

SEPTEMBER 2022 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA INCREASE 88.2%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in September 2022 were US$38,167,679.00 compared to US$20,281,503.00 in September 2021 and US$16,117,329.00 in September 2020.

January 2022 through September 2022 exports were US$235,204,923.00 compared to January 2021 through September 2021 exports of US$226,712,431.00. An increase of 3.7%.

September 2022 Exports Included among other items: Chicken Leg Quarters (Frozen); Chicken Meat (Frozen); Chicken Legs (Frozen); Calcium Phosphate; Coffee; Cocoa (bulk); Corn Chips; Vegetable Juices; Beer; Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Deodorants; Soap; Dentifrices; Disinfectants.

Humanitarian Donations for the period January 2022 through September 2022 were US$16,619,425.00 compared to US$11,074,090.00 for calendar year 2021.

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

Carnival, MSC, Norwegian, Royal Caribbean Owe Libertad Act Plaintiff Attorneys US$10.7 Million In Fees And US$964,694.56 In Expenses. Defendants Damages Response: Not Entitled, Excessive; Will Appeal

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-21724; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Walker (defendant)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. MSC CRUISES SA CO, AND MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 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. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 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. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-23590; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

11/04/2022- 448- RESPONSE in Opposition re 444 Plaintiff's MOTION for Judgment Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment filed by Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd.. Replies due by 11/14/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Pegg, Allen) (Entered: 11/04/2022)
11/04/2022- 447- NOTICE by Havana Docks Corporation Joint Notice Regarding Plaintiff's Fees and Costs (Martinez, Roberto) (Entered: 11/04/2022)

LINK: JOINT NOTICE REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S FEES AND COSTS (11/4/22)
LINK: DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (11/4/22)
LINK: Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Excerpts From Joint Notice: 

Following a status conference held in this matter on September 21, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs by November 4, 2022. The parties agreed to confer pursuant to Local Rule 7.3 to attempt to reach agreement on the fees and costs to be awarded by the Court as part of the judgments in these cases. The parties have so conferred and reached an agreement as outlined below:  The attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to Havana Docks through September 30, 2022, are as follows, in each individual matter: • In Havana Docks Corporation v. Carnival Corporation, 19-cv-21724: $3,464,764.69 in attorney’s fees, and  $223,766.78 in costs; • In Havana Docks Corporation v. MSC Cruises S.A., et al., 19-cv-23588: $2,398,015.65 in fees, and $245,951.11 in costs; • In Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 19-cv-23590: $2,062,935.8 in fees, and $233,974.67 in costs; and • In Havana Docks Corporation v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd., 19-cv-23591: $2,817,073.61 in fees, and $261,002 in costs.  Plaintiff agrees to these sums for the fees and costs incurred up to and including September 30, 2022, and reserves its right to seek recovery of the fees and costs it has and will incur in litigating these cases after October 1, 2022, including through appellate and judgment enforcement proceedings. Defendants, in turn, reserve all rights to challenge any additional fees requested, and preserve all rights to challenge any award of fees should any part of the Court’s final judgment be reversed on appeal. 

Excerpts From Defendants’ Response: 

As outlined during the September 21st Status Conference (“Status Conference”) [ECF No. 438], Defendants maintain that no judgment should issue in Plaintiff’s favor,1 and further maintain that Defendants should be allowed to demonstrate that any damages in this case should be substantially less than the nearly $440 million Plaintiff seeks to recover (that is, less than the full amount of the certified claim plus interest, trebled, from each Defendant). 

Plaintiff has “elect[ed] to calculate its damages based on the amount of its certified claim, plus interest.” Mot. at 3. Thus, the Court must first determine what amount of the certified claim Plaintiff could recover before applying the applicable interest. According to Plaintiff, the amount of the certified claim is $9,179,700.88. Id. at 4. While the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (“FCSC”) did certify $9,179,700.88 to Plaintiff in 1960 as its “total” loss, that amount includes value allocated to “Securities,” “Accounts receivable,” and “Debt of the Cuban Government,” none of which Defendants trafficked in or have been found liable for trafficking in. The Court found Defendants liable for trafficking only in Plaintiff’s confiscated property—its Concession— therefore, Plaintiff could only ever recover the value of the Concession, which the FCSC certified the value to be $8,684,360.18.4 

To be clear, even this $8,684,360.18 amount wildly overstates the appropriate amount of liability, since it includes the value of two piers, railroad tracks, and other real and personal property that Defendants did not traffic in, and which Plaintiff did not actually own. Defendants preserve the argument that the FCSC’s valuation is not an appropriate measure of damages. In light of the Court’s ruling against this argument, however, Defendants argue here that even accepting the FCSC’s valuations, Defendants are not liable for trafficking in Accounts Receivable, Securities, and Debt of the Cuban Government, all of which were valued separately from the “Concession and tangible assets” in the FCSC’s Final Decision. 

To be clear, by this argument, Defendants are not challenging the validity of the findings of the FCSC either as to ownership or valuation.5 But that does not mean that Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment that includes the valuations of property interests in which Defendants never trafficked—and indeed, in which Plaintiff never alleged trafficking, and in which the Court did not find Defendants to have trafficked. 

For instance, if A, B, and C were hypothetically taken by the Castro government, then a claim holder could be entitled to compensation from the Castro Government for A, B, and C; but in the trafficking context, when a trafficker is only alleged to have trafficked in A but not B or C, it should not be that B and C can be part of the potential damages recoverable from the alleged trafficker just because it happened to be grouped in the same FCSC claim. Yet Plaintiff now seeks all of A, B, and C, in this case, though the Defendants were only found to have trafficked in A. 

Regardless of whether this measure of damages would be proportionate as applied to that original act of confiscation, it is plainly disproportionate in a case in which a defendant “trafficked” in confiscated property merely by making use of it for a limited period of time. This measure flouts the elementary due-process principle that a wrongdoer’s liability should be proportionate to its own culpability. 

In this case, Plaintiff seeks to recover $439,217,424.51—far in excess of the actual amounts paid to the port operator during Defendants’ use of the property, which was at best closer to $22 million (see Section III.A., infra), which means that the ratio between statutory and actual damages approaches 21:1. 

That measure would at least bear some relationship to a real-world concept: the amount a claimholder would have been able to charge if it still had an interest in (and right to exclude Defendants from) the confiscated property itself. 

Here, there is ample evidence of what Defendants paid to use the property, and it is far less than the $439,217,424.51 Plaintiff seeks. That amount is less than $22,118,335.86—the amount of money Defendants paid to Aries, the port operator during the time of the alleged trafficking, to use the Terminal. See Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Summary Judgment Motion Presentations, ECF No. 346-7 (Carnival paid Aries $2,605,429.34, NCL paid Aries $3,215,617.23, Royal Caribbean paid Aries $6,982,902.88, and MSC Cruises paid Mapor $9,314,386.41, only a portion of which were indirect payments to Aries23); 

Even if the Court were to consider the payments Defendants made to other entities at the port, such as “Mambisa (a State[1]owned company that acted as port agent for Carnival, Royal Caribbean and Norwegian) and MAPOR (a privately owned company that was port agent for MSC Cruises)” on top of those payments paid to Aries, Plaintiff could seek just over $30 million collectively across all four cruise[1]line Defendants, which is far less than the $440 million Plaintiff requests in its Motion 

Critically, the Due Process analysis has nothing to do with the revenues or profits Defendants earned from cruising, which has no relevance under either the statutory framework of Helms Burton or the Due Process Clause. After all, Title III does not contemplate disgorgement of profits; its treble-damage formula applies even if Defendants lost money in their cruises. And even if disgorgement of profits were available as a remedy, such relief would be considered punitive rather than compensatory relief (and thus would increase the proportion of a statutory penalty that does not constitute actual damages). 

Carnival paid $5,388,512.43 total to Aries and Mambisa compared to the $109,671,180.90 Plaintiff is requesting from Carnival; MSC Cruises paid $9,314,386.41 total to Aries and Mapor compared to the $109,848,747.87 Plaintiff is requesting from MSC Cruises; Norwegian paid $5,040,004.67 total to Aries and Mambisa compared to the $109,848,747.87 Plaintiff is requesting from Norwegian; and Royal Caribbean paid $10,566,532.88 total to Aries and Mambisa compared to the $109,848,747.87 Plaintiff is requesting from Royal Caribbean. Moreover, MSC Cruises respectfully maintains that the Court erred in ruling that “Cuba-to-Cuba” cruises operated by MSC Cruises—i.e., cruises that did not touch the United States—were properly alleged to be part of this case. When considering only those US to Cuba cruises that were actually alleged by Plaintiff, MSC Cruises paid at most $2,596,211.88 for the use of the Terminal (including port operation and other services, as discussed above) for US to Cuba cruises. 

To the extent the Court were to consider profits, MSC Cruises, for example, had negative profits and lost €6,391,000 on its U.S-Cuba cruises and lost €63,571,000 on its Cuba-to-Cuba cruises. As for Norwegian, Plaintiff’s proposed damages award of $110 million is more than five times Norwegian’s Havana-sailings profits. See ECF No. 221-29, at NCLH_23591-00581051. Indeed, in its three years of sailings to Cuba, Norwegian’s net profit even arguably associated with its days at port in Havana was just $25,139,622 – a figure dwarfed by Plaintiff’s requested $110 million in damages from Norwegian. 

As applied to the facts of this case, the grossly excessive character of the Act’s measure of damages independently violates due process. Plaintiff seeks $439,217,424.51 in statutory damages. In itself, that “is a shockingly large amount,” Golan, 930 F.3d at 962, when compared with any attempt to measure Plaintiff’s actual losses attributable to Defendants’ use (such as by comparing against a fair-market fee for using the Terminal). 

Even a use-value measure based on the price Defendants paid to access the Terminal dramatically overstates Plaintiff’s actual damages—and vastly understates the extent to which the award sought by Plaintiff is excessive. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s cases against the four cruise line Defendants for lack of standing. Alternatively, the Court should find that the damages Plaintiff seeks are unconstitutionally excessive or, at a minimum, reduce the underlying Claim amount by the value of the property interests in which Defendants were neither alleged nor found to have trafficked.

Now We Know: Libertad Act Lawsuit Seeks US$439,217,424.51 (US$109 Million Each) From Carnival, MSC, Norwegian, Royal Caribbean For Use Of Dock In Havana. Plus "Reasonable" Attorneys's Fees.

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-21724; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Walker (defendant)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. MSC CRUISES SA CO, AND MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 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. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 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. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-23590; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

11/01/2022- 446- PAPERLESS ORDER granting 445 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Enlarge Page Limit for Motion to Determine Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Plaintiff is permitted to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs not to exceed forty (40) pages. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom (ak03) (Entered: 11/01/2022)

11/01/2022- 445- Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion to Determine Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Havana Docks Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Martinez, Roberto) (Entered: 11/01/2022)

10/21/2022- 444- Plaintiff's MOTION for Judgment Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment by Havana Docks Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Kyle Garcia, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Final Judgments)(Martinez, Roberto) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

10/07/2022- 443- ORDER denying 434 Motion for Reconsideration re 434 Defendant's MOTION for Reconsideration re 428 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Carnival Corporation. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom See attached document for full details. (ak03) (Entered: 10/07/2022) 

LINK: PLAINTIFF HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE PAGE LIMIT FOR MOTION TO DETERMINE AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS (11/1/22)

LINK: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT (10/21/22)

LINK: ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF TWO ASPECTS OF COURT’S ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONFIRM INTEREST CALCULATION PURSUANT TO 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(B) (10/7/22)

Excerpts From Court Documents:

“With respect to Carnival, Havana Docks filed its initial complaint on May 2, 2019, resulting in pre-filing interest in the amount of $27,377,359.42.10 When added to the amount certified to Havana Docks by the FCSC—$9,179,700.88—it totals $36,557,060.30. As for MSC, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian, Havana Docks filed its initial complaint against each Defendant on August 27, 2019, resulting in pre-filing interest in the amount of $27,436,548.41. When added to the amount certified to Havana Docks by the FCSC, it totals $36,616,249.29 for each of the three Defendants. Havana Docks is further entitled to treble damages. Where a plaintiff “owns a claim with respect to that property which was certified by the FCSC,” § 6082(a)(3)(A), damages are the sum of (1) the plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorney fees and (2) “3 times the amount determined applicable under paragraph (1)(A)(i).” § 6082(a)(3)(C). In its order on Defendants’ motion to confirm interest calculation, the Court ruled that the amount referred to in “paragraph (1)(A)(i)” is “the claim and the interest.”11 The amount subject to trebling in the Carnival action is, therefore, $36,557,060.30, and in each of the MSC, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian actions it is $36,616,249.29. Thus, the total amount of liability in the Carnival action is $109,671,180.90 (plus costs and attorneys’ fees) and the total amount in each of the MSC, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian actions is $109,848,747.87 (plus costs and attorneys’ fees).

WHEREFORE, Havana Docks respectfully requests the entry final judgment in each action as follows: 1. Against Carnival Corporation, in case number 19-cv-21724, the amount of $109,671,180.90, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post[1]judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate and manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 2. Against MSC Cruises S.A., MSC Cruises USA, LLC, f/k/a MSC Cruises (USA) Inc., in case number 19-cv-23588, the amount of $109,848,747.87, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post-judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 3. Against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., in case number 19-cv-23590, the amount of $109,848,747.87, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post-judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate and manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 4. Against Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. in case number 19-cv[1]23591, the amount of $109,848,747.87, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, with post-judgment interest to accrue thereon at the rate and manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.”

“Upon Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Interest Calculation Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(B), the Court considered Defendants’ request to confirm how it will calculate the applicable interest in this case. See ECF No. [428] (“Interest Order”). The Interest Order confirmed the applicable interest rate, determined that the interest is simple rather than compounded, and analyzed how the Helms-Burton Act’s trebling provision applies. See id. In pertinent part, Defendants argued that the applicable interest rate should be a single rate from the calendar week preceding the date of judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). However, the Court already considered and rejected Defendants’ interpretation. Specifically, the Court determined that, according to the plain language of the Helms-Burton Act, the applicable rate of interest 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 case against each Defendant. Id. at 9. In the Motion, Defendants now urge the Court to reconsider its conclusion, arguing that the reasoning in the Interest Order supports the application of a single rate as of the week each Complaint was filed in these cases. Plaintiff opposes the request, arguing that Defendants raise an entirely new argument, and the Motion is therefore improper.1

However, Defendants fail to show any inconsistency in the Court’s rulings, and Defendants’ request amounts to nothing more than disagreement with the Court’s conclusion in the Interest Order. “[W]hen there is mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.” Roggio v. United States, No. 11- 22847-CIV, 2013 WL 11320226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “[i]t is an improper use of the motion to reconsider to ask the Court to rethink what the Court already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Z.K. Marine Inc., 808 F. Supp. at 1563 (citation and alterations omitted).”

Havana Club And Bacardi... Facing-Off In Back-To-Back Duty Free Displays At Berlin Brandenburg Airport.

On 27 October 2022, in two of the Duty Free retail stores in the Berlin Brandenburg Airport Willy Brandt located in Schönefeld, Germany, both feature robust displays of rum- those manufactured by Havana, Republic of Cuba-based Havana Club International and those manufactured by Hamilton, Bermuda-based Bacardi Limited.

In Controversial Decision, Biden-Harris Administration Directs (Indirectly) US$2 Million In U.S. Taxpayer Funds To Cuba For Hurricane Ian Support. Some Members Of Congress Irate.

United States Department of State
Washington DC
18 October 2022

U.S. Support for Hurricane Ian Recovery Efforts in Cuba
Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

”Following the devastating impact of Hurricane Ian, the United States is providing to the Cuban people critical humanitarian aid to trusted international partners working directly with Cubans whose communities were devastated by the storm. The United States, through the U.S. Agency for International Development, will provide $2 million in funding for emergency relief to those in need in Cuba. The United States will work with trusted, independent organizations operating in the country who have a long presence in hurricane-affected communities. We are currently reviewing applications from organizations such as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) to provide this assistance. We stand with the Cuban people as they work to recover from this disaster. The United States will continue to monitor and assess humanitarian needs in coordination with our trusted partners and the international community, and we will continue to seek ways to provide meaningful support to the Cuban people, consistent with U.S. laws and regulations.”

Bruno Rodriguez, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba, using Twitter: "We appreciate humanitarian assistance offer made by the US. This material contribution that is worth 2 million USD, channelled through the International Federation of Red Cross, will add up to our recovery efforts in support of the victims of the ravages caused by #HurricaneIan."

Chairs Meeks, Lee, McGovern Issue Statement Regarding the Biden Administration Providing Humanitarian Assistance to Cuba

Washington, D.C. (18 October 2022) – Today, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY), together with Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Chair of the Rules Committee James P. McGovern (D-MA), issued the following statement regarding the Biden Administration’s decision to provide humanitarian assistance to Cuba in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian: “We applaud the Biden Administration’s sound decision to provide $2 million in humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba as the country continues to grapple with the aftermath of Hurricane Ian. Providing U.S. assistance through international organizations to support vulnerable Cubans is both the right policy response and represents an important change from the previous Administration’s counterproductive actions. “We remain deeply concerned about the dire situation on the island, including ongoing power shortages and the lack of basic necessities for the Cuban people. The United States is the world’s leader in providing life-saving assistance to other countries following natural disasters, and today’s announcement helps to demonstrate to citizens within our own hemisphere that the U.S. remains ready and willing to help those in need. “As the Chairs of the relevant foreign policy Committees and Subcommittees, we fully support the Administration’s decision to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba, and we stand ready to assist in its immediate delivery.”

United States Department of State
Washington DC
19 October 2022
Briefing

QUESTION: There was an announcement yesterday of $2 million in aid. Can you just say whether this is a one off, whether there’s any direct contact with Cuban authorities on this, whether you see this in any way leading to a broader process?

MR PATEL: Sure. So this is – this was a result of direct engagement with the Cuban Government, and of course other stakeholders as well. I don’t want to get ahead of that process, but we stand with the Cuban people as they work through this and recover from this disaster. And we’ll continue to monitor and assess humanitarian needs in coordination with our trusted partners in the international community, and we’ll take additional steps if it deems necessary, but I don’t want to get ahead of – get ahead of that process.
QUESTION: You stand with the Cuban people, but you don’t stand with the Cuban Government; is that correct?
MR PATEL: Matt —
QUESTION: You stand with the Cuban people in trying to help – trying to help them recover from the hurricane damage, right, but —
MR PATEL: Of course.
QUESTION: — you specifically don’t stand with the Cuban Government and trying to help it restore the – restore normality after all of the damage that was caused by the hurricane. Is that —
MR PATEL: Well, the —
QUESTION: Is that a fair characterization?
MR PATEL: It’s – through this aid, we intend to work with trusted, independent organizations operating in the country who have a long presence working in hurricane-affected areas. And we’re currently reviewing applications for organizations, such as the International Federation of Red Cross and the IFRC, to provide assistance as well.
QUESTION: Right. But I mean the – but the point is, is the Cuban Government has asked for aid. You’re not giving money – and this is rather a small amount of money, $2 million; it’s not nothing, but it’s a small amount of money. And it’s going to the Red Cross, not going to the Cuban Government. And I’m not suggesting that it should be going to the Cuban Government, but I want to make sure that I understand that when you say that you stand with the Cuban people, you specifically mean that you’re not going to stand with the Cuban Government.
MR PATEL: We have directed this aid through this mechanism because we believe it is the best vehicle for delivery and the best vehicle for having direct impact on helping the Cuban people rebuild from this disaster.
QUESTION: Okay. Because you know that the Cubans, although they have thanked you for this small contribution, have also said in preparation for their annual vote at the General Assembly on condemning the embargo that they have lost $3.8 billion – minimum – because of the embargo. And so when you say that you’re standing with the Cuban people to help them recover from the hurricane, I just want to make sure that your – position of the U.S. Government is still the same, that you’re not standing with the Cuban Government to help it help the Cuban —
MR PATEL: That is —
QUESTION: — its people.
MR PATEL: That is correct. I am not intending to change U.S. policy.

Facing Extinction Like Javan Rhino? Non-U.S. Banks Engaging With U.S. And Non-U.S. Entities For Authorized Transactions Involving Cuba Due To Risk Of OFAC Penalties. Since 2015, Only Two U.S. Banks.

Facing Extinction Like The Javan Rhino?  Non-United States Financial Institutions Willing To Engage With U.S. And Non-U.S. Entities For Transactions Involving Cuba 

A CFO, “We Have A US$10,000.00 Transaction From The U.S. To Cuba And A US$10,000.00 From Cuba To U.S.  If We Make A Mistake, A Potential US$14.7 Million OFAC Penalty.  Should We Do It?  What, Am I Nuts?” 

Number Of Financial Institutions In The United States Processing Cuba-Related Transactions Remains Less Than Inspiring- And Harmful For Those Engaging In Authorized Transactions.  Since 2015, Two Financial Institutions Have Included Cuba   

An increasing number of financial institutions located in third countries are refusing to process transactions which include a sender located in the Republic of Cuba or a recipient located in the Republic of Cuba.   

This posture has metastasized despite the presentation by the sender or recipient of authorizations and opinions from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce, and Office of the Legal Adviser (OLA) at the United States Department of State.  Why?  

• The fear of the cost for an unintentional violation of OFAC transaction compliance regulations  

• The inclusion by the OFAC in violation settlement agreements with financial institutions and companies of both the value of the agreed upon financial settlement and the statutory maximum civil monetary penalty.   

Why is the value of the agreed upon financial settlement and the statutory maximum civil monetary penalty problematic?  Because the statutory maximum monetary penalties in four most recent Republic of Cuba-connected OFAC violations were 35, 89, 266, and 1,473 times the actual imposed monetary penalty.   

It is those multipliers which serves as a financial Sword of Damocles, a disincentive for an increasing number of financial institutions from willingness to engage with Republic of Cuba-related transactions regardless of assurances from the United States government.  For example:   

• The OFAC fined a United States-based company US$116,048.60 for a violation according to the OFAC “self-disclosed… and constituting a non-egregious case.”  According to the OFAC, the “statutory maximum civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is US$4,062,841.00.”      

• The OFAC fined a Switzerland-based company US$720,258.00 for a violation “self-disclosed… and constituting a non-egregious case.”  According to the OFAC, the “statutory maximum civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is US$64,062,841.00.”

• The OFAC fined a Monaco-based financial institution subsidiary of a France-based financial institution US$401,039.00 for a violation “self-disclosed… and constituting a non-egregious case.”  According to the OFAC, the “statutory maximum civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is US$106,853,346.00.” 

• The OFAC fined a United States-based company “that provides an online virtual currency exchange and hosted wallet services” US$24,280,829.20 for 116,421 apparent violations.  “The statutory maximum civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is US$35,773,364,108.57.  OFAC determined that the Apparent Violations were not voluntarily self-disclosed and were non-egregious.  Accordingly, under OFAC’s Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines (“Enforcement Guidelines”), the base civil monetary penalty amount applicable in this matter equals the applicable schedule amount, which is US$485,616,584.00.  The settlement amount of US$24,280,829.20 reflects OFAC’s consideration of the General Factors under the Enforcement Guidelines.” 

• The OFAC fined a United States-based financial institution US$30,000,000.00 for “facilitat[ing] 124 transactions processed by Bank A involving sanctioned parties or jurisdictions, totaling approximately $532,068,794.  The statutory maximum civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is $1,066,738,422.22.  OFAC determined that the Apparent Violations were voluntarily self-disclosed and that the Apparent Violations were egregious. Accordingly, under OFAC’s Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines (“Enforcement Guidelines”), 31 C.F.R. part 501, app. A, the base civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is one-half of the statutory maximum, which is $533,369,211. The settlement amount of $30,000,000 reflects OFAC’s consideration of the General Factors under the Enforcement Guidelines.”

What’s The Solution For Non-United States-Based Financial Institutions? 

For non-United States-based financial institutions, the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) would need to direct the OFAC reinstate what had been authorized prior to 2019 when the Trump-Pence Administration (2017-2021) reversed a 2015 decision of the Obama-Biden Administration (2009-2017).   

“U-turn” transactions were authorized by the OFAC for financial institutions to process United States Dollar transactions relating to the Republic of Cuba provided they originated and terminated outside the United States and neither the originator nor the beneficiary were persons subject to United States jurisdiction.  Thus, along with the absence of direct correspondent banking, there are two layers of impediments to sending, delivering, and settlement of fund transfers.  

What’s The Solution For United States-Based Financial Institutions? 

For non-United States-based financial institutions, the OFAC would also need to reinstate U-turn transactions along with authorizing Republic of Cuba government-operated financial institutions to have Correspondent Accounts with United States-based financial institutions. 

By United States law and by regulation, the implementation of Direct Correspondent Banking requires transparency by the participating United States-based financial institution and transparency by the non-United States-based financial institution.  Activity must comply with regulations of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the United States Department of the Treasury and provisions of the 2001 USA Patriot Act.  If the government of the Republic of Cuba accepts Direct Correspondent Banking, a result will be an increased transparency, accountability, and efficiency for financial institution operations within in the Republic of Cuba.   

In 2016, the OFAC authorized United States-based financial institutions to have correspondent accounts with Republic of Cuba government-operated financial institutions.  However, the OFAC did not authorize Republic of Cuba government-operated financial institutions to have correspondent accounts with United States-based financial institutions.   

Officials of the Obama-Biden Administration refused to provide an explanation as to the basis for their decision and to this day officials of the Biden-Harris Administration maintain that same silence.   

The result of their decision required all transactions authorized by United States laws (1992 Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) and 2000 Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA), regulations, and policies to travel to and from third countries.  The consequences have included inefficiency, increased cost, less transparency, and a financial windfall for financial institutions in third countries who receive a fee for every transaction.   

The TSREEA re-authorized the exports of agricultural commodities and food products on a cash-in-advance only basis.  TSREEA exports value since the first transaction in December 2001, exceed US$6.8 billion.  The CDA re-authorized exports of healthcare products (medical equipment, medical instruments, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals) with payment terms and financing authorized.  CDA exports value since 2003 exceeds US$30.5 million. 

For perspective, since 1992, the value of these third-country transactions exceeds US$7 billion- not including the value of annual electronically-delivered remittances- which have been estimated to range up to US$1 billion on an annual basis.  

U.S. Banks Doing What 

In 2015, Pompano Beach, Florida-based Stonegate Bank (2017 assets approximately US$2.9 billion) acquired accounts for the Embassy of the Republic of Cuba in Washington, DC, and the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cuba to the United Nations in New York after Buffalo, New York-based M&T Bank Corporation (2021 assets approximately US$150 billion) notified the embassy and mission that it would no longer provide services due to challenges with regulatory compliance for many accounts with embassies and missions.   

Stonegate Bank was also approved for a correspondent account at Banco Internacional de Comercia SA (BICSA), a member of Republic of Cuba government-operated Grupo Nuevo Banca SA, created by Corporate Charter No. 49 in 1993 and commenced operation in 1994.   

According to the Republic of Cuba, “Its [BICSA] main activity is ‘enterprises’ bank’ carried through its central services and five branches based in the country’s capital, Santiago de Cuba and Villa Clara. It records all transactions in real time providing its customers with card and remote banking services while it is working on developing other methods of electronic banking.  Its institutional clients, national or foreign, receive a complete accounting and documentary service, while national entities also enjoy of significant volumes of credit facilities. Practically all sectors of the economy benefit from all this, such as that of agriculture, the food industry, the basic and light industries, transportation, aviation, fishing, construction, domestic and foreign trade, the iron and steel industry, sugar, informatics, communications and others with not only economic importance but also social, such as health, water supply, education, culture and sports.  Credit policy followed by the Bank is dictated in a collegiate way by its Credit Committee on the basis of a strict analysis and control in loan making.  The Bank counts on correspondents in the five continents, the majority are first class banks, mainly Europeans and Americans.  Equity capital of shareholders (Grupo Nueva Banca with the biggest share and Bancholding), near the USD95 millions with a balance ranging from 550 to 600 millions, make sure the Bank has a strong solvency ratio.” 

Without explanation the Obama-Biden Administration did not authorize BICSA under a license from the OFAC to have a correspondent account at Stonegate Bank, so Stonegate Bank routed transactions for approximately eighty (80) customers on a regular basis through Panama City, Panama-based Multibank (2019 assets approximately US$5 billion) which had dealings with the Republic of Cuba. 

However, on 16 June 2020, Bogota, Colombia-based Grupo Aval (2021 assets approximately US$110 billion) reported that “On May 25th, Banco de Bogotá, through its subsidiary Leasing Bogotá S.A. Panamá, acquired 96.6% of the ordinary shares of Multi Financial Group [Multibank]. As part of the acquisition process, MFG’s operation in Cuba was closed and as part of the transaction. Grupo Aval complies with OFAC regulations and doesn't have transactional relationships with Cuba.” 

In 2017, Conway, Arkansas-based Home BancShares (2021 assets approximately US$18 billion) through its subsidiary Centennial Bank purchased Stonegate Bank.  Stonegate Bank operations were absorbed into Centennial Bank.   

In June 2022, Chicago, Illinois-based Chicago, Illinois-based First American Bank (2021 assets approximately US$6 billion) acquired from Centennial Bank an operating account (and Republic of Cuba-focused branch personnel) for the Embassy of the Republic of Cuba in Washington, DC.  First American Bank is seeking a correspondent account with BICSA and if BICSA is authorized by the OFAC to establish a correspondent account with First American Bank, there would be an opportunity for two-way fund transfers for authorized transactions (agricultural commodities, food products, healthcare products (medical equipment, medical instruments, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, informational materials, travel (visa processing, overflight fees, landing fees, accommodation payments- Airbnb, etc.), remittances, entrepreneurial activities (direct investment to and direct financing for privately-owned companies located in the Republic of Cuba, etc.).   

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT

Impact Of Hurricane Ian Upon Privately-Owned Tobacco Plantations In Cuba Opportunity For U.S.-Origin OFAC-Authorized Direct Investment And Direct Financing?

Impact Of Hurricane Ian Upon Privately-Owned Tobacco Plantations In Cuba Opportunity For U.S.-Origin OFAC-Authorized Direct Investment And Direct Financing? 

Will United States Department Of State “include section IV, chapter 24, heading 2401 (unmanufactured tobacco)” In List Of Goods And Services Eligible For Importation? 

Might this be a message to the Ministry of Agriculture, privately-owned co-operatives, and owners of privately-owned plantations located in Cuba? 

“The impact of Hurricane Ian upon Pinar del Rio, home to the finest tobacco plantations in Cuba, including those defined as privately-owned, may provide an opportunity for investment and financing to privately-owned tobacco growers.  In May 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration authorized direct investment in and direct financing to a privately-owned company located in Cuba owned by a Cuban national.  Hopefully soon the government of Cuba will publish investment/financing regulations so that opportunities may be evaluated and, if workable, return quickly investment and financing from the United States to independent tobacco growers in Cuba and eventually a return tobacco from Cuba to the United States marketplace.  Crucial for the investment/financing regulations to recognize distinctions between investment in and financing in private sector and investment in and financing to government-controlled entities.”  

One potential source for investment and financing?  From 1895 to 1962, Tampa, Florida-based J.C. Newman Cigar Company imported tobacco from the Republic of Cuba and retains custody of the last bale of pre-embargo tobacco imported from the Republic of Cuba.    

There are tobacco plantations (small, medium, and large) in the Republic of Cuba that were, prior to the 1959 Revolution, and have remained since, owned by families rather than the government of the Republic of Cuba.  They sell their crop to the government of the Republic of Cuba. 

Cigar Aficionado Magazine: “Estamos vivos”—we are alive—tobacco grower Hirochi Robaina told Cigar Aficionado this morning. He owns Cuba’s best-known tobacco farm, Cuchillas de Barbacoa, which was torn apart by the storm, damage that Robaina called “apocalyptic, a real disaster.” Photos of his farm showed considerable damage to buildings and barns, with tractors flipped over, roofs shorn from buildings, trees stripped of foliage and tobacco tarps shredded by the winds.  It was unlikely that Robaina or any of his neighbors had planted tobacco yet—the tobacco season typically begins later in the year, when the threat of storms diminishes. But regardless, the level of damage will be a setback to Cuba’s tobacco harvest. Tobacco cannot be properly harvested without barns.  

Reuters: When Hurricane Ian ripped through western Cuba last week, tobacco farmer Victoriano Maqueira lost the two large barns he used for drying his crop, as well as his dogs, chickens, a pig, his television and the roof off his home.  The deluge drenched his tobacco seeds, so he will not plant this year. But this was no time to sulk, the wiry 63-year-old told Reuters, as he tilled his fields with oxen to plant beans instead.  "I wanted to cry, to scream," he said, recalling the moment he saw the damage to his home and barns. "We're going to lose an entire year. But you need to keep moving forward."  Nearly all of its tobacco infrastructure - including drying houses - were flattened by the hurricane just days ahead of the October planting season. 

In 2016, the United States Department of State certified certain coffee plantations and charcoal sourcing areas in the Republic of Cuba as meeting the requirements- and those requirements continued to be maintained, without interruption, through the Obama-Biden Administration (2009-2017), Trump-Pence Administration (2017-2021), and thus far through the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ).  

United States Department of State- Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
Section 515.582 List- Goods and Services Eligible for Importation

“In accordance with the policy changes announced by the President on December 17, 2014, to further engage and empower the Cuban people, Section 515.582 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR Part 515 – the CACR) authorizes the importation into the United States of certain goods and services produced by independent Cuban entrepreneurs as determined by the State Department as set forth on the Section 515.582. The goods whose import is authorized by Section 515.582 are goods produced by independent Cuban entrepreneurs, as demonstrated by documentary evidence, that are imported into the United States, except for goods specified in the following sections/chapters of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS).”  

On 2 June 2021, Mr. Newman wrote to the United States Department of State requesting raw tobacco from the Republic of Cuba grown by “independent Cuban entrepreneurs” be eligible for import to the United States and specifically to “include section IV, chapter 24, heading 2401 (unmanufactured tobacco)” in the list of Goods and Services Eligible for Importation.  LINK To Letter   

On 10 May 2022, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury issued a license authorizing direct investment in and direct financing to a privately-owned company located in the Republic of Cuba owned by a Republic of Cuba national.  Presently, investment funds and dividends, and financing funds and interest/interest/principal payments must currently be transferred through financial institutions located in third countries.  

• Biden-Harris Administration Approves First Equity Investment Since 1960 In A Private Cuban Company May 10, 2022

• With U.S. Government Authorization For First Direct Equity Investment Into A Private Company In Cuba, Here Is Important Context And Details. About The Parties; About The Message. May 16, 2022

Related Analyses Links

Will Cuba Permit Limited Edition “Cuban-American” Hand-Rolled Cigars To Be Created In The United States From 100 Pounds Of Tobacco From Cuba? U.S. Company May Provide Grower Financing June 07, 2021 

J.C. Newman Cigar Co. Wants To Add Tobacco Leaves To Coffee & Charcoal As Authorized Imports From Cuba June 03, 2021 

Ag Delegations Traveling To Cuba Must Know What Is Possible, Advocate To Government Of Cuba To Permit All That Is Permissible- Direct Export Of Coffee, Cacao, Honey. Complaining Not Constructive. April 14, 2022 

Cuba Approves Additional MSMEs, Total Now 4,859. But, Still No Regulations For Delivering From Outside Cuba To MSMEs Direct Investment And Direct Financing. Why The Multi-Month Delay? October 07, 2022

Iberostar Hoteles Of Spain Makes Cat's Nine Lives Look Weak- Judge In Cuba Libertad Lawsuit Delaying Trial Three Times What A Cat Expects.

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)

Link To Defendant’s Status Report (10/7/22)
Link To Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

DEFENDANT’S STATUS REPORT: Defendant IBEROSTAR HOTELES Y APARTAMENTOS, S.L.U. (“Iberostar”) submits this status report pursuant to this Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings dated April 24, 2020 (D.E. 17), directing Defendant to submit status reports every 30 days on its request for authorization to the European Union Commission. Defendant states as follows: 1. Since the last update filed on September 8, 2022 , Iberostar continues to await a decision on its application for authorization to the European Commission to respond to the Complaint in this action which was filed with the European Commission on April 15, 2020 (the “Application”). Defendant’s Motion to Stay, ¶ 2. (D.E. 16).

Link To Related Analysis

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

Belarus And Cuba: Trucks, Harvesters, Loaders, Motorcycles, Tractors. Financing Always An Issue. Donations From India's Sonalika. Caterpillar, Deere Delivered US$1+ Million In Product Since 2017

MINSK, 3 October 2022 (BelTA)- Cuba has expressed interest in buying Amkodor loaders, BelTA learned from the company's press service.  Representatives of the Cuban delegation paid a visit to Amkodor. Possible cooperation between Cuba and Belarus was discussed. The Cuban delegation expressed interest in purchasing universal and forklift trucks of the Belarusian company.  The guests also got familiar with the production facilities and visited the company's permanent exhibition.  The public joint-stock company (OAO) Amkodor is the managing company of the holding company Amkodor. The original enterprise was established in 1927. Nowadays the company make over 130 models and modifications of the special-purpose and agricultural vehicles. The company consists of 29 legal entities, 22 plants, which produce more than 6,500 marketable products. The number of employees exceeds 7,000. All Amkodor enterprises are integrated into a single technological chain. Each member specializes in production of specific machines, units and assemblies for all enterprises of the company. Amkodor constantly develop new models of machinery and improve the existing ones. 

MINSK, 24 August 2021 (BelTA)- The Belarusian tractor manufacturer [Minsk Tractor Works] MTZ will ship 260 tractors to Cuba, BelTA learned from the MTZ's Telegram channel.  Lolitta Snitko, Deputy Head of the Marketing Center for Europe, America, and Africa, said: “We've managed to build a direct interaction scheme and rule out the risk of the deal's failure. A letter of credit has been received as part of one contract. The other [contracts] have been signed on terms of with 100% payments in advance. Some of the tractors will be made in August and some in September. If everything goes without faults, we intend to execute these contracts by the end of the next month.”  No MTZ tractors were sold to Cuba in 2020.  The Belarusian company MTZ (Minsk Tractor Works) is one of the world's largest manufacturers of agricultural machines. Apart from the main factory the holding company MTZ comprises ten enterprises. More than 20 assembly enterprises have been established abroad. MTZ products are represented in over 60 countries. 

LINK: Obstacles In Cuba For Caterpillar And John Deere Continue As Cuba Promotes Sale Of Tractors From Other Countries To Cuba Farmers May 12, 2021 

MINSK, 27 September 2018 (BelTA)- Cuba is interested in buying Belarusian agricultural machines and is getting ready to sign the contracts, representatives of the Applied Research Center for Agriculture Mechanization of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus told BelTA.  “We are genuinely interested in Belarusian products for Cuban agriculture. Your machines have worked successfully in complicated climatic conditions in Cuba for many years. It is time to take our relations to the next level. We would like to buy even more of the latest samples of industrial products,” said Jose Suarez Leon, Director General of the Agricultural Engineering Office of the Cuban Agriculture Ministry.  The Cuban delegation is staying in Belarus on 23-30 September. The Applied Research Center for Agriculture Mechanization of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus is the receiving organization. Signing a bilateral agreement on R&D cooperation is one of the items on the itinerary.  “The Cubans have shown a live interest in our applied research center. They've decided to borrow our organizational practices and assimilate them in the relevant organizations in Cuba,” noted representatives of the NASB Applied Research Center for Agriculture Mechanization.  The Cuban delegation visited the center's experimental manufacturing branch. The sides reached an agreement that a specialist of the enterprise will be sent to Cuba to prepare the delivery of a lineup of potato harvesters, machines for calibrating, polishing, and washing potatoes and packing them into sacks.  The Cuban delegation has also decided to buy everything necessary in Belarus in order to arrange a soil box just like the one used by the NASB Applied Research Center for Agriculture Mechanization for the sake of cheaply testing agricultural machines at any time of the year.  The Cuban delegation also visited some other branches of the NASB Applied Research Center for Agriculture Mechanization, including a hot zinc plating plant in Lida and the Zazerye facility with its biogas plant, a grain drying complex, and a dairy farm.  The Cuban delegation demonstrated interest in a lot of Belarusian industrial products ranging from Motovelo motorcycles to utility vehicles made by Amkodor, Gomselmash harvesters, MTZ tractors, and MAZ trucks. The delegation visits four to five enterprises in different cities every day, said the source. 

LINK: Cuba Will Require Long-Term Financing For Agricultural Equipment Purchases From Belarus September 27, 2018 

MINSK, 27 February 2018 (BelTA)- MTZ is mulling over the delivery of over 940 tractors to Cuba, Dmitry Schastny, the deputy marketing director of Minsk Tractor Works (MTZ trademark), head of the department for sales in non-CIS countries, said at an international conference of MTZ distribution network entities, BelTA has learned.  In 2017, Minsk Tractor Works delivered 150 tractors to Cuba. The loan to purchase the tractors was allocated by the Development Bank of Belarus in accordance with Decree No.523 to promote the export of goods (works, services). The decree helps MTZ as an exporter to supply equipment to the consumers and get payments. “As regards this transaction the MTZ received the payment instantaneously after the shipment of tractors,” Dmitry Schastny said. MTZ opened a representative office in Cuba and intends to continue to supply large quantities of equipment. Now, together with the Development Bank and Cuban counterparts the company is working on the possibility to supply 943 tractors. 

LINK: Competition From Donations And Long Term Government Financing Are Hurdles To John Deere And Caterpillar February 27, 2018 

HAVANA, 27 February 2018 (Granma)- Punjab, India-based Sonalika Group (2017 revenues approximately US$682 million) has donated sixty (60) small and medium-sized tractors (assembled in the Republic of Cuba) and farming equipment (including rotary and grass cutters, cultivators, trailers and replacement parts) valued at a combined US$5 million, to Republic of Cuba government-operated Gelma's Agricultural and Livestock Basic Enterprise Unit under the auspice of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Cuba.  According the the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Cuba, the tractors will be used with protected and semi-protected crops, specifically within in green houses and covered growing spaces. 

Caterpillar And Deere Presence In Cuba 

In 2017, Deere & Company (2021 revenues approximately US$44 billion) established a distribution center in the Republic of Cuba, joining San Juan, Puerto Rico-based RIMCO, the Republic of Cuba distributor for Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar Inc. (2021 revenues approximately US$51 billion) established the same year.  At the time, neither Deere & Company nor Caterpillar issued media releases or posted information on their respective Internet sites.  

Since November 2017, Deere & Company delivered more than US$800,000.00 in agricultural equipment to the Republic of Cuba for use at its distribution center. Antioch, Tennessee-based Wirtgen America, Inc., a subsidiary of Windhagen, Germany-based Wirtgen Group (2020 revenues approximately US$3 billion), a construction equipment machinery subsidiary (acquired in 2017) of Deere & Company has also delivered products to the Republic of Cuba.  RIMCO continues to deliver equipment for use at its distribution center in the Republic of Cuba, including excavators, backhoes, graders, scrapers, bulldozers, railway fixtures, and signaling equipment, valued at more than US$4 million since December 2018.  John Deere Financial Services was to provide payment terms/financing for the exports, primarily Series 5000 (price range US$25,000.00 to US$80,000.00) with a limited quantity of Series 7000 (price range US$219,000.00 to US$280,000.00).  According to the company, several hundred tractors, parts and accessories may be exported from the United States to the Republic of Cuba during the next four years, with the first deliveries (for testing and evaluation) scheduled for mid-November 2017.  The potential value of the several hundred products exported from the United States to the Republic of Cuba that would be financed could range from US$9 million to US$30 million.  John Deere Financial Services has not commented as to whether the product sales goals have been achieved or if there have been issues relating to the receipt of payments.  Caterpillar has not disclosed if the company has provided payment terms for its products exported to the Republic of Cuba. 

Maravana Cargo Reports New United States-Cuba Cargo Service

Havana, Republic of Cuba- Prensa Latina News Agency (7 October 2022):  By means of a contract, signed on the last day of the International Transport Fair, distances and delivery times to final customers of non-commercial merchandise originating in the northern nation and destined for the island will be shortened, particularly those sent by Cubans living there. 

The president of Maravana Cargo, Alejandro Martínez, explained that they are a company with only two years of creation that now focuses its possibilities in guaranteeing to clients in the United States the arrival of their shipments with the greatest security, with which it becomes a facilitator for the Cuban addressees. 

Aerovadero’s general director, Mayelin Gotera, told Prensa Latina that this type of contract allows them to expand their customer portfolio in all markets, based on the approval of door-to-door delivery of family cargo packages, particularly from the United States, which has grown significantly in recent years. 

Aerovadero assumes with this alliance, he said, the commitment and responsibility to make deliveries in the shortest possible time, as with other forwarders with which agreements were signed recently, with the assurance that each package will reach the recipient without damage, handling and in the shortest possible time, which is a way to gain credibility. 

He pointed out that they also approved the transportation by sea, but explained that the strength of Aerovaradero will continue to be the air, so that this alternative will be well regulated for very bulky cargo and with specifications. 

Gotera added that at this moment they are creating other strategic alliances to expand all the facilities, besides reducing the tariffs in correspondence with the reduction of the customs tariffs approved by the country, with the objective of benefiting the clients in view of the limitations and low availability of goods and products in the internal market.

U.S. Agricultural Commodity/Food Exports To Cuba Increased 6.2% In August 2022; Down 4.5% Year-To-Year. Exports Included US$70,053.00 In Sea Cucumbers. Donations Thus Far In 2022 Surpass Total 2021.

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
October 2022

August 2022 Ag/Food Exports To Cuba Increase 6.2%- 1
53rd Of 225 August 2022 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
Year-To-Year Exports Decrease 4.5%- 2
Cuba Ranked 56th Of U.S. Ag/Food Export Markets- 2
August 2022 Healthcare Product Exports US$879,628.00- 2
August 2022 Humanitarian Donations US$3,397,881.00- 3
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 16

AUGUST 2022 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA INCREASE 6.2%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in August 2022 were US$29,383,675.00 compared to US$27,656,565.00 in August 2021 and US$31,724,133.00 in August 2020.

January 2022 through August 2022 exports were US$197,037,244.00 compared to January 2021 through August 2021 exports of US$206,430,928.00. A decrease of 4.5%.

August 2022 Exports Included among other items: Sea Cucumbers; Cookies; Beans; Condiments; Vinegar; Soybeans; Chicken Leg Quarters (Frozen); Chicken Meat (Frozen); Chicken Legs (Frozen); Coffee; Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Deodorants; Soap; Disinfectants; Insecticides.

Humanitarian Donations for the period January 2022 through August 2022 were US$12,140,977.00 compared to US$11,074,090.00 for calendar year 2021.

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

Cuba Approves Additional MSMEs, Total Now 4,859. But, Still No Regulations For Delivering From Outside Cuba To MSMEs Direct Investment And Direct Financing. Why The Multi-Month Delay?

Ministerio de Economía y Planificación de Cuba @MEP_CUBA
Oct 6- El Ministerio de Economía y Planificación (MEP) aprobó hoy 102 solicitudes de creación de micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas privadas.

Ministerio de Economía y Planificación de Cuba @MEP_CUBA
Con esta decisión, suman 5360 los actores económicos aprobados desde que inició el proceso en septiembre de 2021. De ellos, 5251 son mipymes privadas, 51 mipymes estatales y 58 cooperativas no agropecuarias. 8:12 AM · Oct 6, 2022

On 6 October 2022, the Ministry of Economy and Planning (MEP) of the Republic of Cuba approved the registration of 101 micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). 52% are conversions of pre-existing registered businesses and 48% are new registrations.

During the last twelve months, approximately 4,859 registrations have been approved- 4,750 are privately-owned, 51 are Republic of Cuba government-operated, and 58 are cooperatives. According to the MEP, the 4,859 entities employ 82,836 Republic of Cuba nationals.

The government of the Republic of Cuba currently authorizes MSMEs in the following sectors, among others: accommodation, beauty services, manufacturing, information technology, logistics, and transportation. Thus are, MSMEs are prohibited in the following sectors: healthcare, telecommunications, energy, defense, and media.

In May 2022, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury issued a license authorizing direct investment in and direct financing to a privately-owned company located in the Republic of Cuba owned by a Republic of Cuba national.  Investment funds and dividends, and financing funds and interest/interest/principal payments must currently be transferred through financial institutions located in third countries.   

The government of the Republic of Cuba has not published regulations for the process by which privately-owned MSMEs may receive direct investment and direct financing from sources outside of the Republic of Cuba.

On 10 May 2022, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury issued a license authorizing direct investment in and direct financing to a privately-owned company located in the Republic of Cuba owned by a Republic of Cuba national.  Presently, investment funds and dividends, and financing funds and interest/interest/principal payments must currently be transferred through financial institutions located in third countries. 

• Biden-Harris Administration Approves First Equity Investment Since 1960 In A Private Cuban Company May 10, 2022

• With U.S. Government Authorization For First Direct Equity Investment Into A Private Company In Cuba, Here Is Important Context And Details.  About The Parties; About The Message. May 16, 2022 

Biden-Harris Administration Re-Engagement With Cuba’s Re-Emerging Private Sector Brings Urgency To Re-Authorization Of Direct Correspondent Banking, U-Turn Transactions. One-Way Does Not Work.

Biden-Harris Administration Decisions Since May 2022 To Re-Engage With Cuba’s Re-Emerging Private Sector Brings Urgency To Re-Authorization Of Direct Correspondent Banking, U-Turn Transactions.  

Policy Of One-Way Correspondent Accounts Does Not Work.  Never Has Worked. 

Financial Institutions Should Be Left To Determine Risk-Value For Implementation Rather Than OFAC.  Leave Decision To The Marketplace. 

In May 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) began a journey to connect its sixteen months of statements of support for the re-emerging private sector in the Republic of Cuba with policies and regulations.   

Some of the decisions adopted were new, some revised, and some reversals of decisions by the Trump-Pence Administration (2017-2021) which where themselves reversals of decisions by the Obama-Biden Administration (2009-2017). 

Mr. Ned Price, Spokesperson of the United States Department of State shared that the policies are designed to “support the Cuban people, providing them additional tools to pursue a life free from Cuban government oppression and to seek greater economic opportunities.” 

The Biden-Harris Administration decisions, thus far, focused upon providing connective and re-connective opportunities to the re-emerging private sector in the Republic of Cuba.   

Absent, however, remains the very necessary two-way financial payment infrastructure, direct correspondent accounts, required to implement practically, robustly those opportunities.  Some examples:   

• The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury issuing a license in May 2022 authorizing direct investment in and direct financing to a privately-owned company located in the Republic of Cuba owned by a Republic of Cuba national.  Investment funds and dividends, and financing funds and interest/interest/principal payments must currently be transferred through financial institutions located in third countries. 

• The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce issuing a license in September 2022 authorizing the direct export from the United States to the Republic of Cuba of electric motorcycles and electric scooters where purchasers are Republic of Cuba nationals and a privately-owned companies (micro, small, and medium-size enterprises (MSMEs)) located in the Republic of Cuba owned by a Republic of Cuba national.  Payments for the purchases must currently be transferred through financial institutions located in third countries. 

• Remittance delivery services operated by Denver, Colorado-based Western Union Company and other companies using authorized distribution channels in the Republic of Cuba not included in the Cuba Restricted List (CRL) maintained by the United States Department of State, require settlement through financial institutions located in third countries.  One potential channel is Republic of Cuba-based Orbit S.A.  LINK: Has Cuba Provided An Opportunity For Biden-Harris Administration To Renew Electronic Remittance Services? Orbit S.A. In Cuba Now Permitted To Engage. Can It Meet U.S. Conditions? A False-Flag? February 09, 2022   

• Prior to 2019, “U-turns” were authorized by the OFAC for financial institutions to process United States Dollar transactions relating to the Republic of Cuba provided they originated and terminated outside the United States and neither the originator nor the beneficiary were persons subject to United States jurisdiction.  Thus, along with the absence of direct correspondent banking, there are two layers of impediments to sending, delivering, and settlement of fund transfers. 

• The resumption of regularly-scheduled commercial flights from the United States to cities within the Republic of Cuba require air carriers to deliver payments to the Republic of Cuba for services provided while aircraft are disembarking and embarking passengers at airports.  Additionally, air carriers deliver overflight payments which are required by international agreements.  Absent overflight capabilities, a route will require an aircraft to extend flight duration, thus using additional fuel and causing additional pollution.  Payments must currently be transferred through financial institutions located in third countries. 

• The owner of a San Francisco, California-based Airbnb, Inc.-registered property in the Republic of Cuba will use a financial institution located in a third country to receive payment from a guest.  LINK: Airbnb Successfully Lobbied Trump Administration. Airbnb Should Now Focus On Biden Administration To Advocate For Direct Correspondent Banking So Hosts In Cuba May Access Funds Directly, Efficiently. April 06, 2022 

• When an individual subject to United States jurisdiction encounters a medical emergency, payments for hospitalization and evacuation may need to be transferred through financial institutions located in third countries. 

Thus, the remaining challenge to transition Biden-Harris Administration policies from aspirational to operational is to recreate a cost-efficient, timely, transparent, and secure mechanism to move directly funds from the United States to the Republic of Cuba and from the Republic of Cuba to the United States. 

The Current Transfer Landscape- Diminishing Options 

The OFAC authorizes United States-based financial institutions to have correspondent accounts with Republic of Cuba government-operated financial institutions, but prohibits Republic of Cuba government-operated financial institutions from correspondent accounts in the United States.  This creates an unnecessary United States government-imposed constriction where the decisions should be left to the marketplace to determine viability. 

For more than thirty years, transactions have been required to travel through third countries before delivery to the Republic of Cuba and before delivery to the United States.  For perspective, since December 2001 more than US$6.8 billion has been transferred from financial institutions in the Republic of Cuba through financial institutions located in third countries and then to financial institutions located in the United States as payment for purchases of agricultural commodities, food products, healthcare products (medical equipment, medical instruments, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals), and other authorized products (farm vehicles, turbines, etc.).  The US$6.8 billion does not include remittance funds (including cash deliveries using passengers on airlines, etc.), estimated at more than US$20 billion since December 2001. 

The issuance of the licenses in May 2022 and September 2022 by the OFAC and BIS will result in by design two-way transfers that are small in value but consistent in their delivery timetable- daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, bi-annually, and annually.   

Privately-owned companies located in the Republic of Cuba sending dividend (profit sharing) payments to the source (s) of direct investment and sending interest and principal payments for direct financing.  Republic of Cuba nationals and privately-owned companies located in the Republic of Cuba sending payment(s) for the purchase of an electric vehicle. 

For small value transactions involving MSMEs, the larger the transfer fee becomes as a percentage of the total transaction.  For transactions involving payments relating to investment and financing, these values might be in the hundreds of dollars- and transactions fees using third-country financial institutions, if one can be located, could be 25% or more of the total value of the funds being transferred.  

An increasing number of financial institutions located in third countries are refusing to process transactions which include a sender located in the Republic of Cuba or a recipient located in the Republic of Cuba.  This posture despite the presentation by the sender or recipient of authorizations from the OFAC, BIS and United States Department of State. 

Why? Because of 1) a fear of the cost for an unintentional violation of OFAC transaction compliance regulations and 2) the inclusion by the OFAC in violation settlement agreements with financial institutions and companies of both the value of the agreed upon financial settlement and the statutory maximum civil monetary penalty.   

The statutory maximum monetary penalties in four most recent Republic of Cuba-connected OFAC violations were 35, 89, 266, and 1,473 times the actual imposed monetary penalty.  It is those multipliers which serves as a financial Sword of Damocles, a disincentive for an increasing number of financial institutions from willingness to engage with Republic of Cuba-related transactions regardless of assurances from the United States government.  The potential penalty in one example was US$35.7 billion. For example:   

• The OFAC fined a United States-based company US$116,048.60 for a violation according to the OFAC “self-disclosed… and constituting a non-egregious case.”  According to the OFAC, the “statutory maximum civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is US$4,062,841.00.”      

• The OFAC fined a Switzerland-based company US$720,258.00 for a violation “self-disclosed… and constituting a non-egregious case.”  According to the OFAC, the “statutory maximum civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is US$64,062,841.00.” 

• The OFAC fined a Monaco-based financial institution subsidiary of a France-based financial institution US$401,039.00 for a violation “self-disclosed… and constituting a non-egregious case.”  According to the OFAC, the “statutory maximum civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is US$106,853,346.00.” 

• The OFAC fined a United States-based company “that provides an online virtual currency exchange and hosted wallet services” US$24,280,829.20 for 116,421 apparent violations.  “The statutory maximum civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is $35,773,364,108.57.  OFAC determined that the Apparent Violations were not voluntarily self-disclosed and were non-egregious.  Accordingly, under OFAC’s Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines (“Enforcement Guidelines”), the base civil monetary penalty amount applicable in this matter equals the applicable schedule amount, which is US$485,616,584.00.  The settlement amount of $24,280,829.20 reflects OFAC’s consideration of the General Factors under the Enforcement Guidelines.”

For the government of the Republic of Cuba, solely permitting one-way correspondent accounts provides another issue about which to complain, and justifiably so, rather than place the decision-making process within the Republic of Cuba. 

One-Way Correspondent Banking Does Not Work 

By United States law and by regulation, the implementation of Direct Correspondent Banking (DCB) requires transparency by the participating United States-based financial institution and transparency by the non-United States-based financial institution.  DCB activity must comply with regulations of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the United States Department of the Treasury and provisions of the 2001 USA Patriot Act.  If the Republic of Cuba accepts CDB, a result will be an increased transparency, accountability, and efficiency for financial institution operations within in the Republic of Cuba.  This benefits the [Miguel] Diaz-Canel Administration in the city of Havana and the Biden-Harris Administration in Washington DC.  

In 2015, Pompano Beach, Florida-based Stonegate Bank (2017 assets approximately US$2.9 billion) acquired accounts for the Embassy of the Republic of Cuba in Washington, DC, and the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cuba to the United Nations in New York after Buffalo, New York-based M&T Bank Corporation (2021 assets approximately US$150 billion) notified the embassy and mission that it would no longer provide services due to challenges with regulatory compliance for many accounts with embassies and missions.   

Stonegate Bank was also vetted by the OFAC and approved for a correspondent banking account at Banco Internacional de Comercia SA (BICSA), a member of Republic of Cuba government-operated Grupo Nuevo Banca SA, created by Corporate Charter No. 49 in 1993 and commenced operation in 1994.  Stonegate Bank also provided funds transfers for other types of OFAC-authorized and BIS-authorized transactions.     

According to the Republic of Cuba, “Its [BICSA] main activity is ‘enterprises’ bank’ carried through its central services and five branches based in the country’s capital, Santiago de Cuba and Villa Clara. It records all transactions in real time providing its customers with card and remote banking services while it is working on developing other methods of electronic banking.  Its institutional clients, national or foreign, receive a complete accounting and documentary service, while national entities also enjoy of significant volumes of credit facilities. Practically all sectors of the economy benefit from all this, such as that of agriculture, the food industry, the basic and light industries, transportation, aviation, fishing, construction, domestic and foreign trade, the iron and steel industry, sugar, informatics, communications and others with not only economic importance but also social, such as health, water supply, education, culture and sports.  Credit policy followed by the Bank is dictated in a collegiate way by its Credit Committee on the basis of a strict analysis and control in loan making.  The Bank counts on correspondents in the five continents, the majority are first class banks, mainly Europeans and Americans.  Equity capital of shareholders (Grupo Nueva Banca with the biggest share and Bancholding), near the USD95 millions with a balance ranging from 550 to 600 millions, make sure the Bank has a strong solvency ratio.” 

Without explanation the Obama Administration did not authorize BICSA under a license from the OFAC to have a correspondent account at Stonegate Bank, so Stonegate Bank routed transactions for approximately eighty (80) customers on a regular basis through Panama City, Panama-based Multibank (2019 assets approximately US$5 billion) which had dealings with the Republic of Cuba. 

However, on 16 June 2020, Bogota, Colombia-based Grupo Aval (2021 assets approximately US$110 billion) reported that “On May 25th, Banco de Bogotá, through its subsidiary Leasing Bogotá S.A. Panamá, acquired 96.6% of the ordinary shares of Multi Financial Group [Multibank]. As part of the acquisition process, MFG’s operation in Cuba was closed and as part of the transaction. Grupo Aval complies with OFAC regulations and doesn't have transactional relationships with Cuba.” 

In 2017, Conway, Arkansas-based Home BancShares (2021 assets approximately US$18 billion) through its subsidiary Centennial Bank purchased Stonegate Bank.  Stonegate Bank operations were absorbed into Centennial Bank.   

In June 2022, Chicago, Illinois-based First American Bank (2021 assets approximately US$5 billion) acquired from Centennial Bank the operating accounts (and Republic of Cuba-focused branch personnel) for the Embassy of the Republic of Cuba in Washington, DC.  First American Bank is seeking a correspondent account with BICSA and if BICSA is authorized by the OFAC to establish a correspondent account with First American Bank, there would be an opportunity for two-way fund transfers for authorized transactions (agricultural commodities, food products, healthcare products (medical equipment, medical instruments, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, informational materials, travel, remittances, entrepreneurial support, etc.).

Absent direct correspondent banking, authorized transactions from the Republic of Cuba to the United States and from the United States to the Republic of Cuba will remain multi-day rather than less than multi-hour and financial institutions in third countries will continue to earn unnecessary fees.   

For perspective, since the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) became effective in October 1992, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) became effective in October 2000, and the OFAC, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce, and the United States Department of State have authorized other transactions, payments for agricultural equipment, construction equipment, agricultural commodities, food products, medical equipment, medical instruments, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, healthcare products, and travel-related services (including airline landing fees, telecommunications, etc.) have been subject to a triangular process through financial institutions located in third countries and then to United States financial institutions.   

Direct correspondent banking far more benefits United States exporters than it does Republic of Cuba-based importers: less time for United States exporters to be paid and less cost to receive those payments. 

According to one senior-level executive of a New York, New York-based financial institution, "banks in other countries have been lottery winners since December 2001; I'm confident the Biden Administration appreciates that United States farmers should not have to give-up anything in order to export their products.  The Obama Administration could have, should have done something.  They didn't.  Now, the Biden Administration can right that wrong and authorize direct correspondent banking transactions."       

Enabling direct correspondent banking would be one immensely weighty decision by the Biden-Harris Administration as it would benefit authorized commercial transactions and compel Republic of Cuba government-operated financial institutions to be transparent and comply with United States regulations, resulting in greater confidence towards the Republic of Cuba and increased accountability by the Republic of Cuba. 

From OFAC Frequently Asked Questions 

742. Are financial institutions other than banks permitted to open correspondent accounts in Cuba?  Depository institutions, as defined in 31 CFR § 515.333, which include certain financial institutions other than banks, are permitted to open correspondent accounts at banks in Cuba. See 31 CFR § 515.584(a). Released on September 23, 2020  

743. Are Cuban banks permitted to open correspondent accounts at U.S. banks?  No. U.S. depository institutions are permitted to open correspondent accounts at Cuban banks located in Cuba and in third countries, and at foreign banks located in Cuba, but Cuban banks are not generally licensed to open such accounts at U.S. banks. See note to 31 CFR § 515.584(a). Released on November 8, 2017  

744. May correspondent accounts authorized pursuant to 31 CFR § 515.584(a) or used for transactions authorized by 31 CFR § 515.584(g) be established and maintained in U.S. dollars?  Yes. Correspondent accounts of depository institutions (as defined in 31 CFR § 515.333) at a financial institution that is a national of Cuba authorized pursuant to § 515.584(a) may be established and maintained in U.S. dollars. Such accounts may be used only for transactions that are authorized by or exempt from the CACR. Transactions necessary to establish and maintain such correspondent accounts —– such as originating, processing, and terminating authorized funds transfers in U.S. dollars —– are authorized.  Additionally, correspondent accounts used for transactions authorized by 31 CFR § 515.584(g), which permits banking institutions as defined in 31 CFR § 515.314(g) that are persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to accept, process, and give credit to U.S. dollar monetary instruments presented indirectly by a financial institution that is a national of Cuba, may be denominated in U.S. dollars.  However, financial institutions that are nationals of Cuba remain prohibited from opening correspondent accounts at a U.S. financial institution. For a complete description of what these general licenses authorize and the restrictions that apply, see 31 CFR § 515.584(a) and (g). § 515.584 Certain financial transactions involving Cuba. 

• Correspondent accounts. Depository institutions, as defined in § 515.333, are authorized to engage in all transactions necessary to establish and maintain correspondent accounts at a financial institution that is a national of Cuba, provided that such accounts are used only for transactions authorized pursuant to, or exempt from, this part.  

• (g) Any banking institution, as defined in § 515.314, that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction is authorized to accept, process, and give value to U.S. dollar monetary instruments presented for processing and payment by a banking institution located in a third country that is not a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction or a Cuban national and that has received the U.S. dollar monetary instruments from a financial institution that is a national of Cuba for which it maintains a correspondent account and which received the U.S. dollar monetary instruments in connection with an underlying transaction that is authorized, exempt, or otherwise not prohibited by this part, such as dollars spent in Cuba by authorized travelers or a third-country transaction that is not prohibited by this part.  Note to paragraph (g): Correspondent accounts used for transactions authorized pursuant to § 515.584(g) may be denominated in U.S. dollars. 

SWIFT Codes Usage 

A Direct Correspondent Banking Agreement would use La Hulpe, Belgium-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Telecommunication (SWIFT) to directly rather than through third parties transfer funds from one financial institution to another financial institution within minutes and at far lower cost for the sender and the recipient.  Swift Code is a standard format of Bank Identifier Code (BIC) and is a unique identification code for a specific bank used when transferring funds between banks, particularly for international wire transfers, and exchanging inter-bank communication.   

There are approximately 40,000 active Swift codes and approximately 50,000 additional codes used for manual transactions by passive participants.  The Swift Code consists of 8 or 11 characters. When 8-digits code is given, it refers to the primary office. The code is formatted as follows: AAAA BB CC DDD.  First 4 characters - bank code (only letters).  Next 2 characters – ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (only letters).  Next 2 characters - location code (letters and digits) (passive participant will have "1" in the second character).  Last 3 characters - branch code, optional ('XXX' for primary office) (letters and digits).

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT

Ten Months After Denial, Biden-Harris Administration Approves Exports Of Electric Motorcycles, Electric Scooters To Cuba Nationals And To Privately-Owned Companies In Cuba

Ten Months After Denial, Biden-Harris Administration Approves Exports Of Electric Motorcycles And Electric Scooters To Republic Of Cuba Nationals And To Privately-Owned Companies In The Republic Of Cuba 

On 28 September 2022, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce issued a license to Columbia, Maryland-based Premier Automotive Export, Ltd. (PAE) for the export of electric scooters and electric bicycles to Republic of Cuba nationals and to privately-owned companies in the Republic of Cuba owned by Republic of Cuba nationals.  The U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council assisted PAE during the process. 

This is the fourth (4) BIS license issued to PAE for the export of vehicles (gasoline and electric) to the Republic of Cuba, including for use by embassies.  The first BIS license was issued during the Obama-Biden Administration (2009-2017), the second BIS license was issued during the Trump-Pence Administration (2017-2021), and the third and fourth BIS licenses were issued during the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ).  Additionally, one related BIS license application is pending, and one related BIS license application remains on appeal. 

From the BIS: “There is a general policy of denial for exports and reexports to Cuba of items subject to the EAR, as described in Section 746.2(b) of the EAR. However, there are exceptions to the general policy of denial, some of which are listed below: … Items necessary for the environmental protection of U.S. and international air quality, waters and coastlines, including items related to renewable energy or energy efficiency, are generally approved.”  

• BIS License D1290656 (9/28/22-9/30/26)- Electric scooters and electric bicycles to individuals of Cuban descent and to Micro, Small and Medium-Size Enterprises (MSMEs) in the Republic of Cuba owned by Republic of Cuba nationals.  

• BIS License D1267261 (1/24/22-1/31/26)- Sales only to embassies.  Automobiles: Gasoline powered, Pickup trucks with ICE, Electric or Hybrid Engines. Options to include 4x4, 2 or 4 door cab. 

• BIS License D1166163 (7/3/19-7/31/23)- Sales only to embassies.  Forty-one (41) different parts for gasoline powered vehicles. 

• BIS License D1076571 (1/9/17-1/31/21)- To export Nissan Leaf electric vehicle and Clipper Creek level II 40-amp electric charger with J-1772 universal charging connector to embassy of Guyana in Havana, Republic of Cuba.  LINK   

• BIS License Exception (2017/2018)- Four (4) electric scooters.  A license exception is a general authorization to export or reexport certain items without a license under stated conditions.  Only the license exceptions, or portions thereof, listed Section 746.2(a)(1) of the EAR are available for Cuba…. Support for the Cuban People: License Exception Support for the Cuban People (SCP) “§ 740.21 Support for the Cuban People (SCP). (a) Introduction. This License Exception authorizes certain exports and reexports to Cuba that are intended to support the Cuban people by improving their living conditions and supporting independent economic activity; strengthening civil society in Cuba; and improving the free flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban people. (b) Improving living conditions and supporting independent economic activity.…. (1) Items for use by the Cuban private sector for private sector economic activities… (2) Items sold directly to individuals in Cuba for their personal use or their immediate family's personal use,” LINK 

In a press statement directed to Republic of Cuba nationals on 20 May 2021, The Honorable Antony Blinken, United States Secretary of State, expressed United States support for Republic of Cuba entrepreneurs: “The United States recommits to accompanying the Cuban people in your quest to determine your own future. We will support those improving the lives of families and workers, cuentapropistas who have forged their own economic paths, and all who are building a better Cuba – and a better tomorrow for themselves in Cuba.”  Secretary Blinken was reiterating the bipartisan conviction of the Obama-Biden Administration, Trump-Pence Administration, and Biden-Harris Administration that the United States should “support the development of private business and [the] operation of economic activity in the non-state sector by self-employed individuals,” as that language is codified at 31 CFR § 515.570(g)(3). 

State Department spokesperson Mr. Ned Price (3 December 2022): “The Biden Administration has clearly articulated the United States’ goal to accelerate and deploy electric vehicles and charging stations, create good-paying, union jobs, and enable a clean transportation future to combat climate change. However, the United States Embassy in Cuba does not operate any electric vehicles nor has any solar power charging stations at our Embassy compound or residences in Havana. At this time, it would be unlikely that the United States Embassy consider importing one or more electric vehicles for use in Cuba in the near future due to impediments in the electrical infrastructure and lack of trained mechanics on the island to service electric vehicles.”   

On 15 December 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration denied a BIS license application from PAE submitted on 30 September 2021 to export electric vehicles and chargers to republic of cuba nationals.  From the license application: “Specific End Use- Ordinary Cuban Nationals would be the specific End User and purchasing electric vehicle for their own personal transportation.”   

United States Department of Commerce- Bureau of Industry and Security
Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance- Foreign Policy Division
Washington DC
10 November 2021 

“The Department of Commerce intends to deny the application referenced above. We are taking this action pursuant to Section 1756(a)(2) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) and in accordance with Part 750.6(a) of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The Department of Commerce believes that denial of this application furthers the United States policy in Section 1752(1)(B) of the ECRA, “to restrict the export of items if necessary to further significantly the foreign policy of the United States.”  We have reviewed your license application to export electric vehicles to Empresa Logistica Palco for resale to the general population in Cuba. Interagency reviewers have determined that your proposed transaction would be detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests due to an unacceptable risk of diversion to unauthorized end uses and/or end users that primarily generate revenue for the state (including uses in the tourism industry).”   

“The attached application is rejected pursuant to Section 1756(a)(2) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), as amended, and paragraph 750.6 of the Export Administration Regulations. The U.S. Government has concluded that the export would be detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests. Please refer to the attached official intent to deny letter dated November 10, 2021 for details regarding this denial. If you wish to rebut the intent to deny, a work item has been sent via SNAP-R that will allow you provide a rebuttal.”   

United States Department of Commerce- Bureau of Industry and Security
Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance- Foreign Policy Division
Washington DC
15 December 2021 

“This application [500- Nissan Leaf Electric Vehicle value US$17,500,000.00] is denied pursuant to Section 1756(a)(2) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 and Section 750.6 of the Export Administration Regulations. The Department of Commerce, in consultation with other U.S. Government agencies, has concluded that this export would be detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests. Refer to the formal intent to deny letter for details regarding this denial.”  

Recent Administration Policy Changes Background And Issue With Payments 

The Biden-Harris Administration policies and regulations have, thus far, focused upon providing connective and re-connective opportunities to the re-emerging private sector in the Republic of Cuba.   

The remaining challenge to transition Biden-Harris Administration policies from aspirational to operational is recreating a cost-efficient, timely, transparent, and secure mechanism to move funds from the United States to the Republic of Cuba and from the Republic of Cuba to the United States through the authorization of direct correspondent banking. 

On 10 May 2022, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury issued a license authorizing direct investment in and direct financing to a privately-owned company located in the Republic of Cuba owned by a Republic of Cuba national.  Investment funds and dividends, and financing funds and interest/interest/principal payments must currently be transferred through financial institutions located in third countries. 

• Biden-Harris Administration Approves First Equity Investment Since 1960 In A Private Cuban Company May 10, 2022

• With U.S. Government Authorization For First Direct Equity Investment Into A Private Company In Cuba, Here Is Important Context And Details.  About The Parties; About The Message. May 16, 2022 

The issuance of the licenses in May 2022 and September 2022 by the OFAC and BIS will result in two-way transfers that are small in value but consistent.  Privately-owned companies located in the Republic of Cuba sending dividend (profit sharing) payments to the source (s) of direct investment and sending interest and principal payments for direct financing.  Republic of Cuba nationals and privately-owned companies located in the Republic of Cuba sending payment(s) for the purchase of an electric vehicle. 

From Mr. John Felder, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of PAE, “Essential for the OFAC to authorize direct correspondent banking so payments for electric vehicles may be transferred by citizens of Cuba with the least amount of cost, least amount of effort, least amount of time, most amount of security, and most amount of transparency.  Payments should not need to move through third-country banks.  Support two-way transactions rather than three-way transactions.”

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT 

PAE-Related Analyses Links 

BIS "Returned Without Action" License Application To Donate EV Chargers To U.S. Embassy In Havana Because "Ultimate Consignee" Cancelled Transaction March 07, 2022 

U.S. Department Of State Appoints "Chief Sustainability Officer"- Mandate Text Includes Focus On "Electrifying Fleet" And "Host Partners" Does This Mean EVs For Cuba? President Biden Supports?  February 10, 2022  

While Promoting EV Use In The United States, Biden-Harris Administration Refuses To Permit Exports Of EVs To Cuba For Use By Re-Emerging Private Sector- And U.S. Embassy In Havana Does Not Want One.  February 08, 2022  

Surprise Decision: Biden-Harris Administration Renews Trump-Pence Administration License To Export EVs To Embassies In Cuba. Company Offers To Donate EV Chargers To U.S. Embassy/Ambassador Residence  January 25, 2022   

President Biden Rejects BIS License Application To Export Electric Vehicles/Chargers To Cuba's Self-Employed, MSME's. Reversal Of "General Policy Of Approval." President Trump Authorized EV Exports.  December 20, 2021   

Beginning Today Residents Of Cuba May Purchase And Install Residential Solar Systems. Cost 55,000.00 Pesos (US$2,300.00). Call 7833-3333.  November 04, 2021   

Cuba Has Nickel And Cobalt. Vehicle Electric Batteries Use Nickel And Cobalt. Cuba Should Benefit.  September 25, 2021    

Cuba Owes Partner Canada's Sherritt International Corporation Tens Of Millions Of US Dollars. But, Both Cuba & Patient Company (And Shareholders) Anticipate Profitable Role With Electric Vehicles.  July 03, 2021  

Restriction On Sale Of Premium Gasoline May Benefit Electric Vehicles & Solar Panels; Embassies Concerned.  April 07, 2017   

Florida Company Receives License To Export Electric Vehicles To Cuba; Charging Stations From New Jersey-Based Company.  January 25, 2017

With Coffee Bean Sourcing In Cuba, No Cuba Mention Might Be U.S. Compliance Issue For Nestlé Nescafé Plan To "Drive Regenerative Ag, Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Improve Farmers’ Livelihoods"

Nestle Nespresso is a subsidiary of Vevey, Switzerland-based Nestle SA (2021 revenues approximately US$94.5 billion).  The company has a representative office in the city of Havana, Republic of Cuba.  Since the 1990’s, Nestle SA has been involved with Republic of Cuba government-operated companies to develop the confection industry; and has investments in mineral water production and beverage production; and imports products for sale at retail stores. LINK To Nestlé invests in Cuba to benefit the local food industry (28 November 2017) 

LINK: Nestlé launches NESCAFÉ Plan 2030 to help drive regenerative agriculture, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve farmers’ livelihoods (4 October 2022) 

LINK: Our Sustainability Journey- Ten Years Of The Nescafe Plan (4 October 2022) 

NOTE: Currently, Nestle Nespresso Republic of Cuba-sourced Vertuo “Cafecito de Cuba” is not available for purchase at Nespresso retail outlets; only available online. 

20 June 2016: New York, New York- Nestle Nespresso, the worldwide pioneer and reference in premium single-serve coffee, announced today it will bring back Cuban coffee to the United States for the first time in more than 50 years. Recent regulatory changes in the United States have allowed Nespresso to move forward with its plans, which include making the new Cuban Nespresso Grand Cru, Cafecito de Cuba, available in the United States in the fall of 2016, initially as a limited edition. Over the long term, Nespresso and its partner TechnoServe, a nonprofit development organization, will explore how to work with smallholder coffee farmers in Cuba with the goal ultimately being to support farmers in their production of sustainable coffee and contribute to expanded economic opportunities for them in the long-term. 

For more than two centuries, Cuba has produced some of the greatest Arabica coffee in the world. With fertile soil and ideal climate conditions, the country offers an excellent coffee growing environment. Nespresso is purchasing Arabica coffee this year that has been produced by Cuban farmers, and aims to continue purchasing it in the coming years. “At Nespresso, we always aim to delight consumers through exclusive, unique coffee experiences,” said Guillaume Le Cunff, President Nespresso USA. “Nespresso is thrilled to be the first to bring this rare coffee to the U.S., allowing consumers to rediscover this distinct coffee profile. Over the long-term, we have a view to supporting the development of environmentally sustainable coffee farming practices for smallholder farmers which benefit the farmers themselves and their communities. Ultimately, we want consumers in the U.S. to experience this incredible coffee and to enjoy it now and for years to come.” 

The U.S. Department of State in late April updated its list of goods produced by independent Cuban entrepreneurs that can be imported into the United States to include coffee. This change paved the way for Nespresso to offer Cuban coffee to the U.S. market. Nespresso’s approach to sustainability is embedded in its business practices and focuses on initiatives that preserve the environment for future generations and create shared value for all stakeholders and society. Nespresso has extensive experience working closely with coffee farmers to improve productivity and create attractive income opportunities for them. Through the Nespresso AAA Sustainable Quality™ Program, which was developed with the Rainforest Alliance, Nespresso works with farmers, providing support, training, financing and technical assistance to improve sustainability and productivity while maintaining quality. 

NOTE: According to Nestle Nespresso, Cafecito de Cuba will be 100% Cuban Arabica coffee from the regions of Granma and Santiago de Cuba. 

NOTE: According to the London, United Kingdom-based International Coffee Organization (ICO), in 2015 the Republic of Cuba harvested 100,000 60-kilogram bags of coffee, consumed 200,000 60-kilogram bags of coffee, and exported 8,696 60-kilogram bags of coffee. 

NOTE: Nestle Nespresso previously created a Republic of Cuba-focused product; the following is a media release from 2 September 2014: 

Nespresso pays tribute to Cuban coffee tradition with Limited Edition Cubanía; Inspired by the passion and intensity of Cuban coffee ritual 

Inspired by the warmth of the Cuban way of life and its iconic coffee ritual, Nespresso coffee experts have stretched their mastery of coffee creation to produce Cubanía, the Fall 2014 Limited Edition Grand Cru. 

The way of drinking coffee in Cuba – Cubano-style – is a leisurely tradition. It mixes a portion of strong, black coffee with cane sugar until it becomes a thick, creamy paste. Then it combines it with yet more coffee. This distinctive coffee ritual represents the sensual Latin style: a different pace of life with time to savour one another’s company. Nespresso has captured this spirit in Cubanía, a bold blend of highly roasted Arabicas and Robustas with a dense texture and powerful bouquet without strong bitterness. Breaking the Nespresso record of intensity by going one step beyond the Kazaar Grand Cru, Cubanía reaches level 13.   

Mastery of origins and process for unsurpassed intensity 

This achievement of unsurpassed intensity draws upon earlier Nespresso creations. It also builds on the mastery of an innovative technique: steaming coffee to change its chemical and physical structure. A coffee’s intensity is based on the density of the beans and their roasting profile. Choosing which coffee beans can deliver such an intense experience takes Nespresso know-how. For intensity, a high-end Indian Robusta was slowly steamed to allow for greater extractability, while reducing bitterness and enhancing smoothness. Brazilian Robusta Conillon was added to ensure intensity. This was paired with a mild Colombian Arabica used already in 2012 for the Limited Edition Crealto, capable of taking a long roast while delivering smooth and pure coffee flavour. Nespresso coffee experts also selected a mild Arabica to complement the blend.  

Enjoying coffee the Latin way 

Nespresso seeks to continuously invite Club Members into new ways of understanding, appreciating and experiencing coffee. To enjoy Cubanía in the traditional Cubano style, Nespresso coffee experts recommend adding a 25 ml ristretto to a measure of cane sugar, stirring well until it becomes a creamy, light brown paste. Then, extract a second 25 ml ristretto on top of the mixture and stir. This intense and syrupy black coffee with its tantalizing, dense crema enables coffee aficionados to fully experience Cubanía with Latin flair. Adding 25 ml of hot milk to a Café Cubano creates a velvety coffee and milk elixir reminiscent of the dessert dulce de leche, with sweet notes of cookie and caramel.  The wild, yet complex aromatics of Cubanía are revealed when it is taken black, as a 25 ml ristretto. 

USA TODAY
20 June 2016
Cuban coffee to be sold in the U.S.

By Alan Gomez 

MIAMI — The next phase of Cuba's changing relationship with the United States will come in the form of coffee. 

Switzerland-based Nespresso announced Monday that it will sell Cuban coffee in the U.S. starting this fall. The long-restricted coffee will first be sold as a limited edition, called Cafecito de Cuba, in stores, online and over the phone. 

Guillaume Le Cunff, president of Nespresso USA, said it's good to be the first company to provide Cuban coffee to the U.S. market. He stressed that Nespresso is more interested in developing a long-term arrangement to ensure a steady supply of Cuban coffee for U.S. customers and improved living conditions for Cuba's farmers. 

"We're not looking at this as a short-term achievement," Le Cunff said Sunday. "It's the starting point of a very long-term initiative. We're very optimistic that we can drive and build this project. Ultimately, we want consumers in the U.S. to experience this incredible coffee and to enjoy it now and for years to come." 

Cuba's iconic products — from coffee to rum to the island's fabled cigars — have been off limits to U.S. consumers for more than 50 years because of the economic embargo maintained on the communist country. Opportunities opened after December 2014, when President Obama and Cuban President Raúl Castro announced that the Cold War foes would begin normalizing relations. 

The Obama administration has since issued new regulations allowing for more trade and travel between the countries. That included an amended regulation published in April that removed coffee from the list of items barred from being imported from Cuba.  Nespresso officials immediately took notice. 

The company has already partnered with TechnoServe, a Washington-based non-profit development organization, to assist coffee farmers in Colombia, South Sudan, Kenya and Ethiopia. David Browning, senior vice president for strategic initiatives at TechnoServe, recently visited Cuba to meet with government officials and inspect the small farms where Cuba's coffee is grown.

IMAGE: Cuban workers pile up sacks of coffee at a small warehouse in the Sierra Maestra Mountains, in the eastern province of Santiago de Cuba, on July 26, 2010. 

Much of Cuba's agricultural land is managed by cooperatives of small, private farmers. They then sell their products to the Cuban government, which either distributes the goods on the island or exports them around the world. Nespresso will begin its Cuba experiment by buying coffee beans from European importers, roasting the beans, packaging the coffee in pods and selling them in the United States.

Browning said both companies examined the new regulations and saw the opening they needed.  "All that was necessary was for the lawyers to make sure they fully understood the U.S. government's intent," he said. "Everything was very clear." 

The next phase for Nespresso and TechnoServe will be to help Cuba's private farmers improve their production processes, from helping them secure new agricultural equipment to fine-tuning their planting and harvesting processes. Browning said such guidance has helped farmers in other countries improve their output, which led to more income for the farmers and improved standards of living.  "We're really eager to be in listening mode and start to understand the state of industry and how we can be most helpful," he said. 

Until then, the two men were eager for U.S. customers to experience the foreign flavor. Browning described Cuba's Arabica coffee beans, grown in the fertile lands in eastern Cuba, as having notes of cedar with a light, caramel finish. And Le Cunff said the exotic, forbidden aspect of the coffee is a lure itself.  "Our customers expect us to bring new coffee experiences, and they expect to be surprised," he said. "We know that with our U.S. customers, there is a high level of curiosity and excitement to have this coffee. So we expect a high level of response." 

LINKS To Previous Analyses 

Nestle Nespresso To Indirectly Import Coffee From Cuba To USA June 20, 2016

UPDATE: “Hecho En Cuba” Has Value…. Obama Administration Will Help & Accept Certification From Cuba July 14, 2016

“Hecho En Cuba” Begins To Mean Something…. Is The Obama Administration Complying With Its Regulations? July 06, 2016

It's Here... Nespresso's Cafecito de Cuba capsules... US$1.25 each August 18, 2016

Lavazza From Italy & Nespresso From Switzerland Vie For Cuba's Coffee Production/Exports September 17, 2017

Confiserie Sprungli AG & Dieter Meier Of Switzerland Use Cocoa Beans From Cuba June 20, 2018

Nespresso Of Switzerland Announces Another Release Of Coffee From Cuba November 19, 2018

Might Cubaexport In 2020 Permit “Independent Entrepreneurs” To Export Coffee Beans, Cocoa and Honey To The United States? January 14, 2020

After A Long Wait... Nespresso Of Switzerland Announces "For A Limited Time" New Releases Of "Cafecito de Cuba" & "Cafe de Cuba" August 12, 2020

Coffee & Charcoal Have Been Imported From Cuba; U.S. Companies Want More. Agricultural Commodities/Food Products/Healthcare Products Have Been Exported To Cuba; U.S. Companies Want More. October 02, 2021

Ag Delegations Traveling To Cuba Must Know What Is Possible, Advocate To Government Of Cuba To Permit All That Is Permissible- Direct Export Of Coffee, Cacao, Honey. Complaining Not Constructive. April 14, 2022

Good News For Western Union, Other Cuba Remittance Forwarders: OFAC Seeking Comments Promoting Reduction Of Compliance Paperwork. More Efficiency Helps Cuba Private Sector.

In May 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) began a journey to connect its sixteen months of statements of support for the re-emerging private sector in the Republic of Cuba with policies and regulations.

The efficient, cost-effective, transparent movement of funds from the United States to the Republic of Cuba and from the Republic of Cuba to the United States is essential.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury issued a license in May 2022 authorizing direct investment in and direct financing to a privately-owned company located in the Republic of Cuba owned by a Republic of Cuba national. Investment funds and dividends, and financing funds and interest/interest/principal payments must currently be transferred at high cost through financial institutions located in third countries.   

Federal Register

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning OFAC's information collection requirements for persons using remittance forwarding services related to Cuba, which are contained within the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before December 2, 2022 to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments. Email: OFACreport@treasury.gov with Attn: Request for Comments (Cuban Remittance Forwarding Services). Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and refer to Docket Number OFAC-2022-0004 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1505-0167. Comments received will be made available to the public via https://www.regulations.gov or upon request, without change and including any personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, 202-622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Persons Providing Remittance Forwarding Services to Cuba.

OMB Number: 1505-0167.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Description: Requirements to retain records are codified in § 515.572(b) of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515 (the “Regulations”). Pursuant to 515.572(b)(1), persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction who provide authorized remittance forwarding services related to Cuba are required to maintain for at least five years from the date of the transaction a certification from each customer indicating the section of Regulations or, if relevant, the number of the specific license, that authorizes the person to send the remittance to Cuba. The recordkeeping burden associated with § 515.572(b)(2) is addressed in 1505-0164. The records covered by this information collection must be provided on request to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and will be used to monitor compliance with regulations governing transactions related to authorized remittances to or from Cuba using remittance forwarding service providers who are persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Forms: Section 515.572(b)(1) does not specify any particular form of recordkeeping.

Affected Public: Individuals, households, businesses, non-governmental organizations and banking institutions. The likely respondents and record-keepers affected by this collection of information are persons using and providing U.S. remittance forwarding services.

Estimated Number of Unique Respondents: Based on newly acquired data and OFAC's revised methodology, the estimated number of annual respondents is 1,500,000.

Estimated Number of Records per Respondent: Based on newly acquired data and OFAC's revised methodology, the estimated number of records is approximately 1.2 records per respondent per year. (Some respondents may produce far more records; 1.2 records per respondent is an average.)

Estimated Total Number of Annual Records: Based on additional data and OFAC's revised methodology, as well as the effects of the pandemic and regulatory changes, the estimated total number of annual records is approximately 1,800,000.

Estimated Time Per Record: OFAC assesses that there is an average time estimate of 1 minute per record.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: The estimated total annual reporting burden is approximately 1,800,000 minutes or approximately 30,000 hours.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services required to provide information.

(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
Andrea Gacki, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. 2022-21209 Filed 9-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

LINK TO COMPLETE DOCUMENT AS PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER

LINK TO COMPLETE DOCUMENT IN PDF FORMAT

Four Cruise Lines In Libertad Act Consolidated Lawsuit: Damages All About How To Calculate Interest Rate. Settlements? Further Appeals?

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-21724; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Walker (defendant)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. MSC CRUISES SA CO, AND MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 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. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 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. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-23590; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

Plaintiff’s Response To Defendants’ Motion For Reconsideration Of The Court’s Order Confirming The Calculation Of Interest Under 22 U.S.C. § 6082(A)(1)(B)1 (9/23/22) 

Motion For Reconsideration Of Two Aspects Of Court’s Order On Defendants’ Motion To Confirm Interest Calculation Pursuant To 22 U.S.C. § 6082(A)(1)(B) (9/16/22) 

Order On Defendants’ Motion To Consolidate Cases For Determination Of Damages (9/1/22) 

Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics 

Docket Text 

RESPONSE in Opposition re 434 Defendant's MOTION for Reconsideration re 428 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Havana Docks Corporation. Replies due by 9/30/2022. (Martinez, Roberto) (Entered: 09/23/2022)

PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE is before the Court following the status conference held on September 21, 2022. See ECF No. 438 . Based upon the representation by all parties that the issues remaining in these cases will be addressed by way of briefing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the calendar call and jury trial are CANCELED. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom. (ak03) (Entered: 09/21/2022)

PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beth Bloom: Status Conference held on 9/21/2022. As stated on the record, the parties shall adhere to the following briefing schedule with respect to the remaining issues in these cases:  Plaintiff shall file its response to the pending Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 434 , no later than September 23, 2022, and Defendants' reply shall be due no later than September 30, 2022.  Plaintiff shall file its motion for entry of judgment no later than October 21, 2022; Defendants may file a response not exceeding forty (40) pages no later than November 4, 2022; Plaintiff may file a reply not to exceed thirty (30) pages no later than November 18, 2022; and Defendants may file a surreply not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages no later than December 2, 2022.  Plaintiff shall file its motion for attorneys' fees and costs no later than November 4, 2022; Defendants may file a response no later than November 18, 2022; and Plaintiff may file a reply no later than December 2, 2022.  Plaintiff's ore tenus motion to amend by interlineation is granted to reflect the correct entity name of MSC Cruises USA, LLC.  Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to 434 Defendant's MOTION for Reconsideration re 428 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief : ( Responses due by 9/23/2022, Replies due by 9/30/2022.). Total time in court: 1 hour(s) : 3 minutes. Attorney Appearance(s): Scott Daniel Ponce, Corey Patrick Gray, George J. Fowler, III, Luis Emilio Llamas, Meredith L. Schultz, Pascual Armando Oliu, Pedro Armando Freyre, Rodney Stuart Margol, Roberto Martinez, Zachary Andrew Lipshultz, Stephanie Anne Casey, Aziza F Elayan-Martinez, Thomas Allen Kroeger, Andrew T. Hernacki, James Douglas Baldridge, Allen Paige Pegg, Benjamin Anthony Taormina, Court Reporter: Yvette Hernandez, 305-523-5698 / Yvette_Hernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov. (ak03) (Entered: 09/21/2022)

Excerpts From Filings

There is no reason for the Court to reconsider its Order on Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Interest Calculation Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(B). (ECF No. 428.) Reconsideration is an “‘extraordinary remedy’” that may not be used “to ‘relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’”

In its Order, the Court correctly concluded that “the proper [interest] rate to be applied [under § 6082(a)(1)(B)] 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.” (ECF No. 428 at 9.) Although Defendants previously pressed the Court to apply the interest rate for Case 1:19-cv-23591-BB Document 440 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 2 of 8 3 the calendar week preceding judgment (ECF No. 398 at 4-9), they now press for a completely different rate, viz., the rate for the week each complaint was filed.

As this Court’s Interest Order explains, interest under Title III is determined by 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(B), which states: Interest under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be at the rate set forth in section 1961 of title 28, computed by the court from the date of confiscation of the property involved to the date on which the action is brought under this subsection. In turn, 28 U.S.C. § 1961 provides a rate in paragraph (a), stating: Such interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding[] the date of the judgment.

“Why and how did Cuba’s complete electric power grid collapse when the hurricane just impacted the western end of the Island?”

“Why and how did Cuba’s complete electric power grid collapse when the hurricane just impacted the western end of the Island?”

Cuba’s grid (SEN) is totally interconnected and interdependent on all eight thermoelectric power plants. That is why when Mariel is down it impacts Santiago de Cuba’s RENTE 926 kilometers away which has to, along with the others, pick up the deficit created. It is the perfect domino effect analogy in which you knock one domino over, impacting all others in a chain reaction. That is why the SEN is prone to a total system collapse as we saw yesterday.

Jorge R. Piñon, Senior Research Fellow
The University of Texas at Austin
Energy Institute
Flawn Academic Center (FAC)
2304 Whitis Ave. C2400
Austin, Texas 78712
jrpinon@utexas.edu
Cell: 305-926-6910
Office:512-475-8447
https://energy.utexas.edu/