If MSMEs Are Important To Cuba, Why Nearing Seven Months And No Regulations Authorizing Foreign Investment And Foreign Financing? Biden Administration And 6,000 MSMEs In Cuba Are Waiting.

/

Why The Delay?  Nearing Nineteen Months And Cuba Has Yet To Issue Investment And Financing Regulations, Procedures For MSMEs.  Biden Administration Authorized Investment And Financing In May 2022.  There Are Nearing 6,000 MSMEs That Could Receive Support From U.S. Investors And U.S. Financiers.    

Delays Are An Incentive For The Republic Of Cuba’s “Best And Brightest” Who Will Create And Manage And Grow MSME’s To Leave The Country And Pursue Opportunities Elsewhere- Particularly In The United States. That’s Not Good For The Republic Of Cuba.

Nearing seven months after the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) approved on 10 May 2022 the first license authorizing direct investment and direct financing to a privately-owned company owned by a Republic of Cuba national and located in the Republic of Cuba, the Diaz-Canel-Valdes Mesa Administration (2019- ) has yet to publish regulations as to the process for delivering the direct investment and direct financing. 

With each day in delay, the government of the Republic of Cuba increases the level of suspicion by individuals and corporate entities that the self-stated commitment to the re-emerging private sector in the Republic of Cuba is sustainable.   

Direct investment to and direct financing for a Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) should not be equated to direct investment to and direct financing to a Republic of Cuba government-operated company or to a joint venture, economic cooperation agreement, or other form of engagement with a Republic of Cuba government-operated entity. 

The process for MSMEs to receive direct investment and direct financing should be simple, should be easy, and should not require a committee to approve.  Provided the MSMEs self-certify that they are in compliance with regulations issued by the government of the Republic of Cuba, MSMEs must be deemed to be compliant absent evidence of non-compliance. 

According to the most recent data published by the government of the Republic of Cuba, there are 5,643 private MSMEs in the Republic of Cuba which includes sixty-eight (68) Republic of Cuba government-operated entities and fifty-nine non-agricultural cooperatives.  Fifty-two percent (52%) of the entities are conversions of pre-existing enterprises and forty-eight percent (48%) are new enterprises. 

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 because the OFAC authorizes United States-based financial institutions to have correspondent accounts at Republic of Cuba government-operated financial institutions, but does not authorize Republic of Cuba government-operated financial institutions to have correspondent accounts with United States-based financial institutions. 

Granma
Havana, Republic of Cuba
2 June 2021

Aprueba Consejo de Ministros perfeccionamiento de actores de la economía cubana.  El Consejo de Ministros aprobó en su más reciente sesión el perfeccionamiento de los actores de la economía cubana, que incluye a la empresa estatal socialista; a las cooperativas no agropecuarias; a las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas y al trabajo por cuenta propia, convocados todos a impulsar, cada uno desde su ámbito, el desarrollo de la nación.

“The Council of Ministers approves the improvement of actors in the Cuban economy.  The Council of Ministers approved in its most recent session the improvement of the actors of the Cuban economy, which includes the socialist state enterprise; non-agricultural cooperatives; to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and self-employment, all summoned to promote, each one from their own sphere, the development of the nation.” 

Miami Herald
Miami, Florida
6 April 2021

“Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Trade and Foreign Investment is opening the door to Cuban Americans who want to participate in foreign investment projects as the island tries to jump-start its beleaguered economy and encourage Washington to loosen sanctions. Katia Alonso, the ministry’s director of foreign capital investments, told the Miami Herald by email in response to a list of questions that Cuba won’t reject potential business bids from Cuban Americans based on the sole fact that they live in the U.S. — something she said the law has never prohibited, though in the past exile entrepreneurs haven’t always been welcomed either. “Cuba is open to foreign capital regardless of its place of origin,” Alonso explained, “so if a Cuban American were interested — whether they were born in the U.S. or migrated to that country — in investing on the island, their interest would be evaluated just like any other potential investor from any other place of origin.”” 

Recent Administration Policy Changes Background And Issue With Payments  

The Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) 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 re-authorization of direct correspondent banking.   

The issuance of OFAC licenses and Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce licenses in May 2022, September 2022, and November 2022 will by implementation result in two-way transfers that are small in value but consistent.   

Privately-owned companies located in the Republic of Cuba will need to send funds for product purchases (including recently BIS-licensed electric vehicles), send dividend (profit sharing) payments to the source(s) of direct investment, and sending interest and principal payments to source(s) of direct financing.  

For the United States Department of State to continue to require transactions include a third-country financial institution (and the number of third-country financial institutions willing to engage with Republic of Cuba-related transactions continues to decline) is cost inefficient, less transparent, and an impediment to fulfilling the goals of the licenses issued thus far by the OFAC and BIS. 

COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT

Latest 16 Pleadings In “Unjust Enrichment” Lawsuit Filed In Spain Against Melia Hotels Including If Government Of Cuba And Gaviota Are “Indispensable Parties” And/Or Subject To Spain Jurisdiction.

/

The Latest Pleadings From Plaintiff And Defendants In The “Unjust Enrichment” Lawsuit Filed In Spain Against Palma de Mallorca, Spain-based Melia Hotels International S.A. Including Documents Filed As To Whether The Government Of The Republic of Cuba And Republic of Cuba Government-Operated Gaviota S.A. Are “Indispensable Parties” And/Or Subject To The Jurisdiction Of Courts In Spain. 

Background   

On 12 March 2002, Palma de Mallorca, Spain-based Meliá Hotels International (2019 revenues approximately US$2.1 billion) reportedly offered US$5 million to the descendants of Mr. Rafael Lucas Sanchez Hill as payment to prevent the United States Department of State from using Title IV relating to the Sol Rio de Oro Hotel in response to enactment in 1996 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as "Libertad Act").  

Title IV of the Libertad Act restricts entry into the United States by individuals who have connectivity to unresolved certified claims or non-certified claims.  Employees of one Canada-based company is currently known to be subject to this provision based upon a certified claim.    

On 26 March 2002, Sol Melia International, reportedly believing the [George W. Bush Administration; 20 January 2001 to 20 January 2009] United States Department of State would neither implement Title III nor Title IV of the Libertad Act, Melia Hotels International withdrew the offer of US$5 million and proposed US$3,197.75 representing a value (.06%) based upon the twenty-nine (29) acres of land occupied by the Sol Rio de Oro Hotel of the approximately 120,000 acres of land claimed by the descendants of the owners of the property. The US$3,197.75 was determined by Melia Hotels International as the corresponding percentage of the US$5 million tax loss carry-forward amount with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the 1960's.   

On 29 May 2019, descendants of Mr. Rafael Lucas Sanchez Hill, acting as Central Santa Lucia L.C., filed a lawsuit in Spain seeking US$10 million from Meliá Hotels International seeking damages for the use of land upon which a hotel is located in the Republic of Cuba. The lawsuit is not using provisions of Title III of the Libertad Act.   

Title III of the Libertad Act authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset. LINK To Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Statistics  

LINKS To Recent Court Filings In Spain 

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\Alegaciones a declinatoria de GAVIOTA_firmado_firmado.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\002_PRESENTACION ESCRITO LEXNET CON IDENTIFICADOR 1202210520961848.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\003_DEC GAV 26 09 2022 PERSONAC.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\005_EMPLAZAMIENTO TSP A GAVIOTA1 ACTA DE ENTREGA DE DOCS.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\006_CARTA GAVIOTA A MINREX.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\007_RESPUESTA MINREX A GAVIOTA.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\0704042024120220000086717.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\0704042024120220000086718.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\0704042024120220000088764.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\0704042024120220000088765.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\0704042024120220000095201.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\DOC 1 Nota verbal Republica Cuba_firmado.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\Historial_20221107_084700 (1).pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\Historial_20221107_084700.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\Historial_20221107_095700.pdf

Sanchez Hill Spain Lawsuit Documents 11 2022\SANTA LUCIA 2022-11-16 OPOSICION A DECLINATORIA DE GAVIOTA.pdf 

Related Sanchez Hill Lawsuit Analyses By The USCTEC 

In Lawsuit Filed In Spain Against Melia Hotels, Plaintiff Argues That Government Of Cuba Is Not Required To Be A Defendant; Melia Hotels Says Otherwise February 10, 2021

Lawsuit Against Spain's Melia Hotels International Takes Another Turn... Government Of Spain Never Served Cuba. Repeat. Start Again. July 06, 2021

Judge Rules Against Plaintiffs In Non-Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Against Spain's Melia Hotels; Lawsuit Will Continue May 04, 2021

Court In Spain Requires Government Of Cuba And Gaviota Tourism Company Be Included In "Unjust Enrichment" Lawsuit Against Melia Hotels International January 16, 2021

Court In Spain Rules Against Melia Hotels Effort To Obtain Ruling By Court Of Justice Of the European Union July 09, 2020

Spanish Appellate Court Rules Sánchez Hill (non-Libertad Act) Lawsuit Against Meliá Hotels International Has Jurisdiction to Proceed; Discovery Begins April 28, 2020

Spain's Melia Hotels International CEO Confirms He Is Restricted From Entering United States Due To Libertad Act Title IV Letter; Says 50 Other Companies Impacted February 05, 2020

Melia Hotels International Presents In Spain Its Response To Appeal By Plaintiffs Of Case Dismissal; Company Reportedly Receives Title IV Letter November 23, 2019

Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal Of Lawsuit In Spain Against Melia Hotels; Plaintiffs Sue In U.S.; Why Did Melia Hotels Offer US$5 Million Then US$3,197.75? October 05, 2019

Court In Spain Dismisses Lawsuit Against Melia Hotels International Relating To Operations In Cuba; Plaintiffs Now Expected To Sue In U.S. Using Libertad Act September 04, 2019

Recent Court Filings In Spain (Not United States) Lawsuit Against Melia Hotels International July 23, 2019

Melia Hotels International Sued In Spain By United States Descendants Of Property Owner June 17, 2019

11th Circuit Upholds Dismissal Of One Libertad Act Cuba Lawsuit Against Cruise Lines. Significantly, One Justice Sends Message To U.S. Congress And Opens Door For Revising Law To Help Plaintiffs

/

JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA V. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINE, A FOREIGN CORPORATION [1:19-cv-21725 Southern Florida District; 20-12960 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Creed & Gowdy (plaintiff- appellate)
Jones Walker (defendant)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA VS. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. [1:19-cv-23592; Southern Florida District; 20-14251 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Creed & Gowdy, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS, LTD. [1:19-cv-23593; Southern Florida District]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Creed & Gowdy, P.A. (plaintiff)
Hogan Lovells US LLP (defendant)

11/23/2022- Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Javier Garcia-Bengochea in 20-12960, 20-14251. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions. [20-12960, 20-14251] [Entered: 11/23/2022 09:44 AM]

11/23/2022- Judgment entered as to Appellant Javier Garcia-Bengochea in 20-12960, 20-14251. [20-12960, 20-14251] [Entered: 11/23/2022 09:48 AM] 

LINK To Opinion (11/23/2)
LINK To Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Statistics

Excerpts From Opinion And Concurring

When Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista in 1959, most Cubans who fled to the United States hoped that they would one day return to their homeland. But many would never again see the beaches of Varadero or stroll along the Malecón. They built homes and lives in the United States, never forgetting what they left behind on an island just 90 miles off the coast of Key West. 

This appeal concerns a number of issues pertaining to claims brought under Title III. First, does the plaintiff, Dr. Javier Garcia- Bengochea, have Article III standing to assert his claims against Carnival and Royal Caribbean? Second, has Dr. Garcia-Bengochea stated plausible Title III claims? We heard oral argument on these matters, invited the Department of Justice to file an amicus curiae brief addressing certain questions about the Act, and permitted the parties to respond to that brief.  We conclude that Dr. Garcia-Bengochea has standing to assert his Title III claims, but that those claims fail on the merits. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of Carnival and Royal Caribbean. 

Carnival and Royal Caribbean argue that Dr. Garcia-Bengochea’s injury is not concrete because he was not affected in any way by their use of La Marítima. As Carnival puts it, Dr. Garcia- Bengochea would be “in precisely the same position he stands in now” had it never sailed to Cuba or used La Marítima.

The cruise lines also contend that there is no historical analogue for the Title III cause of action that Dr. Garcia-Bengochea is asserting, and that Congress’ judgment does not identify any real injury. We disagree on both points. 

We begin where we must—with the text. When the words of a statute are clear, “we must enforce it according to its terms.” King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015). Though the Helms-Burton Act defines a number of terms, see § 6023 (setting out the meaning of 15 words and phrases), it does not define the word “acquire[ ].” So we turn to ordinary meaning. See Barton v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 904 F.3d 1294, 1298 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[U]nless otherwise defined, statutory terms are generally interpreted in accordance with their ordinary meaning.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In our view, the district court came to the correct conclusion. We agree with the Fifth Circuit’s analysis in American Airlines: 

Dr. Garcia-Bengochea has Article III standing to assert his Title III claims against Carnival and Royal Caribbean under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act. But those claims fail under § 6082(a)(4)(B) of the Act because the Cuban government confiscated La Marítima prior to March 12, 1996, and because Dr. Garcia-Bengochea acquired his interest in the property through inheritance after that date. AFFIRMED. 

Concurring: Judge Adalberto Jordan (born in Havana, Republic of Cuba), Appointed In 2012 By Barack Obama, President Of The United States 

With respect to our decision today, I join Parts I and II of the court’s opinion. As to Part III, I concur in the judgment but do so reluctantly because our interpretation of 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(4)(B)—which I think is unavoidable given the language of § 6082(a)(4)(C)—undermines the express purposes of Title III of the Act and leaves many (and maybe most) U.S. nationals without a remedy for the trafficking of their confiscated properties. 

The word “acquires” has both broad and narrow meanings, and dictionaries do not tell us what meaning to use for Title III. So we have to rely on matters outside of the text to interpret the text. 

These codified purposes, it seems to me, call for a narrow interpretation of the word “acquires” that does not encompass interests in property obtained by inheritance. Such a reading benefits U.S. nationals whose property was confiscated by the Cuban government (furthering the compensatory purpose) and deters those who might later traffic in that property (furthering the deterrence purpose).

f the word “acquires” in § 6082(a)(4)(B) is read to encompass interests obtained by inheritance, then the provision operates contrary to Congress’ express statutory purposes and is very hard to explain. The Cuban government carried out most of its confiscations of property held by U.S. nationals and U.S. companies in the early 1960s, shortly after Fidel Castro came to power.

The individual U.S. owners of confiscated property—assuming they were at least 20, the voting age in Cuba at the time, see Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, Title VII, Art. 99 (1940)—would be in their 80s today, assuming they were still alive. What compensatory and/or deterrent effect would Title III have if the only thing potential traffickers had to do was wait until the original owners died to benefit from their confiscated properties? 

That does not make much (if any) sense. I can think of no rational basis for allowing heirs to sue if they inherited their interests in confiscated properties prior to the passage of the Helms-Burton Act, while at the same time precluding heirs who inherited their interests after enactment. 

(“There is no more likely way to misapprehend the meaning of language—be it in a constitution, a statute, a will, or a contract—than to read it literally, forgetting the object which the document as a whole is meant to secure.”); Stanley Fish, The Trouble with Principle 5 (1999) (explaining that, when a statute is “detached from the history that renders it intelligible,” it “becomes unreadable, or . . . readable in any direction you like”). 

Given what I have said in Part II.B, one might wonder why this is a concurrence and not a dissent. That is a fair question, and one I will try to answer. Legislation is not always pristine. And sometimes Congress, despite a very clear intent, drafts poorly. That is what I think happened here. At the end of the day, there is one reason why I ultimately conclude that § 6082(a)(4)(B) must be interpreted as written despite its incongruity with express legislative purpose. The reason is that § 6082(a)(4)(B) cannot be read in isolation and must be inter preted with reference to its statutory companion, § 6082(a)(4)(C). 

Interpreting § 6082(a)(4)(B) as the Fifth Circuit did (and as we do today) goes against the express purposes of Title III, but it is not absurd. While the reach of Title III is narrowed—and maybe significantly so—there is still a group of people whose heirs will be able to file suit under the Act—namely, the U.S. national heirs of owners who passed away and bequeathed their property interest prior to the passage of the Helms-Burton Act. 

I join Parts I and II of the court’s opinion and concur in the judgment as to Part III. If, as I suspect, the language of §6082(a)(4)(B) was the result of sloppy drafting, I urge Congress to fix it.

11th Circuit Reverses District Judge. Rules Libertad Act Cuba Lawsuits Against Expedia-Owned Trivago (Germany) And Booking.com (Netherlands) May Proceed.  Louis Vuitton Decision Has A Role.

/

11th Circuit Court Of Appeals Reverses District Judge And Rules Libertad Act Lawsuits Against Trivago (Germany) Owned By Expedia (US) And Booking.com (Netherlands) Relating To Cuba May Proceed.  There Is Jurisdiction.  Louis Vuitton Decision Has A Role.  

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

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

LINK To Opinion Of The Court (11/22/22)
LINK To Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Excerpts From Opinion:

In this appeal we confront questions of personal jurisdiction and Article III standing in an action brought under Title III. We conclude that, based on the uncontroverted allegations in the plain-tiffs’ complaint, the district court has specific jurisdiction over the defendants pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(2) and that the exercise of jurisdiction does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We also conclude that the plaintiffs have standing to assert their Title III claims. 

The Booking Entities and Expedia Entities moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. Notably, they did not submit any affidavits or other exhibits rebutting the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint. The personal jurisdiction challenge, therefore, was facial and not factual.  The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Title III claims without leave to amend, ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants under the relevant provisions of Florida’s long-arm statute. See Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), 48.193(1)(a)(2), 48.193(2). The district court did not reach the defendants’ other grounds for dismissal. 

Following a review of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we reverse. The plaintiffs alleged that the Booking Entities and Expedia Entities operate fully interactive travel websites that are accessible in Florida, and that Florida residents have used those websites to book accommodations at the Resorts. These allegations, which were not controverted below, establish personal jurisdiction. We also conclude that the plaintiffs have Article III standing for their Title III claims. 

With respect to the first step of the personal jurisdiction analysis, we begin (and end) with § 48.193(1)(a)(2) of Florida’s long-arm statute. A specific jurisdiction provision, it provides that a non-resident defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction for any cause of action “arising from” a “tortious act” committed in Florida. We have consistently held that, under Florida law, a non-
resident defendant commits a tortious act in Florida by performing an act outside the state that causes injury within Florida.

In Louis Vuitton, we held that a nonresident defendant committed a tortious act in Florida under § 48.193(1)(a)(2) when he sold trademark-infringing goods to Florida residents through his website.  See 736 F.3d at 1354. The district court here distinguished Louis Vuitton because “it involved a trademark infringement claim in which the infringement occurred through the website. In other words, the use of the website constituted the claim itself.” D.E. 71 at 5. The district court explained that the tort at the heart of the Helms-Burton Act claims against the Booking Entities and Expedia Entities is “traffick[ing] in . . . confiscated property, which occurred in Cuba.” We respectfully disagree, and conclude that Louis Vuitton is a closer fit than the district court thought. 

III and provides for specific personal jurisdiction under §48.193(1)(a)(2). See Internet Solutions Corp., 39 So.3d at 1215. See also Wendt, 822 So.2d at 1260 (“‘[C]ommitting a tortious act in Florida’ . . . can occur through the nonresident defendant’s tele-phonic, electronic, or written communications into Florida.”); Rennaissance Health Pub., LLC v. Resveratol Partners, LLC, 982 So. 2d 739, 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“An interactive website which allows a defendant to enter into contracts to sell products to Florida residents, and which ‘involve[s] the knowing and repeated trans-mission of computer files over the internet,’ may support a finding of personal jurisdiction.”).

As explained above, the complaint’s allegations satisfied the requirements for specific jurisdiction pursuant to § 48.193(1)(a)(2). Because the Booking Entities and Expedia Entities did not rebut those allegations, we next consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with the Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a party from being subject to the binding judgment of a forum with which it has established no meaningful “contacts, ties, or relations.”

The first prong—which addresses the concept of related-ness—focuses on the “causal relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Fraser, 594 F.3d at 850 (internal quo-tation marks omitted). Importantly, the Supreme Court recently rejected the contention that specific jurisdiction may attach only when the defendant’s forum conduct directly gave rise to the plain-tiff’s claims. See Ford Motor Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1026-27 (“[W]e have never framed the specific jurisdiction inquiry as always requiring proof of causation—i.e., proof that the plaintiff’s claim came about because of the defendant’s in-state conduct.”).  This prong is readily met here. Though direct causation is not required, the plaintiffs’ Helms-Burton Act claims arise at least in part directly out of the contacts of the Booking Entities and the Expedia Entities with Florida—the promotion targeted at and di-rected to Florida residents, the accessing of their websites by Florida residents, and the use of those websites by some Florida residents to book accommodations at the Resorts. To borrow the language of Louis Vuitton, the ties of the Booking Entities and Expedia Entities “to Florida . . . involve the advertising [and] selling” of accommodations at the Resorts to Florida residents. 736 F.3d at 1356. 

The Booking Entities and Expedia Entities also assert that we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over this case because the plaintiffs do not have Article III standing to bring their Title III claims. In essence, they argue that the plaintiffs cannot allege injury-in-fact; even if the Booking Entities and Expedia Entities never trafficked in the properties, the properties would still have been confiscated by the Cuban government and the plaintiffs’ positions would be unchanged. They further argue that any injury is not traceable to them because they did not confiscate the  plaintiffs’ properties and do not operate the hotels. As we explain in more detail in Garcia-Bengochea v. Carnival Corp., Nos. 20-12960 & 20-14251, ___ F.4th ___ (11th Cir. 2022), this lack-of-standing theory fails. 

As we note in Garcia-Bengochea, all the courts that have tackled this question have concluded that similarly-situated plain-tiffs have Article III standing to bring a claim under Title III. See, e.g., Glen v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 7 F.4th 331, 334–36 (5th Cir. 2021); Glen v. Trip Advisor LLC, 529 F.Supp.3d 316, 326–28 (D. Del. 2021), aff’d, 2022 WL 3538221, at *2 (3d Cir. August 18, 2022); de Fernandez v. Crowley Holdings, Inc., No. 21-CV-20443, 2022 WL 860373, at *3–*4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2022); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX S.A., 534 F.Supp.3d 1, 30–32 (D.D.C. 2021); Sucesores de Don Carlos Nuñez y Doña Pura Galvez, Inc. v. Société Générale, S.A., 577 F.Supp.3d 295, 307–10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2021); Moreira v. Société Générale, S.A., 573 F.Supp.3d 921, 925–29 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2021); N. Am. Sugar Indus. Inc. v. Xinjiang Goldwind Sci. & Tech. Co., No. 20-CV-22471 (DPG), 2021 WL 3741647, at *3–*6 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2021); Havana Docks Corp. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd., 484 F.Supp.3d 1215, 1226–31 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Havana Docks Corp. v. MSC Cruises SA Co., 484 F. Supp. 3d 1177, 1190–95 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp., No. 19-CV-21724 (BB), 2020 WL 5517590, at *6– *11 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2020). We agree with this unanimous perspective. 

Based on the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint, the district court has specific personal jurisdiction over the Booking Entities and Expedia Entities pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(2), and the exercise of such jurisdiction does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs also haveplausibly alleged Article III standing. We therefore reverse the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint and remand for further proceedings.

With Appeals Court Ruling In Iberostar Of Spain Libertad Act Lawsuit, Why Would Any Defendant Subject To European Union Jurisdiction Waste Their Time Seeking Guidance From European Commission?

/

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)

09/16/2022- Oral argument held this date. Oral Argument presented by Leon Patricios for Appellant Maria Dolores Canto Marti and Rebecca M. Plasencia for Appellee Iberostar Hoteles Y Apartamentos SL. [Entered: 09/16/2022 01:17 PM]

11/21/2022- Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Maria Dolores Canto Marti. Decision: Reversed, Vacated and Remanded. Opinion type: Published. Opinion method: Signed. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions. [Entered: 11/21/2022 02:10 PM]

11/21/2022- Judgment entered as to Appellant Maria Dolores Canto Marti. [Entered: 11/21/2022 02:14 PM]

LINK To Defendant's Status Report (11/7/22)
LINK To Opinion United States Court Of Appeal (11/21/22)

Excerpts From Opinion:

European Commission deliberations have stopped this case in its tracks, with no end in sight. Marti has effectively been pushed out of federal court. That means we have jurisdiction over the stay order, which is “immoderate” and thus unlawful. It is indefinite in duration and has stalled the case for almost three years. Considering this delay, we find that any earlier justifications for the stay have eroded. We reverse the district court’s denial of Marti’s renewed motion and vacate the stay. The case must go on.

Lastly, the court relied on the “efficient use of judicial resources” in continuing the stay. In explaining this justification, the court said only that judicial economy weighed in favor of the stay because there was “no reason to presume that the European Commission is unlikely to render a prompt decision.” That rationale has evaporated. With the additional passage of time, ample reason now exists to doubt the Commission’s promptness. What’s more, because nothing the Commission says will affect the merits of this case, waiting on its decision serves more to conserve Iberostar’s resources than those of the United States courts.

Almost three years have passed since Marti first filed her lawsuit. She cannot recoup those three years. But now she can pursue her claims, Iberostar can assert its defenses, and this suit can USCA11 Case: 21-11906 Date Filed: 11/21/2022 Page: 21 of 22 22 Opinion of the Court 21-11906 continue. We REVERSE the court’s May 2021 order denying the renewed motion to lift the stay, VACATE the stay, and REMAND for the case to proceed.

LINK: Iberostar Hoteles Of Spain Makes Cat's Nine Lives Look Weak- Judge In Cuba Libertad Lawsuit Delaying Trial Three Times What A Cat Expects. October 12, 2022

President of Cuba Visiting President Of Turkiye. Number One Agenda Item: Paying Istanbul's Karpowership For Providing Nearing 20% Of Cuba's Electricity. What Will He Trade Away?

/

Miguel Diaz-Canel, President of the Republic of Cuba (2019- ), is visiting the Republic of Turkiye from 21 November 2022 to 23 November 2022. He will meet in the capital, Ankara, on 22 November 2022 with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of the Republic of Turkiye. President Erdogan visited the Republic of Cuba from 10 February 2015 to 11 February 2015.

The primary goals for the visit to Turkiye are to obtain debt relief, financial assistance, export opportunities, and import opportunities (meaning extended payment terms) and support by the government and private sectors in Turkiye to mitigate the impact of United States sanctions upon the Republic of Cuba. However, the public and private sector in Turkiye each have financial constraints that will prevent providing all that President Diaz-Canel is seeking. Challenging too will be a record of previous debt (sovereign and commercial) restructuring agreements by the government of the Republic of Cuba with public sectors and private sectors in many countries have gone resulted in only further restructuring as obligations have not been met.

The message from President Diaz-Canel in Ankara will be the same as his message in Algiers, Moscow, and Beijing: Obtain commercial, economic, and political assistance so the government of the Republic of Cuba may remain the anachronism it is rather than embracing changes which would enhance its ability to earn foreign exchange- as have the governments in Algiers, Moscow, Beijing… and Ankara. The President of Algeria obliged. President Diaz-Canel’s four-country tour does not have a foundation of strength- it reflects weakness.

The Republic of Cuba currently produces between 2,000 MW and 2,500 NW, but should generate more than 3,000 MW to provide for current demand which remains far below desired optimum electric power generation for a country of 11.2 million. Reasons for the lack of electrical power generation include aging infrastructure and type of infrastructure.  

How is the Diaz-Canel-Valdes Mesa Administration in Havana narrowing the current distance between supply and demand? By multi-year contracts with Istanbul, Turkiye-based Karpowership which is a member of the Istanbul, Turkiye-based Karadeniz Energy Group which is a subsidiary of Istanbul, Turkiye-based Karadeniz Holding.

How is the Diaz-Canel-Valdes Mesa Administration in Havana paying Karpowership? Unlikely on a normal commercial basis as the government of the Republic of Cuba is chronically absent of foreign exchange. And since January 2020, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon tourism revenues, changes to export and import prices, increase in commercial shipping rates; and since 24 February 2022 the impact of the invasion of Ukraine and further invasion of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation on energy prices, tourism (impact upon airline travel from the Russian Federation to the Republic of Cuba due to sanctions against the Russian Federation); and since 1961 the commercial, economic, and political impact of sanctions (statutory, regulatory, and policy) imposed by the United States government upon the Republic of Cuba. Hence, the visit by President Diaz-Canel to Turkiye.

From Karpowership (which reported providing 10% of electrical power generation in the Republic of Cuba, but currently provides approximately 20%):

“In October 2018, Karpowership signed a contract with La Empresa importadora y exportadora de objetivos electroenergéticos (Energoimport), the state electricity company of Cuba, to deploy three Powerships of 110 MW in total for a period of 51 months. Karadeniz Powership Barış Bey and Karadeniz Powership Esra Sultan started operation in Port de Mariel in June 2019 and Karadeniz Powership Ela Sultan started operations in November 2019. In November 2019, the contract capacity was increased to 144 MW. In November 2021, a new Addendum Agreement was signed to increase the capacity to 300 MW and extend the contract term 18 years. Karpowership currently has 6 Powerships with an installed capacity of 420 MW in the country. Cuba is Karpowership’s first project in Western Hemisphere.” 

“Karpowership is a pioneer in innovative energy projects for the last 25 years, with investments in domestic and international markets. The group started its energy investments in 1996, and today owns and operates 6,000 MW installed capacity globally.  Karpowership is the owner, operator and builder of the only Powership™ (floating power plant) fleet in the world and plays an active role in medium to long-term investments; providing access to fast-track, affordable and reliable electricity. Currently, Karpowership owns and operates 33 Powerships with an installed capacity of 6,000 MW and an active construction pipeline.”

”Powerships have a range starting from 30 MW up to 470 MW and they are delivered ready to operate in less than 60 days. Starting from the design, and ending with delivery of electricity, Karpowership fully executes all activities in-house including construction, site preparation, commissioning, and fuel supply. Powerships are designed, constructed and engineered to be deployed to various corners of the world on a short, medium and long-term basis, adding base load, mid-merit or peak shaving electricity generation capacity to the host country’s grid.”

“The Powership solution has brought a new aspect to the power business by utilizing proven technology in fully integrated, ready to deliver, mobile floating power plants. Powerships provide highest efficiency, reliable and economical power supply with fast-track delivery under various commercial structures. Unlike other fast-track power solution providers, Karpowership offers not only the speed of delivery, but also high efficiency and competitive prices.  With more than 2,600 employees globally; Karpowership is operational in four continents across the world.” 

Thomson Reuters
London, United Kingdom
16 November 2022
Turkish Karpowership’s 7th floating power ship to help enlighten Cuba

Cuba welcomed on Tuesday a seventh floating power plant to its growing fleet of shipboard generators as the country seeks to bolster its grid and bring relief to citizens who for months have suffered daily, hourslong blackouts.  The powership, leased from Karpowership of Türkiye-based conglomerate Karadeniz Holding, is expected to feed an additional 110 megawatts of electricity into Cuba's grid by month's end, officials said, or about one-tenth the average daily generation shortfall.  The seven floating power plants, which will generate a total of 400 megawatts, represent one part of a strategy announced earlier this year to stem a growing energy crisis.  The government has said it also aims to purchase small diesel-fired, land-based generators to supplement the grid, and has announced plans to service its larger, though obsolete, Soviet-era fuel-fired power plants.  Cuba's energy woes are perhaps the most painful symptom of a deeper financial crisis caused by external factors such as U.S. sanctions, the COVID-19 pandemic and poor economic management.  The modern powerships provide quick relief. They carry their own generators fueled by oil or gas, anchor close to land and connect with dedicated transmission lines to the local electricity grid. They are typically leased by a host country.  Cuban oil-fired power plants are, by comparison, aged and inefficient, averaging 35 years of age, with a backup system of hundreds of smaller generators at least 15 years old.  Just 5% of Cuba's power currently comes from alternative energy sources. 

AmaBhungane
South Africa
12 July 2021
Powerships: Inside the Karadeniz money-spinning global empire

The powership conglomerate earns an astonishing amount from its specialist offering to frail and broken states. But many of its deals around the world have been criticised as exploitative and irrational. South Africa may become the biggest prize of all. And we have already helped fund the growth of this corporate empire.  Karadeniz Holdings, the company that hopes to moor powerships in three local ports, commands a rapidly expanding fleet of these seaborne power plants, raking in over $1-billion per year around the world.  Most of this was built in the past five years alone, bearing testimony to the group’s aggressive strategy of courting governments that are, as chief executive Orhan Karadeniz once told an American diplomat, “desperate” for electricity. https://amabhungane.org/stories/210712_powerships-inside-the-karadeniz-money-spinning-global-empire/ 

From Jorge Pinon, Senior Research Fellow- The University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute: It seems that is the support vessel to the powership that they are sending back to Cuba, not the Karpowership itself.  As the table below my note shows there are only six, not counting the support vessel KARADENIZ ONE. 

  • The 8.7 DWT, Liberian flag KPS IREM SULTAN powership left Turkey on 10/03 and is scheduled to arrive in La Habana on 11/13, after a brief stop in Las Palmas on 10/19.  She is reported to be moored at the Caribbean Drydock Company facilities located on Punta de Colorados (Casablanca, Regla).  

  • The 2.7 DWT, Liberian flag tug/supply ship KARADENIZ ONE arrived in La Habana on 10/25, left Rio de Janeiro on 10/07, to support the arrival of the IREM SULTAN.

  • The IREM SULTAN will join the BELGIN SULTAN and the ERIN SULTAN which are already moored on the Ensenada de Atares, near UNE’s Tallapiedra thermoelectric power plant.

  • The KPS BARIS BAY, KPS ESRA SULTAN and KPS ELA SULTAN are moored in Mariel. 

The Karpowerships “installed rated” capacity is different from the “contracted” capacity.  These six Karpowerships run on high sulphur fuel oil HSFO so there will be more cabotage traffic between Matanzas and La Habana to supply these Karpowerships as today with the cabotage tanker CARIBBEAN ALLIANCE which is on a regularly scheduled run between MTZ and Mariel.  Is there a pipeline connection between the Regla refinery tank farm and Casablanca?  The fuel supply to these three La Habana based Karpowerships is going to be a challenge, though not the case in Mariel.  If the new Karpowerships are to be moored at Casablanca as reported, does UNE have a grid connection as exists at Tallapiedra?  So the contribution of the new arrivals to the grid (SEN) would not be immediate if they have to build a connection to the grid (SEN).  

According to EIA the most recent construction cost for a 300MW combined cycle plant is approximately US$1,201.00 per kw* in 2021 U.S. Dollars.  With likely increase in costs since 2021, a new plant would require approximately US$360 million; i.e. a new Guiteras.  * Overnight capital cost includes contingency factors and excludes regional multipliers (except as noted for wind and solar PV) and learning effects.  Interest charges are also excluded. The capital costs represent current costs for plants that would come online in 2022. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf  

From one of the Cuban Blogs.  Questioning the U.S. Dollar value provided and reliability of the information: In lieu of cash payment for the Karpowerships, a twenty-five year lease was granted to Karadeniz for the Havana harbor (Casablanca) Caribbean Drydock Company facility.  LINKS: https://www.cdchavana.cu/en/home/ and En Cuba, nueva central flotante para la generación eléctrica (+ Fotos y Video) | Cubadebate 

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.” 

LINKS To Related Analyses 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First “Made In USA” Electric Scooter Delivered To Female Customer From Holguin, Cuba.  Customer Traveled By Bus 12 Hours To Havana.  E-Scooter Traveled By Air: Miami-Toronto-Havana.

/

First “MADE IN USA” Electric Scooter Delivered From The United States To Woman From Holguin, Cuba.  Customer Traveled By Bus Twelve Hours To Havana.  E-Scooter Traveled By Air From Miami To Toronto To Havana. 

On 17 November 2022, on the sideline of the Havana International Fair (FIHAV) in the Republic of Cuba, Virgen Ricardo Disotuar, a Republic of Cuba national residing in the city of Holguin, Republic of Cuba, accepted delivery of the first United States-manufactured electric scooter to be exported from the United States to the Republic of Cuba using a license issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce. 

The customer traveled by bus to Havana from the city of Holguin, Republic of Cuba, on a journey of approximately 422 miles which required approximately twelve (12) hours.  For the return journey by bus, the 190-pound electric scooter, priced at US$2,100.00 with a two-year, 24,000-mile warranty, was partially disassembled and placed in the cargo hold.   

The first BIS-authorized electric scooter was sold in the Republic of Cuba by Columbia, Maryland-based Premier Automotive Export, Ltd. (PAE).  The electric scooter was a Scout model manufactured by Deerfield Beach, Florida-based Life Electric Vehicles, Inc.  Electric scooter pricing ranges from US$1,900.00 to US$2,700.00 depending upon selected options. 

On 28 September 2022, the BIS issued a license to PAE for the export of electric scooters and electric bicycles to Republic of Cuba nationals and to Micro, Small, & Medium-size Enterprises (MSMEs) in the Republic of Cuba.   

PAE is also offering electric bicycles manufactured by Morgantown, West Virginia-based Z Electric Vehicle Corporation.  Replacement parts for electric scooters and electric bicycles are delivered to the Republic of Cuba from Miami, Florida.  Customer Service operations are in Miami and in Havana.  

So PAE would have an electric scooter to display at FIHAV (14 November 2022 to 18 November 2022), one was disassembled and transported as baggage on a regularly-scheduled commercial flight operated by San Antonio, Texas-based Southwest Airlines from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to Jose Marti International Airport (HAV) in the Republic of Cuba. 

For the delivery of the first Scout to the first customer, with no United States-based air carriers providing direct air freight service from the United States to the Republic of Cuba with conditions to transport an electric scooter, and Jacksonville, Florida-based Crowley Liner Services requiring a payment of approximately US$4,000.00 (minimum for commercial cargo) for a 40-foot container, the electric scooter was transported from the United States to Canada and then from Canada to HAV. 

The 2,968-mile journey by air began at Miami International Airport (MIA) in Miami, Florida, to Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ) in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, and then to HAV.  The one-way cost to transport the electric scooter was US$795.00. The air cargo company transporting the electric scooter was Miami, Florida-based America Cargo Services and the freight forwarder was Miami, Florida-based Malvar Freight Forwarding.  

From order date to delivery, the process was approximately two weeks versus three or more months if ordering a non-United States manufactured electric scooter through Panama or the People’s Republic of China.  

To date, PAE has sold two electric scooters and received US$100.00 deposits for eight (8) electric scooters with additional orders in process.  The deposits and the remaining payments were delivered to PAE in the United States by relatives/friends of the BIS-authorized end users residing in the Republic of Cuba.   

Since 2017, PAE has received five (5) licenses from the BIS to export electric vehicles from the United States to the Republic of Cuba including passenger cars, trucks, motorcycles, scooters, and bicycles along with respective parts.  The first electric passenger sedan was sold in 2017 to the Embassy of Guyana in Havana.   

From Mr. John Felder, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of PAE, “Our focus is to deliver the finest selection of “Made in America” assembled and manufactured vehicles to the citizens of Cuba and to assist with increasing transportation and operational efficiencies to the country’s re-emerging private sector.”  

PAE is also introducing Bidirectional Charge Stations (BCS) to several embassies in Havana.  From Mr. John Felder, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of PAE, “If the 124 embassies located in Havana had a fleet of electric vehicles and installed BCS, there would be less drain upon the national electrical grid.”  BCS can divert power to a residence, office, or the electrical grid. 

According to the government of the Republic of Cuba, there are 5,643 private MSMEs in the Republic of Cuba of which includes sixty-eight (68) Republic of Cuba government-operated entities and fifty-nine non-agricultural cooperatives.  Fifty-two percent (52%) of the entities are conversions of pre-existing enterprises and forty-eight percent (48%) are new enterprises. 

Recent Administration Policy Changes Background And Issue With Payments 

The Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) 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.  

The issuance of the licenses in May 2022, September 2022, and November 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.”  

A significant transaction hurdle remains receiving payments in the United States from Republic of Cuba nationals residing in the Republic of Cuba who are restricted in the amount of Cuban Pesos they may exchange for convertible currencies, including United States Dollars and Euros.   

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury authorizes United States financial institutions to have correspondent accounts with Cuba-based financial institutions.   

The decision by the Obama-Biden Administration (2009-2017) not to authorize Republic of Cuba-based financial institutions to have correspondent accounts with United States-based financial institutions never made sense- the marketplace, meaning United States-based financial institutions and their customers should determine if they want to engage in direct correspondent banking.  As written, the OFAC regulations today do not provide United States companies with a viable mechanism to avoid the use (and delay and expense) of third-country financial institutions to send or receive authorized payments.  Why one way, but not both ways?    

The use of correspondent accounts is particularly critical to the re-emerging private sectors in Cuba as represented by MSMEs. 

The current requirement to move funds from the Republic of Cuba and to the Republic of Cuba through third-country financial institutions is inefficient, not transparent, and expensive- especially when considering that MSME transactions are often small which makes the fees far more onerous as a percentage of the total transaction.  This is true for vehicles and vehicle parts. 

There are discussions within the BIS, OFAC, and United States Department of State to authorize Republic of Cuba-based financial institutions to have correspondent accounts with United States-based financial institutions which would then permit the efficient, transparent, and cost-effective movement of funds for authorized transactions.   

PAE BIS License History 

This is the fifth (5) 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, fourth, and fifth BIS licenses were issued during the Biden-Harris Administration.    

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 D1297862 (11/17/22- 11/30/26)- Electric vehicles and chargers to republic of cuba nationals with the “ULTIMATE CONSIGNEE: Privately owned companies in the Republic of Cuba owned by Cuba Nationals.”     

  • 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  

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT

PAE-Related Analyses Links 

Eleven Months After Denial, Biden-Harris Administration Approves Four-Year License To Export Electric Vehicles To Micro, Small & Medium-Size Enterprises (MSME's) In Cuba Nov 21, 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.  October 06, 2022 

Ten Months After Denial, Biden-Harris Administration Approves Exports Of Electric Motorcycles, Electric Scooters To Cuba Nationals And To Privately-Owned Companies In Cuba October 05, 2022 

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 

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

Eleven Months After Denial, Biden-Harris Administration Approves Four-Year License To Export Electric Vehicles To Micro, Small & Medium-Size Enterprises (MSME's) In Cuba 

/

Eleven Months After Denial, Biden-Harris Administration Approves Four-Year License To Export Electric Vehicles To Micro, Small & Medium-Size Enterprises (MSME's) In Cuba 

Beginning To Make Consistent United States Government Global Policy Relating To The Use Of EVs With Cuba Policy

On 17 November 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) approved a license application submitted on 22 October 2022 by Columbia, Maryland-based Premier Automotive Export, Ltd. (PAE) to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce to export electric vehicles and chargers to republic of cuba nationals with the “ULTIMATE CONSIGNEE: Privately owned companies in the Republic of Cuba owned by Cuba Nationals.”  The BIS license (D1297862) is valid to 30 November 2026.  Requirements: 

  • “1. The items must be used to meet the needs of the Cuban people. 2. The items are not for resale to the Cuban government, or Cuban Government officials. 3. The items may not be reexported from Cuba to any other destination. 4. The items may not be used to enable or facilitate the export of goods or services from Cuba that primarily generate revenue for the Cuban government.” 

  • “Quantity: 500.  … Electric Vehicle with a range of 150 miles per charge and 40Kw battery that can be used for Vehicle to Grid Technology to support the current grid.” 

On 15 December 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration denied a license application submitted on 30 September 2021 by to PAE to the BIS 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.”    

NOTE: On 28 September 2022, the BIS issued a license to PAE for the export of electric scooters and electric bicycles to Republic of Cuba nationals and to Micro, Small, & Medium-size Enterprises (MSMEs) in the Republic of Cuba owned by Republic of Cuba nationals.   

According to the government of the Republic of Cuba, there are 5,643 private MSMEs in the Republic of Cuba of which includes sixty-eight (68) Republic of Cuba government-operated entities and fifty-nine non-agricultural cooperatives.  Fifty-two percent (52%) of the entities are conversions of pre-existing enterprises and forty-eight percent (48%) are new enterprises. 

Original BIS License Application Background 

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.  

The issuance of the licenses in May 2022, September 2022, and November 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.”  

A significant transaction hurdle remains receiving payments in the United States from Republic of Cuba nationals residing in the Republic of Cuba who are restricted in the amount of Cuban Pesos they may exchange for convertible currencies, including United States Dollars and Euros.   

The OFAC authorizes United States financial institutions to have correspondent accounts with Cuba-based financial institutions. 

The decision by the Obama-Biden Administration (2009-2017) not to authorize Republic of Cuba-based financial institutions to have correspondent accounts with United States-based financial institutions never made sense- the marketplace, meaning United States-based financial institutions and their customers should determine if they want to engage in direct correspondent banking.  As written, the OFAC regulations today do not provide United States companies with a viable mechanism to avoid the use (and delay and expense) of third-country financial institutions to send or receive authorized payments.  Why one way, but not both ways?    

The use of correspondent accounts is particularly critical to the re-emerging private sectors in Cuba as represented by MSMEs. 

The current requirement to move funds from the Republic of Cuba and to the Republic of Cuba through third-country financial institutions is inefficient, not transparent, and expensive- especially when considering that MSME transactions are often small which makes the fees far more onerous as a percentage of the total transaction.  This is true for vehicles and vehicle parts. 

There are discussions within the BIS, OFAC, and United States Department of State to authorize Republic of Cuba-based financial institutions to have correspondent accounts with United States-based financial institutions which would then permit the efficient, transparent, and cost-effective movement of funds for authorized transactions.   

PAE BIS License History 

This is the fifth (5) 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, fourth, and fifth BIS licenses were issued during the Biden-Harris Administration.    

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 D1297862 (11/17/22- 11/30/26)- Electric vehicles and chargers to republic of cuba nationals with the “ULTIMATE CONSIGNEE: Privately owned companies in the Republic of Cuba owned by Cuba Nationals.”     

  • 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 

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT

PAE-Related Analyses Links 

First “Made In USA” Electric Scooter Delivered To Female Customer From Holguin, Cuba.  Customer Traveled By Bus 12 Hours To Havana.  E-Scooter Traveled By Air: Miami-Toronto-Havana. Nov 21, 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.  October 06, 2022 

Ten Months After Denial, Biden-Harris Administration Approves Exports Of Electric Motorcycles, Electric Scooters To Cuba Nationals And To Privately-Owned Companies In Cuba October 05, 2022 

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 

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

Plaintiffs In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Four Cruise Lines: Court Should Reject Defendants’ Argument That “amount … certified” Means Amount Less Than US$9,179,700.88 Certified By FCSC

/

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)

LINK: Plaintiff's Reply In Support Of Its Motion For Entry Of Final Judgement
LINK: Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Excerpts:

Defendants oppose Havana Docks’ motion for entry of final judgment on three grounds, none of which has merit.

  • First, Defendants argue that the Court must determine “what amount of the certified claim Plaintiff could recover before applying the applicable interest.” (Resp. at 11). But the plain language of the statute does not say that. Instead, it says that damages are “the amount, if any, certified” by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (“FCSC”) to a claimant. 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A)(i)(I). Accordingly, the applicable interest rate is applied to the “amount … certified” to Havana Docks: $9,179,700.88.

  • Second, Defendants ask this Court to reconsider, in light of Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 48 F.4th 1236 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc), its prior determination that Havana Docks has Article III standing. But Hunstein has no bearing on the Article III standing analysis here, because the plaintiff there alleged only an intangible injury. Here, as this Court has recognized, Havana Docks suffered a tangible economic injury: Defendants deprived Havana Docks of the ability to authorize (and so realize an economic benefit from) their use of the confiscated property.

  • Third, Defendants ask this Court to declare Title III’s statutory damages unconstitutionally excessive, but without any principled basis. The legal standard they urge is incorrect and the “actual” damages they presume do not reflect Havana Docks’ actual injuries. The proper excessiveness standard for statutory damages is whether they are proportional to the offense and the statute’s purpose. Here, Defendants’ trafficking violated United States foreign policy, provided a financial benefit to the Cuban Government, exploited Havana Docks’ confiscated property, and earned them over $1.1 billion in revenue. Measured against Title III’s goals of compensation and deterrence, the statutory damages established by Congress are proportional and should be left undisturbed.

Havana Docks then sued Carnival in this case on May 2, 2019, and each of the Defendants continued to traffic in the Terminal until late May or early June 2019. As Royal’s then-Chairman, Richard Fain, explained: “the change is likely to prompt litigation with companies that do business in Cuba. ‘We believe we have solid defenses and are not expecting to change our itineraries as a result,’ he said.”17 Norwegian’s President and CEO, Mr. Del Rio, put it this way: Cuba “was a profitable itinerary to operate, and we didn’t want to see it stopped.” (ECF No. 235-76 at 78:7- 11.) Mr. Donald summarized the industry’s position on trafficking in confiscated property as follows:

  • Q. Mr. Donald, didn’t this same risk apply to all of Carnival’s cruises to Cuba during the time frame of the 2016 to 2019?

  • A. I think a risk. There was always a risk that someone would try to sue. There's always that risk. And that’s the risk we live with all the time as a large corporation with assets. So people always, you know, trying to sue for one reason or another. So the risk here doesn’t necessarily speak to winning or losing. It speaks, you know, to having to go through the hassle of -- of being sued. I think the consensus in the industry at the time, as I recall, was that this Act would increase the risk that we could be sued, not necessarily increase the risk that, you know, we would lose in final determination, but increase the risk we would be sued, would emboldened those who wanted to seek a claim, you know, to try to do so. So that’s my interpretation of it.

The Defendants knew exactly what they were doing. They had extensive, actual knowledge of the requirements of the LIBERTAD Act, their liability for violating it, and the risks of litigation. They made a business decision to assume those risks and liabilities in the pursuit of profit. Of the alternatives available, litigating to judgment was the path the Defendants picked. They received all the process they were constitutionally due and lost. The Constitution does not absolve them of the known consequences of their business decisions. Judgment should be entered for Havana Docks for the full amount of statutory damages.

CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court should reject Defendants’ argument that the “amount … certified” means an amount less than the $9,179,700.88 certified to Havana Docks by the FCSC, deny their request for reconsideration of the Court’s prior determination that Havana Docks possesses Article III standing, and reject their contention that Title III’s statutory damages are unconstitutionally excessive.

Former U.S. Senator Who Advocated For Normalization Of Relations With Cuba, Traveled To Cuba, Appointed “Special Presidential Advisor for the Americas”  Will He Re-Engage With Cuba Policy? 

/

Former U.S. Senator Who Advocated For Normalization Of Relations With Cuba, Traveled To Cuba, Thirty-Year Friend Of President Biden, Appointed “Special Presidential Advisor for the Americas”  Will He Re-Engage With Cuba Policy? 

While a member of the United States Senate (1981-2011), Senator Dodd (D- Connecticut) visited the Republic of Cuba in December 1999.

United States Department of State
Washington DC
18 November 2022

Appointment of Chris Dodd as Special Presidential Advisor for the Americas
Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

Senator Chris Dodd will serve as Special Presidential Advisor for the Americas, following up on his role as Special Advisor for the Ninth Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles in June.  Senator Dodd will help advance the implementation of key initiatives President Biden announced at the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles, spanning economic cooperation, migration, health, human rights, food security, as well as other priorities. He will also support the work currently being done by Vice President Harris, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, USAID, and others. Additionally, he will support preparations for the upcoming Cities Summit of the Americas in Denver in April 2023. 

In his decades as a dedicated public servant, starting as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic and through his time on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Senator Dodd has built trust with many of our partners in the Western Hemisphere. He is uniquely qualified to continue delivering the message President Biden conveyed at the Summit of the Americas, namely that countries in the hemisphere must tackle our shared challenges together, in a coordinated manner, to build a sustainable, resilient, and equitable future for the people of the Americas.

Three Members Of The United States House Of Representatives Who Serve On The Agriculture Committee Visit Cuba. They Each Won Re-Election In 2022. First CODEL To Cuba Since October 2021.

/

Reps. Carbajal, Baird, Hayes Lead Bipartisan Agriculture Committee Delegation to Cuba
Havana, Cuba, November 19, 2022

Agriculture Committee members to survey current state of agricultural practices in Cuba and state of food supply, as U.S. is one of the largest suppliers of food and agricultural products to the country

HAVANA, Cuba – Beginning today, Congressman Salud Carbajal (D-CA) is leading a bipartisan House Agriculture Committee delegation of Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN) and Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT) to Cuba. “As members of the House Agriculture Committee, we work every week in Washington to track the impact that U.S. agriculture and agricultural trade is having in nations around the globe. And as the United States is one of Cuba’s largest suppliers of agricultural imports, we look forward to seeing the impact of U.S. products and the opportunity to survey local agricultural practices,”said the delegation. “We will be meeting with farmers and agricultural experts to help us understand the current state of agriculture and food supply in Cuba, as well as discuss where opportunities for mutual economic benefit may exist for American businesses and the Cuban people. We are eager to report our findings back to our colleagues and our committee upon our return.” The bipartisan delegation is expected to meet with Cuban farmers, agricultural business operators, and local officials to discuss the current state of agriculture in Cuba, the impact that U.S. commodities are having in Cuban markets and households, and related issues. The trip is expected to conclude early next week.

LINK TO RELATED ANALYSIS

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 Nov 5, 2022

List Of Visits By Members Of The United States Congress

OFAC Authorizes Orbit S.A. In Cuba To Engage In Remittance Transactions- Not On Cuba Restricted List (CRL). Western Union Next Up To Return?

/

On CubaNews
Miami, Florida
17 November 2022

Sending remittances to Cuba made more flexible

The Miami-based VaCuba agency has obtained permission from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to operate with Cuba’s Orbit S.A. the sending of foreign currency to the island. According to reports, the United States government has just relaxed the restrictions for sending remittances to Cuba by granting the Miami-based VaCuba agency, from Miami, permission to operate with Cuba’s Orbit S.A. the sending of foreign currency to the island.

“We have received authorization from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to operate with Orbit S.A., which allows us to send remittances to the cards in freely convertible currency of Cuban banks with a 7% fee on our website,” said Heder Martínez, general manager of VaCuba.

It was also announced that VaCuba will charge each client 7 dollars for every 100 that they send to the island, a modest rate considering that right now Cubans in the United States have to pay in the informal market around 30 dollars for every 100 that they send to their relatives.

In February 2022, the Cuban government authorized Orbit S.A. to operate to work with remittances. A resolution published in the Gaceta Oficial announced that it was given authorization to “manage and process international transfers from abroad to Cuba.

LINKS TO RELATED ANALYSES

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

On First Stop Of Four-Country Tour, President Of Cuba Receives Debt Relief & Oil Shipment Resumption.

/

AFP (France) 17 November 2022: Algeria said Thursday it would restart energy supplies to Cuba and donate a solar plant to help the island tackle chronic power cuts.  The announcement was made as Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel visited Africa’s biggest gas exporter, the first stop on a tour that will also include Russia, Turkey and China.  Algeria will “grant Cuba a solar power plant and resume the supply of fuel to allow Cuba to restart power plants and stop the power cuts,” Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune told reporters.  He also vowed to cancel interest payments on Cuban debt, without specifying figures.  Diaz-Canel said this was an “important” demonstration of support.  Since May, Cuba has been facing both frequent power cuts and fuel shortages.  Algeria and Cuba have had friendly relations for decades, with the first Cuban doctors dispatched to the North African country in 1963, just a year after its independence from France.  Diaz-Canel said he and Tebboune had a “convergence of views on international and regional issues of common interest”.

LINK TO RELATED POST

President Of Cuba To Visit Algeria, Russia, Turkiye, China Seeking Loans, Financing, Investment, Debt Forgiveness. Already Owes Money To Many. Nov 16, 2022

President Of Cuba To Visit Algeria, Russia, Turkiye, China Seeking Loans, Financing, Investment, Debt Forgiveness. Already Owes Money To Many.

/

Bloomberg (New York) 16 November 2022: Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel on Wednesday embarked on a rare international tour of Algeria, Russia, Turkey and China seeking support for the communist island as its economy has been hard hit by the global pandemic and energy woes.  

AFP (France) 16 November 2022: Cuba gets oil from Algeria and Russia as well as Venezuela, its main supplier, while several of the island nation's power plants rely on Soviet or Russian technology.  China is Cuba's second-largest trading partner after Venezuela, and a key communist ally.  A Turkish company, meanwhile, is leasing Cuba seven floating electricity generators, the latest of which arrived at the port of Havana on Tuesday. 

Prensa Latina (Cuba) 16 November 2022: On Twitter, the president confirmed that he would visit Algeria, Türkiye, Russia, and China in response to official invitations from the leaders of those countries.  The head of State twitted that during the meetings, he would talk about essential issues for Cuba, mainly those related to the electro-energy sector.  Díaz-Canel noted that the program responds to Cuba’s political and economic priorities, as well as the efforts to alleviate the effects of a post-pandemic crisis that is affecting the whole world and is worsening for the country due to the United States blockade.  Díaz-Canel stressed that during these days, he and his delegation would work intensively to strengthen economic and political ties and continue to boost Cuba’s development.  The Cuban delegation also includes Deputy Prime Ministers Ricardo Cabrisas and Alejandro Gil, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, Ministers of Foreign Trade and Investment Rodrigo Malmierca, Energy and Mines Minister Vicente de la O, and Public Health Minister José Angel Portal Miranda.  It is Díaz-Canel’s first international presidential tour following the Covid-19 pandemic.

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.