Biden-Harris Administration Eliminates Cuba Restricted List. Companies Expect Trump-Vance Administration To Reinstate It.

Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Steps to Support the Cuban People

Since the beginning of the Biden-Harris Administration, United States’ policy towards Cuba has focused on empowering the Cuban people to freely determine their own future, and advancing respect for human rights.  This singular purpose has guided our policies to reunify Cuban families, strengthen cultural and educational ties between Cuba and the United States, enable remittances to flow more freely to the Cuban people, and increase support for independent Cuban entrepreneurs.

In that spirit, we are taking several steps to support the Cuban people as part of an understanding with the Catholic Church under the leadership of Pope Francis and improve the livelihood of Cubans.  First, today we notified Congress that President Biden determined Cuba should no longer be designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.  Secondly, we notified Congress that the President issued a waiver for Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, otherwise known as the Libertad Act, for a period of six months.  Finally, President Biden rescinded the 2017 National Security Presidential Memorandum 5 on Cuba policy to eliminate the so-called “restricted list” and by extension the additional regulations on engagement by U.S. persons and entities with Cuban persons and entities, beyond that which is currently prescribed in U.S. legislation.  We have also been informed by the Catholic Church that the Cuban government will soon begin releasing a substantial number of political prisoners.

In taking these steps to bolster the ongoing dialogue between the government of Cuba and the Catholic Church, President Biden is also honoring the wisdom and counsel that has been provided to him by many world leaders, especially in Latin America, who have encouraged him to take these actions, on how best to advance the human rights of the Cuban people.  We take these steps in appreciation of the Catholic Church’s efforts to facilitate Cuba to take its own, constructive measures to restore liberty to its citizens and enable conditions that improve the livelihood of Cubans.

Biden-Harris Administration Suspends Cuba Lawsuits Using Title III Of Libertad Act Of 1996. Impact Limited.

Letter to the Chairmen and Chair of Certain Congressional Committees on the Suspension of the Right to Bring an Action Under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996

Dear Mr. Chairman: (Dear Madam Chair:)

Consistent with section 306(c)(1)(B) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-114) (the “Act”), I hereby determine that suspension for 6 months beyond January 29, 2025, of the right to bring an action under Title III of the Act is necessary to the national interests of the United States and will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba.

Sincerely, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

LINK TO LIBERTAD ACT TITLE III LAWSUIT FILING STATISTICS

Certification of Rescission of Cuba’s Designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism

January 14, 2025
Presidential Actions
Certification of Rescission of Cuba’s Designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism

Pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and consistent with sections 1754(c) and 1768(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (50 U.S.C. 4813(c) and 4826(c)), I hereby certify with respect to the rescission of the determination of January 12, 2021, regarding Cuba that:  (i)  The Government of Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding 6-month period; and (ii)  The Government of Cuba has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.

This certification shall also satisfy the provisions of section 620A(c)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371(c)(2)), section 40(f)(1)(B) of the Arms Export Control Act, Public Law 90-629, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2780 (f)(1)(B)), and, to the extent applicable, section 6(j)(4)(B) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, Public Law 96-72, as amended (50 U.S.C. App.2405(j)), and as continued in effect by Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
THE WHITE HOUSE

Memorandum on the Revocation of National Security Presidential Memorandum 5

NATIONAL SECURITY MEMORANDUM/NSM-29
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
               THE SECRETARY OF STATE
               THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
               THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
               THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
               THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
               THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
               THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
               THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OF STAFF
               THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANANGEMENT AND BUDGET
               THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
               THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS
               THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
               The DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
               THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL
                  SECURITY AFFAIRS
               THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
               THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR ECONOMIC
                  POLICY AND DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
               THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND HOMELAND
                  SECURITY ADVISOR AND DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
               THE CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
               THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
               THE NATIONAL CYBER DIRECTOR
               THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
               THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
               THE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
                  INVESTIGATION
               THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER
               THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY CENTER

SUBJECT: Revocation of National Security Presidential Memorandum 5

The United States maintains as the core objective of our policy the need for more freedom and democracy, improved respect for human rights, and increased free enterprise in Cuba.  Achieving these goals will require practical engagement with Cuba and the Cuban people beyond what is outlined in NSPM-5, and that takes into account recent developments in Cuba and the changing regional and global context. Accordingly, I hereby revoke NSPM-5.  

Section 1.  Revocation.  NSPM-5 is hereby revoked.  Accordingly, the Secretary of State shall immediately rescind the list developed in accordance with Section 3(a)(i) of NSPM-5, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall initiate a process to adjust current regulations as a result of this revocation of NSPM-5.  

Sec. 2.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.  (b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.  (c)  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.   

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals Issues Setback In Libertad Act Title III Cuba Lawsuit Against Societe Generale And PNB Paribas.

“The principal issue on this consolidated appeal is whether 22 U.S.C. § 6084, the time bar provision of the Helms-Burton Act, Pub. L. No. 104-114, 110 Stat. 785 (1996), is a statute of repose or a statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs are successors-in-interest to assets seized by the Cuban regime many decades ago. In 1996, Congress created a private cause of action for United States nationals against "any person" who "traffics" in that "confiscated" property, 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A), by passing the Helms-Burton Act.  Yet, no action could be brought until May 2019 because, until then, every President used his authority under the Act to suspend the private right of action. See 22 U.S.C.§ 6085(c)(1)-(2). When the plaintiffs ultimately brought suit against BNP Paribas, S.A. and Societe Generale, S.A., the banks moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1 ), (2), and (6) on, inter alia, the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, that most of their allegations were time-barred under section 6084, and that the timely allegations failed to plausibly allege trafficking as defined by section 6023(13)(A).

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that (1) the plaintiffs have Article III standing, but (2) their allegations predating the filing of their respective complaints by two years or more are untimely because section 6084 is a statute of repose, and no basis for tolling the time bar exists, and (3) the remaining allegations fail to plausibly allege a violation of the Helms-Burton Act.  We therefore AFFIRM the judgments of the district courts.”

Link To 51-Page Court Opinion In PDF Format 

30th Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit Filed- This One Against Societe Generale And BNP Paribas, Both Of France, May Have Found Jurisdiction In New York December 02, 2020 

Societe Generale Wins Dismissal Of One Of Two Libertad Act Lawsuits. Plaintiff Expected To Appeal New York Ruling. January 05, 2022 

Societe Generale And BNP Paribas Argue That Plaintiffs Should Not "be exempted from the cut-off based on a purported policy argument they profess to glean from legislative history." May 11, 2021 

Societe Generale And BNP Paribas File Motion To Dismiss In Libertad Act Lawsuit- "Frustration Of Purpose Theory" Fails October 07, 2020

Cruise Lines Request 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals To Return Libertad Act Title III Lawsuit To District Court. Defendants Argue Supreme Court Unlikely To Agree To Hear Appeal By Plaintiff.

The four cruise line defendants in Libertad Act Title III lawsuit filed by Havana Docks Corporation have requested the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals not delay remanding the lawsuit to the United States District Court where it was filed. In December 2024, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request by Havana Docks Corporation for an en banc (full court) hearing.

10/22/2024    Judgment entered as to Appellant RCL in 23-10151, Appellant-Cross Appellee RCL in 23-10171. [23-10151, 23-10171
11/04/2024    Bill of costs filed by Attorney Paul D. Clement for Appellant RCL. [23-10151] (ECF: Paul Clement)
11/05/2024    Signed Approved Bill of costs filed by Attorney Paul D. Clement for Appellant RCL.
11/12/2024    Petition for rehearing en banc (with panel rehearing) filed by Appellee Havana Docks Corporation. [23-10151] (ECF: Christopher Landau)
11/13/2024    Received Four paper copies of E-PFR filed by Appellee-Cross Appellant Havana Docks Corporation in 23-10171.
12/20/2024    ORDER: The Petition(s) for Rehearing are DENIED and no Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled, the Petition(s) for Rehearing En Banc filed by Appellee Havana Docks Corporation are DENIED.
12/26/2024    MOTION to stay mandate filed by Havana Docks Corporation. Motion is Opposed. [82] [23-10151] (ECF: Christopher Landau)
12/31/2024    MOTION Order granting or confirming district court's discretion to address on remand costs taxable in the district court under Fed. R. App. P. 39(e) filed by Havana Docks Corporation. Motion is Opposed.
12/31/2024    RESPONSE to to stay mandate filed by Appellee Havana Docks Corporation [82] filed by Attorney Paul D. Clement for Appellant RCL. [23-10151] (ECF: Paul Clement)
01/02/2025    REPLY to RESPONSE to to stay mandate [82] filed by Appellee Havana Docks Corporation. [23-10151] (ECF: Christopher Landau)

Links To Filings
Reply In Support Of Motion To Stay The Mandate Pending
Joint Opposition To Motion To Stay The Mandate
Motion To Stay The Mandate Pending The Filing Of A Timely

11th Circuit Court Of Appeals Denies Rehearing In Havana Docks Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Four Cruise Lines. Next And Final Stop Would Be U.S. Supreme Court. Dec 22, 2024

In A First... Private Company In Cuba Wins US$85,004.63 Default Judgement Against Miami Food Exporter.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 502024CA000747XXXAMB
DANAOUS SRL, Plaintiff, vs. OVERSEAS OF THE AMERICAS (USA) CORP., Defendant.
 
COMPLAINT: Plaintiff, Danaous SRL ("Plaintiff'), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sues Defendant, Overseas of The Americas (USA) Corp. ("Defendant') and alleges:

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND THE PARTIES
This is an action for damages in excess of $50,000.00 exclusive of interest, attorney's fees, and costs.
Plaintiff is a foreign company based in Habana, Cuba.
Defendant is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Venue is appropriate in Palm Beach County, Florida because the transactions at issue occurred in Palm Beach County, and the causes of action accrued in Palm Beach County.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, among other things, it engages in substantial and not isolated activity within Florida. In addition, Defendant personally, or through its agents, operates, conducts, engages in, or carries on a business or business venture in this state, andIor committed a tortious act within this state.

BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS
On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Food Products (the "Agreement'). A copy of the Agreement is attached as Exhibit A.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendant sold Plaintiff two containers of chicken leg quarters (the "Products') for $84,000.00.
Plaintiff prepaid Defendant for the Products.
According to Section 7 of the Agreement, "[Defendant] will be one hundred percent (100%) responsible for the shipment upon delivery to the Port of Mariel, Cuba.' Id. at § 7.
The Products are currently on hold at the Port of Mariel, Cuba, but Defendant has failed and refused to deliver the Products to Plaintiff.
Defendant has and continues to have complete control over the Products.
Plaintiff has contacted Defendant multiple times regarding the release of the Products, but Plaintiff has failed and refused to deliver the Products.
All conditions precedent to maintaining this action have been performed, satisfied, excused, waived, or would be futile.

COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 - 13 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a valid and binding contract. See Ex. A.Notwithstanding Plaintiff's performance under the Agreement, including prepaid for the Products, Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to deliver the Products to Plaintiff.Accordingly, Defendant is in breach of the Agreement.As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach, Plaintiff has suffered damages.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages, together with prejudgment and post judgment interest, costs, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

01/25/2024    CIVIL COVER SHEET     
01/25/2024    COMPLAINT    F/B PLT
01/29/2024    DIVISION ASSIGNMENT AD: Circuit Civil Central - AD (Civil)
01/29/2024    PAID $401.00 ON RECEIPT 5192743 $401.00 5192743 Fully Paid
01/29/2024    DCM DESIGNATION TO THE STREAMLINE TRACK WITH NON-JURY TRIAL ORDER JAIMIE R. GOODMAN
01/29/2024    SUMMONS ISSUED ksuarez@legalteamservices.com;k.suarez16@yahoo.com;mdiaz@legalteamservices.com OVERSEAS OF THE AMERICAS (USA) CORP.
01/31/2024    PAID $10.00 ON RECEIPT 5197048 $10.00 5197048 Fully Paid
02/08/2024    SERVICE RETURNED (NUMBERED) VERIFIED RETURN OF SERVICE SERVED OVERSEAS OF THE AMERICAS (USA) CORP - 02/02/2024
02/20/2024    RESPONSE TO: TO ALLEGATIONS F/B DFT PRO SE TO ALLEGATIONS F/B DFT PRO SE
02/28/2024    MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE & MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DEFAULT
03/06/2024    NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF ZOOM HEARING 04/11/2024 08:30:00 AM
03/06/2024    NOTICE OF HEARING AMENDED NOTICE OF ZOOM HEARING 04/11/2024 08:30:00 AM
04/12/2024    ORDER GOODMAN DTD 04/12/2024 MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED AS A CORPORATE ENTITY MUST BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL GOODMAN DTD 04/12/2024 MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED AS A CORPORATE ENTITY MUST BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
05/13/2024    MOTION TO DISMISS PLT'S COMPLAINT - F/B DFT
06/03/2024    ORDER DENYING MOTION J GOODMAN DTD. 6/3/24 DENYING DEFTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
06/10/2024    ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FILED BY DFT
07/01/2024    REQUEST TO PRODUCE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
07/01/2024    NOTICE OF FILING INTERROGS    NOTICE OF SERVING
07/13/2024    MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION DATES AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
07/22/2024    NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF OVERSEAS OF THE AMERICAS (USA) CORP 09/25/2024 01:00:00 PM
07/25/2024    MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
07/26/2024    CONSENT CONSENT TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
07/30/2024    NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF ZOOM HEARING 08/28/2024 08:30:00 AM
08/13/2024    ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAW    GOODMAN; IS GRANTED; JEFFREY HARRINGTON IS PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW AS TO DFT OVERSEAS OF THE AMERICA CORP DTD 8/13/2024
08/14/2024    NOTICE OF CANCELLATION NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING 08/28/2024
09/17/2024    MOTION FOR DEFAULT MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DEFAULT AMERICAS (USA) CORP JUDICIAL COURT
09/17/2024    NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF ZOOM HEARING 10/16/2024 08:30:00 AM
10/17/2024    ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DEFAULT: GRANTED. DEFAULT IS HEREBY ENTERED AGAINST DFT OVERSEAS OF THE AMOERCAS [USA] CORP. JUDGE GOODMAN DTD 10/17/24    MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DEFAULT: GRANTED. DEFAULT IS HEREBY ENTERED AGAINST DFT OVERSEAS OF THE AMOERCAS [USA] CORP. JUDGE GOODMAN DTD 10/17/24
10/21/2024    NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF ZOOM HEARING 11/07/2024 08:30:00 AM
10/21/2024    MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT
11/08/2024    FINAL JUDGMENT BOOK 35382 PAGE 1654-1656 J GOODMAN DTD. 11/8/24 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT IS GRANTED SHALL RECOVER TOTAL OF $85,004.63 FOR WHICH LET EXECUTION ISSUE. DJ
11/08/2024    DISPOSED BY JUDGE DJ - DISPOSED BY JUDGE
11/14/2024    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
12/18/2024    NOTICE OF FILING FACT INFORMATION SHEET F/B DFT

LINK To Complaint
LINK To Plaintiffs Motion For Entry Of Default Final Judgement
LINK To Notice Of Service Fact Information Sheet

LINK To Default Judgement

He's Back! Rested, Energized, Enabled.... Nice Office Near U.S. Secretary of State... A Possible Focus On Venezuela To Impact Cuba?

Truth Social: “I am pleased to announce Mauricio Claver-Carone as the State Department’s Special Envoy for Latin America. Mauricio has served in many important roles, including the White House, as my Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Over the last four years, chaos and anarchy have engulfed our Borders. It is time to restore order in our own hemisphere. Mauricio knows the region, and how to put America’s interests FIRST. He also knows the dire threats we face from illegal mass migration and fentanyl. As the State Department’s Special Envoy, Mauricio will work tirelessly to protect the American People.” Dec 22, 2024, 5:35 PM 

President-elect Trump plans to appoint Richard Grennell as Presidential Envoy for Special Missions.  During the Trump-Pence Administration (2017-2021), Mr. Grenell served as United States ambassador to Germany, Special Presidential Envoy for Serbia and Kosovo Peace Negotiations, and Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI).  President-elect Trump wrote: “Ric will work in some of the hottest spots around the World, including Venezuela and North Korea.”

Links To Related Analyses 

President-Elect Trump Announces Treasury Department Landing Team Member- Cuba Policy Focus.  November 21, 2016 

Trump Administration Appoints New Senior Director For Western Hemisphere Affairs At National Security Council.  September 01, 2018 

Mauricio Claver-Carone May Depart NSC For IDB Having Been At IMF; His Replacement? Ask Senator Marco Rubio. February 14, 2020 

New President Of Inter-American Development Bank Will Continue Focus Upon Cuba, Venezuela; And Work Closely With OAS.  September 16, 2020 

Trump-Rubio Administration Could Make Trump-Pence Administration Look Mild, Restrained, And Timid, With Respect To Cuba Policy.  From Grammar School To Postdoctoral.  July 15, 2024 

What Secretary Of State Marco Rubio Means For Cuba And Venezuela... Terrifying For Some, Spanish Language Fluency Becomes Important, End Of Airplane Metaphor, And Precursor For Vance-Rubio 2028?  November 12, 2024

11th Circuit Court Of Appeals Denies Rehearing In Havana Docks Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Four Cruise Lines. Next And Final Stop Would Be U.S. Supreme Court.

"PER CURIAM: The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED, no judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc. FRAP 35. The Petition for Panel Rehearing also is DENIED. FRAP 40."

Court of Appeals Docket #: 23-10151    
Docketed: 01/13/2023
Termed: 10/22/2024
Nature of Suit: 3890 Other Statutory Actions    
Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.    
Appeal From: Southern District of Florida    
Fee Status: Fee Paid    
Case Type Information: 1) Private Civil 2) Federal Question 3) -
Originating Court Information:
District: 113C-1 : 1:19-cv-23590-BB
Court Reporter: Yvette Hernandez
Civil Proceeding: Beth Bloom, U.S. District Judge
Secondary Judge: Chris Marie McAliley, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Date Filed: 08/27/2019        
Date NOA Filed: 01/12/2023    

11/12/2024 -Petition for rehearing en banc (with panel rehearing) filed by Appellee Havana Docks Corporation. [23-10151] (ECF: Christopher Landau)
11/13/2024- Received Four paper copies of E-PFR filed by Appellee-Cross Appellant Havana Docks Corporation in 23-10171. [23-10151, 23-10171]
12/20/2024- ORDER: The Petition(s) for Rehearing are DENIED and no Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled, the Petition(s) for Rehearing En Banc filed by Appellee Havana Docks Corporation are DENIED.

LINK TO COURT DOCUMENT

LINK TO RELATED POST

Havana Docks Corporation Seeks Court Of Appeals Rehearing In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Four Cruise Lines. Decision Likely In December 2024. Next And Final Stop Would Be U.S. Supreme Court. Nov 13, 2024

OFAC Updates Reporting Requirement For Legal Services Payments Originating Outside Of The United States.

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is adopting a final rule amending multiple CFR parts to update general licenses authorizing payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States. Specifically, OFAC is replacing the reporting requirement in the general license with a recordkeeping requirement in applicable parts of 31 CFR chapter V. Additionally, in two CFR parts, OFAC is updating the general licenses authorizing the provision of certain legal services and adding a general license authorizing payment for legal services from funds originating outside the United States.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective December 19, 2024.  Applicability date: This rule is applicable on March 12, 2025.

Background

Updating Existing General Licenses Authoring Payments for Legal Services From Funds Originating Outside the United States

In this rule, OFAC is updating 31 CFR 510, 515, 526, 536, 544, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 555, 558, 569, 570, 576, 578, 579, 582, 583, 584, 585, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 594, 597, 598, and 599 to update or add general licenses authorizing payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States. Specifically, OFAC is replacing the requirement in the general license to submit annual reports for payments received with a requirement to retain for ten years records with details of payments received.

In 31 CFR 591, in addition to replacing the reporting requirement with a recordkeeping requirement as described above, OFAC is revising the general license by simplifying the language that authorizes payments.

In 31 CFR 594 and 597, in addition to replacing the reporting requirement with a recordkeeping requirement as described above, OFAC is updating § 594.517 and § 597.513 to conform with current standards for OFAC general licenses including by removing the requirement for a letter of engagement prior to receiving payment from funds originating outside the United States.

In 31 CFR 549, OFAC is updating the general license at § 549.507 authorizing the provision of certain legal services to conform with current standards for OFAC general licenses including by removing the requirement that payment for legal services be specifically licensed. Additionally, OFAC is renumbering the general licenses at § 549.508 through 549.512 as § 549.509 through 549.513, respectively, and adding new § 549.508, which authorizes payment for legal services from funds originating outside the United States.

In 31 CFR 576, OFAC is updating the general license at § 576.507 authorizing the provision of certain legal services to conform with current standards for OFAC general licenses including by removing the requirement that payment for legal services be specifically licensed. Additionally, OFAC is adding new § 576.508, which authorizes payment for legal services from funds originating outside the United States.

PART 515—CUBAN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS

3. The authority citation for part 515 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2370(a), 6001-6010, 7201-7211; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 4301-4341; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); 22 U.S.C. 6021-6091; Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 111-8, 123 Stat. 524; Pub. L. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034; E.O. 9989, 13 FR 4891, 3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp., p. 748; Proc. 3447, 27 FR 1085, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 157; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 614.

Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations, and Statements of Licensing Policy

4. In § 515.512, revise and republish paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows: § 515.512 Provision of certain legal services authorized.

(e) * * *

(2)

Records.

Consistent with §§ 501.601 and 501.602 of this chapter, persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction who receive payments in connection with legal services authorized pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must retain for ten years from the date of the relevant payment, and furnish to OFAC on demand, a record that specifies the following for each payment:

(i) The individual or entity from whom the funds originated and the amount of funds received; and

(ii) If applicable:

(A) The names of any persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction receiving payment in connection with authorized legal services to or on behalf of Cuba or a Cuban national, such as private investigators or expert witnesses;

(B) A general description of the services provided; and

(C) The amount of funds paid in connection with such services.

Huddleston, Rhodes, Others In Letter To President Biden Ignore Reality About Cuba OFAC Licensing. Ill-Conceived. Il-Timed. Uninformed.

Huddleston, Rhodes, Others In Letter To President Biden Ignore Reality About Cuba OFAC Licensing.   

Perhaps, Everyone Did Not Know?  That’s A Stretch.  Reinforcing Foolishness 

A Letter Ill-Conceived And Ill-Timed 

How Are Cuba Polices Served By Klieg Lights? 

The Hill (17 December 2024: “In a letter to President Biden and Vice President Harris, the former officials- including former Havana Chief of Mission Vicki Huddleston and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes- urge the outgoing administration to remove Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, increase humanitarian aid to the country and to streamline rules for Cuban nationals to access the U.S. financial system.” 

“The signatories also asked Biden to instruct the Office of Foreign Assets Control [OFAC] to guide financial institutions on how to serve qualified Cuban nationals without stepping astride of U.S. sanctions. They also called for a general license to allow U.S. citizens to invest in Cuban enterprises not linked to the country’s government.” 

Ms. Huddleston, Mr. Rhodes, and the other signatories to the letter to Joseph Biden, 46th President of the United States (2021-2015), in asking for the OFAC to issue a general license authorizing investment into privately-owned companies located in the Republic of Cuba, failed to recognize that the OFAC on 10 May 2022 issued the first license authorizing both direct investment into and direct financing to a privately-owned company owned by a Republic of Cuba national located in the Republic of Cuba. 

More consequently, Ms. Huddleston, Mr. Rhodes, and the other signatories rather than recognize the existence of a license issued more than two years ago, failed to be curious as to the status of that license- how had it been implemented?  Was the investment a success?  Was the financing a success- were repayment terms met?  They did not ask the OFAC license recipients. 

Had Ms. Huddleston, Mr. Rhodes, and the other signatories demonstrated curiosity- as would have been expected from a former diplomat, executive branch official, and academicians, they would have learned the investment had not been delivered and the financing had not been delivered. 

Why?  Because the Diaz-Canel-Valdes Mesa Administration (2018- ) has not issued regulations to lawfully authorize direct investment in and direct financing to a privately-owned company owned by a Republic of Cuba national located in the Republic of Cuba.   

This lack of regulatory authorization does not only impact individuals subject to United States jurisdiction, but individuals, investors, and companies in other countries, including surprisingly those located in the Canada, China, Iran, Mexico, Russian Federation, Spain, Turkiye, and United Kingdom, among others.  The government of the Republic of Cuba has not issued regulations that would benefit those countries with whom they have commercial, economic, financial, and political relations- and to whom they owe considerable sums in overdue payments.  That the government of the Republic of Cuba will not assist their friends is a remarkable reality.    

The signatories of the letter to President Biden reinforced the courage of their ignorance.  The Biden-Harris Administration (2021-2025) has implemented a robust portfolio of authorizations enabling engagement with the re-emerging private sector in the Republic of Cuba.  That some of those authorizations have yet to be productive is more about the government of the Republic of Cuba not permitting them to work rather than the Biden-Harris Administration not making an effort.   

True, there remain some critical authorizations that have yet to be implemented.  Direct correspondent banking, which the Obama-Biden Administration (2009-2017) inexplicably was only permitted one-way thus rendering the entirety unworkable- and this was within the purview of Mr. Rhodes.  They took credit for something that would not work- and the Biden-Harris Administration has continued that embrace despite the foolishness of authorizing direct investment and direct financing while simultaneously impeding the ability to efficiently, securely, and transparently move funds directly rather than through third countries- or using satchels of United States currency transported by individuals on regularly-scheduled commercial flights. 

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

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

• Biden Administration Will Use Cuba's Authorization Of SMSE's As Means To Expand Support For Cuba Private Sector- U.S. Investments And Loans May Be Next June 02, 2021 

• Why Is Cuba Deputy Foreign Minister Lying, Misleading, And Misstating Commercial Relationship With U.S.? Isn’t He Supposed To Encourage, Nurture, And Support It?  Nov 24, 2024

• Cuba Is Governance Example Of The Medical Term “Failure To Thrive”  United Nations Resolution Will Not Fix Cuba- Nor Force Others To Fix Cuba. Python Suffocating Re-Emerging Private Sector. October 27, 2024 

The letter asking the Biden-Harris Administration to embrace what would be a political quantum leap requiring that the 5 November 2024 electoral consequences be ignored would only set an additional menu items on the political table for the Trump-Vance Administration (2025-2029) to quite publicly reverse whatever had been enabled, underscores the juvenile foundation of the letter- it may have felt good at the time to conceive, draft, sign, and send, but likely would have an opposite effect- placing the Republic of Cuba as a political issue squarely in the klieg lights on 20 January 2025.   

Not unsurprisingly, the government of the Republic of Cuba has embraced the concept of the letter signed by Ms. Huddleston, Mr. Rhodes, and others, but avoided mention of the “general license to allow U.S. citizens to invest in Cuban enterprises not linked to the country’s government.” 

“Former US officials urge Biden to change policy on Cuba 

Washington, Dec 17 (Prensa Latina) A group of former US diplomatic and national security officials urged President Joe Biden on Tuesday to make changes in the Government's policy on Cuba before his Republican successor, Donald Trump, takes office. In a letter to Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, they called on the administration “to loosen some restrictions on Cuba before handing over the reins of US diplomacy to President-elect Trump.” 

The letter, signed, among others, by the former head of the Washington mission in Havana, Vicki Huddleston, and former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, urges the outgoing administration to remove Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, increase humanitarian aid to the country and to streamline rules for Cuban nationals to access the U.S. financial system. 

We also believe that current US policy “has exacerbated Cubans’ hardship, and thus we respectfully request that you take a series of actions in the remaining weeks of your administration to help alleviate these challenges. Such a request was made “in the US national interest and in support of the Cuban people.” 

Trump included Cuba on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List in the last weeks of his first term (2017-2021), which left Biden with the option of whether or not to keep Cuba within that designation.  “As many of us have said publicly, there is no credible evidence that Cuba sponsors international terrorism. The designation has hindered Cuba’s access to international finance, reduced tourism revenues to pay for imports of food, fuel and medicine and obstructed the arrival of humanitarian relief,” the officials wrote. 

“Our closest allies in the region have repeatedly requested we remove this designation to ameliorate the regional impacts of surging Cuban migration, and we are confident the United States will be applauded worldwide for making this fact-based determination,” stressed the letter, quoted by the Hill newspaper. 

On December 17, 2014, Presidents Barack Obama and Raúl Castro announced that the United States and Cuba would resume diplomatic relations, but a decade later, far from progress, there is regression.  Last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken assured that he did not anticipate any change in Washington’s policy on Cuba before President Biden concludes his term.”

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT

Penicillin G Amidase Exported From U.S. To Cuba. October 2024 Ag/Food Exports Increase 161.2%. First Cane Sugar, Dog/Cat Food, Frozen Crustaceans, Coffee/Tea Makers, Cane Furniture, Forklifts

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
December 2024

October 2024 Ag/Food Exports To Cuba Increase 161.2% - 1
49th Of 222 October 2024 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
Year-To-Year Exports Increase 31.1% - 2
Cuba Ranked 59th Of 222 U.S. Ag/Food Export Markets - 2
October 2024 Healthcare Product Exports US$38,467.00 - 2
October 2024 Humanitarian Donations US$5,057,076.00 - 3
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue To Increase - 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 19

OCTOBER 2024 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA INCREASE 161.2% - Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in October 2024 were US$41,611,234.00 compared to US$15,928,609.00 in October 2023 and US$20,852,560.00 in October 2022. 

The data 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.

The data represents the U.S. Dollar value of product exported from the United States to the Republic of Cuba under the TSREEA and CDA. The data does not include transportation charges, bank charges, or other costs associated with exports; the government of the Republic of Cuba reports unverifiable data that includes transportation charges, bank charges, and other costs.

January 2024 through October 2024 TSREEA exports were US$352,577,247.00 compared to January 2023 through October 2023 TSREEA exports of US$268,733,465.00

Total TSREEA exports since first deliveries in December 2001 exceed US$7,598,910,640.00

Other products exported from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in October 2024 include:  

Used Vehicle (1500cc-3000cc)- US$3,989,435.00  
Used Vehicle (1500cc-3000cc) 2024 Exports- US$48,733,037.00
New Vehicle (+3000cc) 2024 Exports- US$4,566,028.00

First Reported Exports

Fresh Tuna- US$23,923.00
Frozen Tuna- US$16,200.00
Frozen Crustaceans- US$197,044.00
Foliage, Branches- US$17,961.00
Rendered Poultry Fat- US$12,385.00
Raw Cane Sugar- US$143,750.00
Dog and Cat Food- US$14,400.00
Natural Silica Sands And Quartz Sands- US$4,200.00
Hydraulic Cements- US$33,918.00
Silicon Dioxide- US$15,400.00
Penicillin G Amidase- US$48,000.00
Self-Propelled Forklifts- US$55,500.00
Electric Coffee Or Tea Makers- US$11,507.00
Cane Furniture- US$9,204.00
Tooth Brushes- US$9,952.00

"Penicillin amidase (PA) is the enzyme used commercially for the production of semisynthetic penicillins. During the past decade, a detailed picture of the structure and regulation of the gene encoding this enzyme has emerged, revealing a variety of interesting features that are unique among microorganisms."

Solar

Solar Cells Assembled Into Modules Or Panels- US$4,141.00
Photosensitive Semiconductor Devices- US$6,378.00
Primary Batteries, Lithium- US$360,000.00
Total Thus Far In 2024: Solar Cells, Not Made Into Panels Or Modules- US$18,584.00

Humanitarian Donations January 2024 Through October 2024: US$54,988,760.00
Humanitarian Donations For Calendar Year 2023: US$36,563,551.00

LINK TO COMPLETE REPORT (AWAITING PORT DATA).

LINK TO COMPLETE LIST OF PRODUCTS IN 2023 EXPORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES TO CUBA

Minnesota Company Fined US$257,690.00 By OFAC For Unauthorized Cuba/Iran Transactions. Fine Could Have Been US$28.6 Million. Fine Is .9% Of Potential Liability.

Enforcement Release: December 13, 2024

C.H. Robinson International Inc. Settles with OFAC for $257,690 Related to Apparent Violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations

C.H. Robinson International Inc. (CHR), a Minnesota-based global transportation and logistics company, has agreed to pay $257,690 to settle potential civil liability relating to 82 apparent violations of sanctions against Iran and Cuba conducted by five of its non-U.S. subsidiaries. Over a period of more than three years, these subsidiaries provided freight brokerage or transportation services for 82 shipments, to or from Iran, of Iranian- or Cuban-origin goods, or by dealing with an Iranian airline. The settlement amount reflects the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) determination that the apparent violations were non-egregious and voluntarily self-disclosed, as well as the remedial measures implemented by CHR upon discovery of the apparent violations.

Penalty Calculations and General Factors Analysis

The statutory maximum civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is $28,629,270. OFAC determined that CHR voluntarily self-disclosed the Apparent Violations and that the Apparent Violations constitute a non-egregious case. Accordingly, under OFAC’s Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines (“Enforcement Guidelines”), 31 C.F.R. Part 501, app. A, the base civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter equals the sum of one-half of the transaction value for each apparent violation, which is $322,112. The settlement amount of $257,690 reflects OFAC’s consideration of the General Factors under the Enforcement Guidelines.

LINK TO COMPLETE TEXT OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION IN PDF FORMAT

Biden Signs Bacardi Legislation Into Law. Thanks "all of the Representatives and Senators who helped advance this legislation for their leadership."

The White House
Washington DC
1 December 2024

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

On Sunday, December 1, 2024, the President signed into law: H.R. 1505, the "No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act of 2023," which modifies the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names.  Thank you to all the Representatives and Senators who helped advance this legislation for their leadership.

LINKS TO RELATED ANALYSES

Senator Ted Cruz (R- Texas) Signs On As A Co-Sponsor Of Bacardi's Cuba Trademark Legislation- After It Passes U.S. Senate And U.S. House Of Representatives Nov 22, 2024

Bacardi's Cuba Trademark Stripping Legislation Fast-Track To Becoming Law Because Of Charles Schumer (D-NY), U.S. Senate Majority Leader. Why? Representative Jerrod Nadler (D- NY) Helped Too. Why? Nov 20, 2024

Sorry, Cuba Deputy Foreign Minister- Chewing Gum Is Candy And Candy Is Exported From U.S. To Cuba- Along With Sugar, Chocolate, Puddings, Cookies, Waffles, Ice Cream, Peanut Butter, Tequila, Pet Food

“No import of metal, no cars, candy bars and much more.” Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Republic of Cuba. 

Product    US$ Value 2024 through September 2024
Cane/beet Sug Ref/imp Sug Drawbk No Flv/clr Retail (kg)- 192,549.00
Cane/beet Sug Ref/imp Sug Drawbk No Flv/clr/retail (kg)- 3,008.00
Cane/beet Sugar, Solid, Refined, No Flv/clr, Nesoi (kg)- 240,813.00
Sug/syrup Nt Flav/colr Nesoi; Artfl Honey; Caraml (kg)- 684,407.00
Chewing Gum, Whether Or Not Sugar Coated (kg)- 26,299.00
Confections/sweetmeats Ready Fr Consumptn No Cocoa (kg)- 12,429.00
Sugar Confectionery, Without Cocoa, Nesoi (kg)- 84,295.00
Confectioners Coatings/prods 6.8% Cocoa Solid Bulk (kg)- 23,963.00
Cocoa Preparations In Bulk Form, Nesoi (kg)- 32,488.00
Choc/cocoa Prep Confectnry Blk/bar Notov2kg Filled (kg)- 64,321.00
Choc/cocoa Prep Noncnfctnry Blk/bar Ntov 2kg Filld (kg)- 42,211.00
Choc/cocoa Prep Confctnry Blk/bar Ntov2kg Nt Filld (kg)- 3,545.00
Choc/cocoa Prep Bar Etc Ntov2kg Exc Filld/cnfctnry (kg)- 132,781.00
Confectionery, Cocoa Food Preps, Nesoi, For Retail (kg)- 72,712.00
Cocoa Preps Except Confectionery Nesoi, For Retail (kg)- 3,528.00
Confectionery, Cocoa Food Preps, Nesoi, Not Retail (kg)- 33,524.00
Cocoa Preps, Nesoi, Not For Retail, Ex/confetioney (kg)- 119,385.00
Mixes And Doughs For Cookies, Waffles And Wafers (kg)- 21,013.00
Mixes & Doughs, Nesoi, Contain Lt 40% Cocoa Powder (kg)- 4,949.00
Puddings Ready To Eat Without Further Preparation (kg)- 11,720.00
Cookies (sweet Biscuits) (kg)- 1,228,308.00
Waffles And Wafers (kg)- 342,141.00
Jams/fruit Jellies/marmalades Nesoi, Cooked Preps (kg)- 13,534.00
Peanut Butter (kg)- 8,359.00
Ice Cream, Whether Or Not Containing Cocoa (kg)- 232,291.00
Edible Ice, Whether Or Not Containing Cocoa, Nesoi (kg)- 6,885.00
Tequila (pfl)- 4,338.00
Pet Food Put Up For Retail Sale Ex Dog & Cat Food (kg)- 3,528.00
Turkeys, Whole, Frozen (kg)- 186,184.00
Turkey Meat And Edible Offal, Fresh Or Chilled (kg)- 80,955.00

LINK TO LIST IN PDF FORMAT

Link To Complete List Of Products In 2023 Exported From The United States To Cuba 

LINK: Why Is Cuba Deputy Foreign Minister Lying, Misleading, And Misstating Commercial Relationship With U.S.? Isn’t He Supposed To Encourage, Nurture, And Support It? Nov 24, 2024

Why Is Cuba Deputy Foreign Minister Lying, Misleading, And Misstating Commercial Relationship With U.S.? Isn’t He Supposed To Encourage, Nurture, And Support It?

Why Is Cuba Deputy Foreign Minister Lying, Misleading, And Misstating Commercial Relationship With United States?

Isn’t He Supposed To Encourage, Nurture, And Support It?

The Militant
New York, New York
2 December 2024

Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Says, ‘End US embargo!’
By Lea Sherman 

NEWARK, N.J. — Carlos Fernández de Cossío, Cuba’s deputy minister of foreign affairs, spoke to a meeting of 35 at Rutgers Law School here Nov. 14.  Law professor Charles Auffant, who has organized trips to study Cuba’s legal system for the past 20 years, chaired the meeting. He announced these trips will now be open to undergraduate students.  Fernández de Cossío focused on the devastating impact of Washington’s 64-year economic war against the Cuban people and their socialist revolution. 

“The U.S. prohibits any imports to Cuba with only a few exceptions, and it prohibits imports to Cuba from any country, regardless of the product, if it has 10% or more U.S. product in it. What products in the world does that not include?” he said. Examples he gave included getting parts for dialysis machines or parts to repair Cuba’s aging electrical grid. 

• Link To: Crowley Transports US$2.9 Million In Steam Turbine Parts To Cuba For GE Contract March 04, 2018

• Link To: Will Caterpillar And Deere Disclose Use Of Payment Terms And Financing For Exports To Cuba? January 29, 2021

• Link To: U.S. To Cuba Ag/Food Exports Increased 53% In September 2024. Other Items Included Luggage, Rear View Mirrors, Solar Cells, Fans (US$210,000.00), +US$7 Million In Vehicles Nov 8, 2024  

“This is multiplied more and more, repeated in every area,” he said. “No import of metal, no cars, candy bars and much more. And Cuba cannot use U.S. dollars in its trade with international partners.” 

• For the period January 2024 through September 2024, Used Vehicle (1500cc-3000cc) exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba were US$45,458,544.00 and New Vehicle (+3000cc) exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba were US$4,566,028.00. 

• Link To: First Tesla Model Y Vehicle Authorized By Biden-Harris Administration Scheduled For Delivery To A Cuban National. Maryland-Based Company Received First BIS License.  November 30, 2023 

• Link To Complete List Of Products In 2023 Exported From The United States To Cuba 

He [de Cossio] pointed out that under both Presidents Donald Trump and Joseph Biden, the U.S. has unjustly put Cuba on its list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.  The embargo has caused severe problems with basic services like electricity and health care. “Many in Cuba are looking to move,” said Fernández de Cossío.  At the same time, all of Washington’s attempts to isolate Cuba — the 1961 invasion at the Bay of Pigs, CIA schemes to assassinate Fidel Castro — have failed to undo the revolution.  “Cuba has a respectful and cooperative relationship with the majority of countries of the world,” he said. “We have a firm determination for Cuba to be free of foreign interference, but we are willing to have constructive, civilized relations with the U.S.” 

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

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

• Biden Administration Will Use Cuba's Authorization Of SMSE's As Means To Expand Support For Cuba Private Sector- U.S. Investments And Loans May Be Next June 02, 2021 

• Cuba Is Governance Example Of The Medical Term “Failure To Thrive”  United Nations Resolution Will Not Fix Cuba- Nor Force Others To Fix Cuba. Python Suffocating Re-Emerging Private Sector. October 27, 2024

• List Of Every Product Exported From U.S. To Cuba In 2023. U.S. Ag Commodity/Food Exports Up 4.2%- Including US$5.4 Million In Coffee. US$24 Million To MSMEs Including US$8 Million In Vehicles. Feb 13, 2024

Coffee from the Republic of Cuba is available throughout the United States through an agreement signed in 2016 between New York, New York-based Nespresso USA Inc., a subsidiary of Lausanne, Switzerland-based Nestle Nespresso S.A. (2023 revenue approximately US$111 billion); Arlington, Virginia-based TechnoServe; and Republic of Cuba government-operated Cubaexport, under the auspice of the Ministry of Foreign Trade of the Republic of Cuba. 

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

From Nespresso: “The green coffee sourced for Cafecito de Cuba is 100% pure Arabica, grown by smallholder farmers in the provinces of Granma and Santiago de Cuba in the eastern part of Cuba.  Nespresso coffee experts in Switzerland then used a split roasting technique to enhance the potential of the beans and highlight their authenticity. One part of the beans was roasted for a shorter time to a lighter colour to bring out the coffee’s unique flavours and aromas. The second part was roasted longer to a much darker colour to create a strong body with a dense, velvety texture and intense rich flavours.”  LINK: https://nestle-nespresso.com/news/Nespresso-brings-Cuban-coffee-back-to-US 

United States-based companies have approached Cubaexport to seek authorization to import coffee directly from the Republic of Cuba to the United States.  Those entreaties were rejected. 

Charcoal from the Republic of Cuba has been imported directly to the United States.  The first company, Hialeah, Florida-based Fogo Premium Lump Charcoal purchased four (4) 20ft containers with the first delivered in January 2017 and the second in July 2018.  The second company Foley, Alabama-based GulfWise Commerce LLC, affiliated with Foley, Alabama-based Woerner Companies reported delivery in May 2019 to Port Everglades, Florida, of two (2) forty-foot containers.  Neither company reported transactional issues with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce, or Office of Legal Adviser (OLA) at the United States Department of State. 

• Link To: https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2017/1/5/charcoal-joins-coal-to-become-second-commodity-exported-from-cuba-to-the-united-states?rq=Fogo  

• Link To: https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/6/9/yt69n8siij03ylzethfvxup85o1fwg?rq=charcoal 

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT

Links To Related Analyses 

Cuba: Acknowledging Impact Was Not Necessarily A Shrewd Political Statement. For Biden Administration, If It's Working, Why Change It? For Plaintiffs, Libertad Act Doing What It Was Designed To Do.  October 03, 2023 

Misunderstanding? Cuba Government: Cuban-Americans' PYME Financing, Yes.  PYME Investment, Yes.  PYME Ownership, No.  PMYE Need For Direct Banking With United States, Not Necessary. September 29, 2023 

Cuba Minister Of Foreign Affairs Said That Only U.S. Vessels Are Permitted For U.S. Exports To Cuba. That Was Inaccurate. August 23, 2023 

Mr. de Cossio At MINREX In Cuba Not Quite Accurate With His Comments About Biden-Harris Administration Efforts With MSMEs And Remittances December 20, 2022 

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

Senator Ted Cruz (R- Texas) Signs On As A Co-Sponsor Of Bacardi's Cuba Trademark Legislation- After It Passes U.S. Senate And U.S. House Of Representatives

"Unaminous Consent" Reflects Ineffectiveness And Incompetance Of Members Of Congress, Organizations, Lobbying Enterprises Focusing Upon The Republic of Cuba.

From Congress.gov Bill Alert

S.746 - No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act (118th Congress)
Sponsor: Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] (Introduced 03/09/2023)

Has changes in: Related Bill (1 new, 1 total)

Related Bill: H.R.1505 

November 19, 2024 - Issue: Vol. 170, No. 171 — Daily Edition

118th Congress (2023 - 2024) - 2nd Session 

NO STOLEN TRADEMARKS HONORED IN AMERICA ACT OF 2023; Congressional Record Vol. 170, No. 171 (Senate - November 19, 2024)

PDF (224KB) 

[Page S6638] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] 

NO STOLEN TRADEMARKS HONORED IN AMERICA ACT OF 2023 

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1505 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:  A bill (H.R. 1505) to modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names. 

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. 

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The bill (H.R. 1505) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed. 

NO STOLEN TRADEMARKS HONORED IN AMERICA ACT OF 2023
13 November 2023           

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1505) to modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names, as amended.  The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: H.R. 1505  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ``No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act of 2023''. 

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION. 

Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681- 88) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(2)-- (A) by inserting ``or entity of the executive branch'' after ``U.S. court''; (B) by striking ``by a designated national''; and (C) by inserting before the period ``that was used in connection with a business or assets that were confiscated unless the original owner of the mark, trade name, or commercial name, or the bonafide successor-in-interest has expressly consented''; (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) by inserting ``or entity of the executive branch'' after ``U.S. court''; and (B) by striking ``by a designated national or its successor-in-interest''; (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following: ``(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall apply only if the person or entity asserting the rights knew or had reason to know at the time when the person or entity acquired the rights asserted that the mark, trade name, or commercial name was the same as or substantially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name that was used in connection with a business or assets that were confiscated.''; and (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking ``In this section:'' and all that follows through ``(2) The term'' and inserting ``In this section, the term''.  

Links To Related Analyses 

• Bacardi's Cuba Trademark Stripping Legislation Fast-Track To Becoming Law Because Of Charles Schumer (D-NY), U.S. Senate Majority Leader. Why? Representative Jerrod Nadler (D- NY) Helped Too. Why? Nov 20, 2024

• U.S. Senator From Nevada Newest Co-Sponsor For Bacardi Trademark Legislation. Unlikely To Become Law In 2024... But In 2025? September 29, 2024 

• Bacardi Spent Approximately US$690,000.00 And 251 Days Later Its Cuba Trademark Legislation Moved From House To Senate- With No Objection. Where Were Pernod Ricard Lobbyists? NGO's? Members? December 07, 2023 

• Eight Senators, Two Representatives Supporting Trademark Legislation To Benefit Bacardi. But, Does Legislation Help Resolve 5,913 Certified Claims Against Cuba? March 12, 2023

"CRF I Limited Welcomes Decisive English Court of Appeal Ruling" Against Banco Nacional de Cuba. The US$100 Million Lawsuit Continues.

“CRF I Limited Welcomes Decisive English Court of Appeal Ruling in Favor of CRF London, 19th Nov 2024

CRF I Limited ("CRF") is pleased to announce that the English Court of Appeal has unanimously ruled in favor of CRF in its ongoing litigation against Banco Nacional de Cuba (BNC). This decisive ruling, while expected, marks a significant step forward in CRF’s legal strategy. The ruling affirms the validity of CRF's claims and underscores their enforceability under English law. With this favorable outcome, CRF will now proceed to the Merits phase of the trial, where we remain confident of securing a win. The facts are clear: Cuba borrowed these sums and has failed to honor its repayment obligations, a pattern that has been consistent across its dealings. CRF has made persistent efforts to engage with Cuban authorities to negotiate the debt in good faith since 2013. Despite our ongoing willingness to negotiate a fair resolution, the Cuban side has shown little interest in constructive dialogue. As such, CRF will continue to pursue this case with determination, seeking justice and enforcing our legal rights. David Charters, Chairman of CRF, commented: "Today’s ruling reinforces our confidence as we advance to the next phase. While CRF has consistently sought a fair and equitable settlement, we remain steadfast in pursuing justice for our stakeholders if negotiations are not forthcoming." CRF looks forward to continuing its legal pursuit and ultimately securing a favorable outcome for the benefit of its stakeholders.”

Excerpts From Court Decision

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT (KBD)
Mrs Justice Cockerill
Claim No.  CL-2020-000092
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 19 November 2024
Before: LADY JUSTICE ASPLIN, LORD JUSTICE ARNOLD and LORD JUSTICE PHILLIPS

Between: CRF 1 LIMITED Claimant/Respondent - and – BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA Defendant/Appellant (2) THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA Defendant

Jawdat Khurshid KC and Andrew Pearson (instructed by Rosenblatt) for the Claimant/Respondent (“CRF”)
Alison Macdonald KC, Anton Dudnikov and Mark Belshaw (instructed by PCB Byrne LLP) for the Defendant/Appellant (“BNC”)

Hearing dates: 24 and 25 July 2024
Approved Judgment
 
This judgment was handed down remotely at 2 pm on Tuesday 19 November 2024 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives

Conclusion

Mrs Justice Cockerill As I would uphold the Judge’s decision that the debts were validly assigned to CRF, I do not consider that it is necessary to address BNC’s challenge to the Judge’s contingent finding that, if the assignments were not valid, BNC ratified them by its subsequent correspondence.  I would dismiss the appeal.  
Lord Justice Arnold I agree.
Lady Justice Asplin I also agree.

Link To Court Document In Word Format
Link To CRF Media Release In PDF Format

Links To Related Analyses 

In London, China Bank Proceeds With Lawsuit Against Cuba For Potential US$1.3 Billion. Another Plaintiff In London Received Legal Fees From Cuba- That Lawsuit Continues In Litigation.. June 28, 2023

Verdict By London Court In Cuba Debt Lawsuit: From Court- Money Remains Owed By Cuba, Cuba Lawfully Changed Assignment Process, Plaintiff Will Seek New Assignment. Another Year In Court? April 04, 2023

36 Months Of Litigation; US$5.8 Million On Attorneys By Cayman Islands-Based Plaintiff And Havana-Based Defendants, Now London Trial. KCs Lead Sides. Issues: Interpol Red Notice, Jurisdiction, Bribery January 13, 2023

China-Owned Bank In London Sues Cuba Central Bank And Government Of Cuba. Either Sue For Custodian Account Holders Or Be Sued By Them? Embarrassing For Cuba To Be Sued By "Good Friend." December 21, 2021

UK Lawsuit Seeks US$100+ Million From Central Bank Of Cuba & Government Of Cuba. Four Countries. Three Banks. Questions- Defining A "Loan" And Capacity To Contract. Read The 14 Court Filings. December 06, 2021

Bacardi's Cuba Trademark Stripping Legislation Fast-Track To Becoming Law Because Of Charles Schumer (D-NY), U.S. Senate Majority Leader. Why? Representative Jerrod Nadler (D- NY) Helped Too. Why?

"Unaminous Consent" Reflects Ineffectiveness And Incompetance Of Members Of Congress, Organizations, Lobbying Enterprises Focusing Upon The Republic of Cuba.

From Congress.gov Bill Alert

S.746 - No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act (118th Congress)
Sponsor: Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] (Introduced 03/09/2023)

Has changes in: Related Bill (1 new, 1 total)

Related Bill: H.R.1505 

November 19, 2024 - Issue: Vol. 170, No. 171 — Daily Edition

118th Congress (2023 - 2024) - 2nd Session 

NO STOLEN TRADEMARKS HONORED IN AMERICA ACT OF 2023; Congressional Record Vol. 170, No. 171 (Senate - November 19, 2024)

PDF (224KB) 

[Page S6638] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] 

NO STOLEN TRADEMARKS HONORED IN AMERICA ACT OF 2023 

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1505 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:  A bill (H.R. 1505) to modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names. 

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. 

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The bill (H.R. 1505) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed. 

NO STOLEN TRADEMARKS HONORED IN AMERICA ACT OF 2023
13 November 2023           

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1505) to modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names, as amended.  The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: H.R. 1505  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ``No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act of 2023''. 

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION. 

Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681- 88) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(2)-- (A) by inserting ``or entity of the executive branch'' after ``U.S. court''; (B) by striking ``by a designated national''; and (C) by inserting before the period ``that was used in connection with a business or assets that were confiscated unless the original owner of the mark, trade name, or commercial name, or the bonafide successor-in-interest has expressly consented''; (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) by inserting ``or entity of the executive branch'' after ``U.S. court''; and (B) by striking ``by a designated national or its successor-in-interest''; (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following: ``(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall apply only if the person or entity asserting the rights knew or had reason to know at the time when the person or entity acquired the rights asserted that the mark, trade name, or commercial name was the same as or substantially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name that was used in connection with a business or assets that were confiscated.''; and (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking ``In this section:'' and all that follows through ``(2) The term'' and inserting ``In this section, the term''.  

Links To Related Analyses 

• U.S. Senator From Nevada Newest Co-Sponsor For Bacardi Trademark Legislation. Unlikely To Become Law In 2024... But In 2025? September 29, 2024 

• Bacardi Spent Approximately US$690,000.00 And 251 Days Later Its Cuba Trademark Legislation Moved From House To Senate- With No Objection. Where Were Pernod Ricard Lobbyists? NGO's? Members? December 07, 2023 

• Eight Senators, Two Representatives Supporting Trademark Legislation To Benefit Bacardi. But, Does Legislation Help Resolve 5,913 Certified Claims Against Cuba? March 12, 2023

Havana Docks Corporation Seeks Court Of Appeals Rehearing In Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Four Cruise Lines. Decision Likely In December 2024. Next And Final Stop Would Be U.S. Supreme Court.

Excerpts From Filing

RULE 35 STATEMENT

I express a belief, based on a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that the divided panel decision in this case conflicts with Glen v. Club Méditerranée, S.A., 450 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2006), and involves the following question of exceptional importance: Whether the LIBERTAD Act imposes liability for trafficking in property that the plaintiff hypothetically would have owned had the Cuban government not confiscated it, as opposed to property that the plaintiff actually owned at the time of confiscation and reflected in a claim against the Cuban government.  Christopher Landau Attorney of Record for Plaintiff-Appellee Havana Docks Corporation

INTRODUCTION

The divided panel decision in this case (Tab A) contradicts not only the plain language and express purposes of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Tab B), and this Court’s decision in Glen v. Club Méditerranée, S.A., 450 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2006), but U.S. policy toward Cuba. If there’s one area where Congress has actively exercised its plenary constitutional authority under the Foreign Commerce Clause over the past three decades, it’s the U.S. economic relationship with Cuba. Congress carefully chose its words in promulgating a highly detailed statutory regime that governs every aspect of that relationship, and prohibits any economic activity unless expressly authorized by law.

LINK To PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC
LINK To PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC

LINK TO PREVIOUS ANALYSIS

Cruise Lines Win Most Arguments Before 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals. Does Havana Docks Corporation Seek En Banc Review, U.S. Supreme Court Review, Or Accept Decision? Oct 22, 2024

Internal Operating Procedure for Rule 35 En Banc Determination

1.  Time.  Except as otherwise provided by FRAP 25(a) for inmate filings, a petition for rehearing en banc whether or not combined with a petition for rehearing is timely only if received by the clerk within the time specified in 11th Cir. R. 35-2.

2.  Panel Has Control.  A petition for rehearing en banc will also be treated as a petition for rehearing before the original panel.  Although a copy of the petition for rehearing en banc is distributed to each panel judge and every active judge of the court, the filing of a petition for rehearing en banc does not take the appeal out of plenary control of the panel deciding the appeal. The panel may, on its own, grant rehearing by the panel and may do so without action by the full court.  A petition for rehearing will not be treated as a petition for rehearing en banc.

3.  Requesting a Poll.  Within 30 days of the date that the clerk transmits the petition for rehearing en banc, any active Eleventh Circuit judge may advise the “notify judge” that in the event the panel declines to grant rehearing, the judge requests that a poll be taken regarding en banc consideration. The “notify judge” is the writing judge if that judge is a member of this court.  If the writing judge is a visiting judge, the notify judge will be the senior active judge of this court on the panel or, if none, the senior non-active judge of this court on the panel.  At the same time the judge shall notify the clerk to withhold the mandate, and the clerk will enter an order withholding the mandate. If the panel, after such notice, concludes not to grant rehearing, the notify judge will inform the chief judge of that fact and that a request was made that a poll be taken regarding en banc consideration.  After giving the other judges a reasonable time to respond to the poll request, the chief judge then polls the court by written ballot on whether rehearing en banc is to be granted.

4.  No Poll Request.  If after expiration of the specified time for requesting a poll, the notify judge has not received a poll request from any active member of the court, the panel, without further notice, may take such action as it deems appropriate on the petition for rehearing en banc.  In its order disposing of the appeal or other matter and the petition, the panel must note that no poll was requested by any judge of the court in regular active service.

5.  Requesting a Poll on Court’s Own Motion.  Any active Eleventh Circuit judge may request that the court be polled on whether rehearing en banc should be granted whether or not a petition for rehearing en banc has been filed by a party.  This is ordinarily done by a letter from the requesting judge to the chief judge with copies to the other active and senior judges of the court and any other panel member.  At the same time the judge shall notify the clerk to withhold the mandate, and the clerk will enter an order withholding the mandate.  The identity of the judge will not be disclosed in the order.

6.  Polling the Court.  Upon request to poll, the chief judge will give the other judges a reasonable time to respond to the poll request and then conducts a poll.  Each active judge receives a form ballot that is used to cast a vote.  A copy of each judge’s ballot is sent to all other active judges.  The ballot form indicates whether the judge voting desires oral argument if en banc is granted.
 
7.  Effect of Recusal or Disqualification on Number of Votes Required.  A recused or disqualified judge is not counted in the base when calculating whether a majority of circuit judges in regular active service have voted to rehear an appeal en banc.  If, for example, there are 12 circuit judges in regular active service on this court, and five of them are recused or disqualified in an appeal, rehearing en banc may be granted by affirmative vote of four judges (a majority of the seven non-recused and non-disqualified judges).

8.  Negative Poll.  If the vote on the poll is unfavorable to en banc consideration, the chief judge enters the appropriate order.

9.  En Banc Rehearing Procedures Following Affirmative Poll.

a.  Appeal Managers.  When an appeal is voted to be reheard en banc, the chief judge shall designate as appeal managers a group of active judges of this court.  The chief judge will ordinarily designate the judge who authored the panel opinion, the judge who requested that the court be polled regarding whether the appeal should be reheard en banc, and a judge who dissented from or specially concurred in the panel opinion, if they are active circuit judges of this court.  The chief judge may, however, designate other active circuit judges as appeal managers.

b.  Initial Notice to Counsel.  The clerk meanwhile notifies counsel that rehearing en banc has been granted but that they should not prepare en banc briefs until they are advised of the issue(s) to be briefed and length limitations on briefs.

c.  Notice of Issue(s) to be Briefed.  The appeal managers prepare and circulate to the other members of the en banc court a proposed notice to the parties advising which issue(s) should be briefed to the en banc court, length limitations on briefs, and whether the appeal will be orally argued or submitted on briefs. The notice may also set the time limits for oral argument. In appeals with multiple appellants or appellees, the notice may direct parties to file a single joint appellants’ or appellees’ en banc brief.  In such cases the side directed to file a single joint brief may be allotted some extension of the length limitations that would otherwise apply to the brief.  Members of the en banc court thereafter advise the appeal managers of any suggested changes in the proposed notice.  Provided that no member of the en banc court objects, counsel may be advised that the en banc court will decide only specified issues, and after deciding them, remand other issues to the panel.  Once the form of the notice has been approved by the court, the clerk issues the notice to counsel.

d.  Oral Argument.  Appeals to be reheard en banc will ordinarily be orally argued unless fewer than three of the judges of the en banc court determine that argument should be heard.

“FRAP 35. En Banc Determination (a) When Hearing or Rehearing En Banc May Be Ordered.  A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc.  An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless: (1) (2) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance. (b) Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc.  A party may petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc. (1) The petition must begin with a statement that either: (A) the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or (B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of every other United States Court of Appeals that has addressed the issue. (2) Except by the court’s permission: (A) a petition for an en banc hearing or rehearing produced using a computer must not exceed 3,900 words; and (B) a handwritten or typewritten petition for an en banc hearing or rehearing must not exceed 15 pages. (3) For purposes of the limits in Rule 35(b)(2), if a party files both a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc, they are considered a single document even if they are filed separately, unless separate filing is required by local rule. (c) Time for Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc.  A petition that an appeal be heard initially en banc must be filed by the date when the appellee’s brief is due.  A petition for a rehearing en banc must be filed within the time prescribed by Rule 40 for filing a petition for rehearing. (d) Number of Copies.  The number of copies to be filed must be prescribed by local rule and may be altered by order in a particular case. Rev.: 12/16 147 FRAP 35(e) Response.  No response may be filed to a petition for an en banc consideration unless the court orders a response.  The length limits in Rule 35(b)(2) apply to a response. (f) Call for a Vote.  A vote need not be taken to determine whether the case will be heard or reheard en banc unless a judge calls for a vote.”