Could Airbnb Be Sued Using Title III Of The Libertad Act? Would Be Ironic For Senator Rubio

Could Airbnb Be Sued Using Title III Of The Libertad Act?  Can A Prima Facie Case Be Made?  Would Be Ironic For Senator Rubio 

Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act of 1996 (“Libertad Act”) has an exemption from legal action for residential property that is used solely for residential purposes.  Republic of Cuba nationals who are owners of residential property are not subject to legal action using provisions of Title III.   

The Trump Administration is expected to notify the United States Congress during the period 1 March 2019 to 4 March 2019 if Title III of the Libertad Act will be implemented, as expected, by 17/18/19 March 2019.  

What if a Republic of Cuba national owns a residence in the city of Havana, Republic of Cuba, and is benefiting from commercial activity associated with the residence- renting it to third-parties?   

From the Libertad Act: (3) Commercial activity.-- The term "commercial activity" has the meaning given that term in section 1603(d) of title 28, United States Code.  [Definition: (d) A “commercial activity” means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose]. 

What if the owner uses the services of San Francisco, California-based Airbnb, Inc., to market globally the property and to collect the payments, which are then delivered to the owner of the property?  Airbnb reportedly represents more than 22,000 properties in the Republic of Cuba; and the properties reportedly generated combined gross revenues of approximately US$47 million annually from 2015 through 2019.   

Could an argument be made before a United States District Court, despite definitions contained with the Libertad Act, that the residential exemption does not apply because the owner is benefitting from commercial activity which is not necessary and, as a result, Airbnb, which receives revenue from and provides marketing services for the residence in the Republic of Cuba, is a trafficker as defined by the Libertad Act of 1996? 

From the Libertad Act: (13) Traffics.--(A) As used in title III, and except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person "traffics" in confiscated property if that person knowingly and intentionally-- (i) sells, transfers, distributes, dispenses, brokers, manages, or otherwise disposes of confiscated property, or purchases, leases, receives, possesses, obtains control of, manages, uses, or otherwise acquires or holds an interest in confiscated property, (ii) engages in a commercial activity using or otherwise benefiting from confiscated property, or (iii) causes, directs, participates in, or profits from, trafficking (as described in clause (i) or (ii)) by another person, or otherwise engages in trafficking (as described in clause (i) or (ii)) through another person, without the authorization of any United States national who holds a claim to the property. (B) The term "traffics" does not include-- (iii) transactions and uses of property incident to lawful travel to Cuba, to the extent that such transactions and uses of property are necessary to the conduct of such travel; or (iv) transactions and uses of property by a person who is both a citizen of Cuba and a resident of Cuba, and who is not an official of the Cuban Government or the ruling political party in Cuba. 

What if an argument is made that the Libertad Act unconstitutionally created two classes of plaintiffs, using the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution as the basis:  “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 

Would be ironic if the Libertad Act of 1996, which The Honorable Marco Rubio (R- Florida) supports as a tool of influence, was used to file a lawsuit against Airbnb, a company whose activity in the Republic of Cuba is supported by Senator Rubio due to its role in lessening revenues to the government of the Republic of Cuba and directing revenues to Republic of Cuba nationals. 

From a Washington DC-based attorney.  “No, this is simply wrong.”  1. A property that is residential in nature is not confiscated property.  Doesn’t qualify - that alone should end the enquirer.  2. A Cuban national cannot be a trafficker.  So, there is no predicate act of trafficking Airbnb is profiting or benefitting from.  3. Transactions incident to lawful travel to Cuba do not constitute trafficking.  So again there is no predicate act of trafficking from which Airbnb benefits or profits.  If a suit were filed, it would be dismissed immediately with compensatory sanctions ordered by the judge against the plaintiff’s attorney.   

However, once the process shifts from being defined by politicians to being subject to the determination(s) of judges, what may have been perceived as wrong may become actionable… 

Certified Claims Background 

There are 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the USFCSC and have not been resolved for nearing sixty years.  The USFCSC permitted interest to be accrued in the amount of 6% per annum; with the current value of the 5,913 certified claims approximately US$8,521,866,156.95.  

The first asset to be expropriated by the Republic of Cuba was an oil refinery in 1960 owned by White Plains, New York-based Texaco, Inc., now a subsidiary of San Ramon, California-based Chevron Corporation (USFCSC: CU-1331/CU-1332/CU-1333 valued at US$56,196,422.73).  

The largest certified claim (Cuban Electric Company) valued at US$267,568,413.62 is controlled by Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot, Inc.  The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International.  The smallest certified claim is by Sara W. Fishman in the amount of US$1.00 with reference to the Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust. 

The two (2) largest certified claims total US$449,377,207.76, representing 24% of the total value of the certified claims.  Thirty (30) certified claimants hold 56% of the total value of the certified claims.  This concentration of value creates an efficient pathway towards a settlement.   

Of the 5,915 certified claims, 913, or 15%, are valued at US$50,000.00 or more.Adjusted for inflation, US$50,000.00 (3.70% per annum) in 1960 has a 2019 value of approximately US$427,267.01.The USFCSC authorized 6% per annum, meaning the 2019 value of US$50,000.00 is approximately US$1,649,384.54.

LINK To Analysis In PDF Format

Airbnb-rebrand-by-DesignStudio_dezeen_468_8.jpg

How Can A Company Be Targeted By Title III, But Its Executives Not Be Targeted By Title IV? Question For Secretary Pompeo

Why Can A Company Be Targeted By Title III, But Its Executives Not Be Targeted By Title IV?

Definition Of “Shall” Becomes Important

Why Won’t State Department Release List Of Title IV Targets?

Who Can File, Who Can’t File, Who Gets Sued, Who Escapes

Will Venezuela Intervene And Be Basis For Further Inaction? 

A central tenant of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”) is to deny financial resources to the government of the Republic of Cuba.   

The Libertad Act is known widely as “Helms-Burton” for its authors: The Honorable Jesse Helms (R- North Carolina) of the United States Senate and The Honorable Dan Burton (R- Indiana) of the United States House of Representatives.  Senator Helms retired in 2003 and died in 2008 and Representative Burton retired in 2013. 

Whatever decision(s) are implemented by the Trump Administration using one or more provisions of the Libertad Act, likely will a judge or judges who will determine the legality and constitutionality of who can file a lawsuit, who can’t file a lawsuit, who is sued and who isn’t sued. 

The now 80-year-old Mr. Burton is quite likely to be shuttling between courts in Florida, New Jersey, New York and Washington DC while serving as an expert witness to define the intent of provisions of the Libertad Act. 

At the request of The White House, the United States Department of State is expected to submit a letter to the United States Congress by Monday, 4 March 2019, with its decision relating to the implementation of Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”).    

On 17/18 March 2019, the Trump Administration is planning to permit Title III and further implement Title IV of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”).   

Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim where the owner of the certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using the asset.   

Title IV restricts entry into the United States by individuals who have connectivity to unresolved certified claims.  One company is currently subject to this provision. 

Questions Trump Administration Needs To Answer 

Should all claimants (certified and non-certified) be permitted to sue?  Only Americans?  Only Cuban-Americans?  Both Americans and Cuban-Americans?  If the central tenant of the Libertad Act is to deny financial resources to the government of the Republic of Cuba, and the largest number (perhaps 90% or more) of potential claimants are individuals of Cuban descent, how would the Trump Administration defend itself against likely charges of a denial of due process and equal protection?  Or, worse, of wimping-out. 

If the Trump Administration exempts the government of the Republic of Cuba (and Republic of Cuba government-operated entities) from being a defendant in lawsuits, then the remaining defendants would be non-Republic of Cuba-based companies.  The value of assets by those companies pales in comparison with the value of assets of the government of the Republic of Cuba (and Republic of Cuba government-operated companies).  So, if the goal is to obtain restitution, lawsuits against the government of the Republic of Cuba (and Republic of Cuba government-operated companies) must be permitted.  

If the Trump Administration excludes United States-based companies (hotel, cruise line, airline, etc.) from being defendants, likely will be a lawsuit challenging the exemption.  The exemption would be based upon an argument that the activities of the travel-related companies are licensed (general or specific) by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) as incident to authorized travel and thus not subject to a lawsuit.  Arguments in opposition would be based upon the belief that the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000 specifically listed twelve (12) categories of authorized travel; and travel for the purpose of tourism was not among them and, as such, is illegal.  And, that the Obama Administration changes to definitions as to who is eligible to travel was in itself an illegal act.  Thus, the use of regularly-scheduled cruise ships and aircraft and hotel management contracts are, by definition, by activity, implements for tourism.   

Undermining any decision by the Trump Administration relating to Title III and Title IV is during the last twenty-three (23) years, only one (1) company remains subject to provisions of Title IV.  The company has chosen to remain in the Republic of Cuba despite actions of the United States government designed to curtail that presence- which was in place and operational prior to the enactment of the Libertad Act. 

From Media Reports on 10/11 July 1996: Under the measures announced today (10 July 1996) by the State Department, the director of the Toronto-based company, Sherritt International Corp., will be barred from entering the United States, along with eight of his top officers and their immediate families. The ban will take effect in six weeks, after a waiting period designed to allow the company time to terminate its investments in Cuba.  At a briefing in Washington announcing the notification of the company executives affected, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns defended the provision affecting families as “likely to enhance . . . the threat that is contained very clearly in Helms-Burton.”  Burns said company executives were notified in letters dated Tuesday that after 45 days, they will not be allowed to enter the United States. The period is supposed to allow the company time to reconsider its investments in Cuba.  “It is unconventional,” Burns said. “It is a very tough action that we are taking today.” 

There have reportedly been fewer than ten (10) non-United States-based companies (tourism, agriculture, real estate, telecommunications, etc.) since 1996 who were informed by the United States Department of State that they would be subject to provisions of Title IV unless activities were curtailed; the activities were reportedly curtailed.   

NOTE: The United States Department of State refuses to publish a list of those who receive letters relating to Title IV. 

Since 1996, during the last twenty-three (23) years, during four (4) presidencies: Clinton Administration (5+ years), Bush Administration (8 years), Obama Administration (8 years), Trump Administration (2+ years) there remains only one (1) non-United States company who is deemed by the United States Department of State to be subject to provisions of Title IV?  Only one. 

Can a company or individual located outside of the United States be identified by a certified claimant and/or non-certified claimant as a target of a potential lawsuit using Title III, but not be subject to a Title IV action by the United States Department of State?   

We may know in less than one-hundred (100) hours… 

TITLE IV--SEC. 401. EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES OF ALIENS WHO HAVE CONFISCATED PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES NATIONALS OR WHO TRAFFIC IN SUCH PROPERTY. 

(a) Grounds for Exclusion.--The Secretary of State shall deny a visa to, and the Attorney General shall exclude from the United States, any alien who the Secretary of State determines is a person who, after the date of the enactment of this Act-- (1) has confiscated, or has directed or overseen the confiscation of, property a claim to which is owned by a United States national, or converts or has converted for personal gain confiscated property, a claim to which is owned by a United States national; (2) traffics in confiscated property, a claim to which is owned by a United States national; (3) is a corporate officer, principal, or shareholder with a controlling interest of an entity which has been involved in the confiscation of property or trafficking in confiscated property, a claim to which is owned by a United States national; or (4) is a spouse, minor child, or agent of a person excludable under paragraph (1), (2), or (3). 

TITLE III--SEC. 302. LIABILITY FOR TRAFFICKING IN CONFISCATED PROPERTY CLAIMED BY UNITED STATES NATIONALS. 

(a) Civil Remedy.-- (1) Liability for trafficking.--(A) Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person that, after the end of the 3-month period beginning on the effective date of this title, traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property for money damages in an amount equal to the sum of-- (i) the amount which is the greater of-- (I) the amount, if any, certified to the claimant by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, plus interest; (II) the amount determined under section 303(a)(2), plus interest; or (III) the fair market value of that property, calculated as being either the current value of the property, or the value of the property when confiscated plus interest, whichever is greater; and (ii) court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.  (B) Interest under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be at the rate set forth in section 1961 of title 28, United States Code, computed by the court from the date of confiscation of the property involved to the date on which the action is brought under this subsection.   

(2) Presumption in favor of the certified claims.--There shall be a presumption that the amount for which a person is liable under clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A) is the amount that is certified as described in subclause (I) of that clause. The presumption shall be rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence that the amount described in subclause (II) or (III) of that clause is the appropriate amount of liability under that clause. 

(3) Increased liability.--(A) Any person that traffics in confiscated property for which liability is incurred under paragraph (1) shall, if a United States national owns a claim with respect to that property which was certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, be liable for damages computed in accordance with subparagraph (C).   

(B) If the claimant in an action under this subsection (other than a United States national to whom subparagraph (A) applies) provides, after the end of the 3-month period described in paragraph (1) notice to-- (i) a person against whom the action is to be initiated, or (ii) a person who is to be joined as a defendant in the action, at least 30 days before initiating the action or joining such person as a defendant, as the case may be, and that person, after the end of the 30- day period beginning on the date the notice is provided, traffics in the confiscated property that is the subject of the action, then that person shall be liable to that claimant for damages computed in accordance with subparagraph (C).   

(C) Damages for which a person is liable under subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B) are money damages in an amount equal to the sum of-- (i) the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A)(ii), and (ii) 3 times the amount determined applicable under paragraph (1)(A)(i).  (D) Notice to a person under subparagraph (B)-- (i) shall be in writing; (ii) shall be posted by certified mail or personally delivered to the person; and (iii) shall contain-- (I) a statement of intention to commence the action under this section or to join the person as a defendant (as the case may be), together with the reasons therefor; (II) a demand that the unlawful trafficking in the claimant's property cease immediately; and (III) a copy of the summary statement published under paragraph (8).  (4) Applicability.--(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, actions may be brought under paragraph (1) with respect to property confiscated before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(B) In the case of property confiscated before the date of the enactment of this Act, a United States national may not bring an action under this section on a claim to the confiscated property unless such national acquires ownership of the claim before such date of enactment.  (C) In the case of property confiscated on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, a United States national who, after the property is confiscated, acquires ownership of a claim to the property by assignment for value, may not bring an action on the claim under this section.   

(5) Treatment of certain actions.--(A) In the case of a United States national who was eligible to file a claim with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but did not so file the claim, that United States national may not bring an action on that claim under this section.  (B) In the case of any action brought under this section by a United States national whose underlying claim in the action was timely filed with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but was denied by the Commission, the court shall accept the findings of the Commission on the claim as conclusive in the action under this section. 

(C) A United States national, other than a United States national bringing an action under this section on a claim certified under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, may not bring an action on a claim under this section before the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(D) An interest in property for which a United States national has a claim certified under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 may not be the subject of a claim in an action under this section by any other person. Any person bringing an action under this section whose claim has not been so certified shall have the burden of establishing for the court that the interest in property that is the subject of the claim is not the subject of a claim so certified.  (6) Inapplicability of act of state doctrine.--No court of the United States shall decline, based upon the act of state doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action brought under paragraph (1) . 

(7) Licenses not required.--(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action under this section may be brought and may be settled, and a judgment rendered in such action may be enforced, without obtaining any license or other permission from any agency of the United States, except that this paragraph shall not apply to the execution of a judgment against, or the settlement of actions involving, property blocked under the authorities of section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act that were being exercised on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the President before such date, and are being exercised on the date of the enactment of this Act.

LINK To Complete Analysis

CourtDecisions.jpg

State Department Expected To Notify U.S. Congress Of Title III Intentions Soon

At the request of The White House, the United States Department of State is expected to submit a letter to the United States Congress by Monday, 4 March 2019, with its decision relating to the implementation of Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”).   

On 17/18 March 2019, the Trump Administration is planning to permit Title III and further implement Title IV of the Libertad Act.   

Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim where the owner of the certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using the asset.   

Title IV restricts entry into the United States by individuals who have connectivity to unresolved certified claims.  One company is currently subject to this provision.

preview16.jpg

Why Will Filing A Title III Lawsuit Cost Each Of The Potential 913 Certified Plaintiffs US$6,548.00?

Why Does Filing A Title III Lawsuit Cost US$6,548.00? 

Followers of commercial, economic and political issues relating to the Republic of Cuba have focused during the last months on what, if anything, the Trump Administration will do with respect to provisions (Title III and Title IV) of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act of 1996, known as the “Libertad Act” and as “Helms-Burton.”  A decision is expected by 17/18 March 2019. 

The cost of filing a lawsuit using the Title III provision of Libertad has been a focus of attention.  The following is a timeline from the Office of the Judicial Conference Secretariat of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts: 

“The 26-member Judicial Conference is the policy-making body for the federal court system. By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States serves as its presiding officer and its members are the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade. The Conference meets twice a year to consider administrative and policy issues affecting the court system, and to make recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch.” 

From Judicial Conference Proceedings: 

September 1996: “MISCELLANEOUS FEE - CUBAN LIBERTY AND DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY ACT.  The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (Public Law No. 104-1 14) authorizes United States citizens claiming ownership of property confiscated by the Cuban government on or after January 1, 1959, to sue any "person" who traffic in that property.  The Act requires the Judicial Conference to establish a fee for filing these actions "at a level sufficient to recover the costs to the court of actions brought under this section." The Judicial Conference approved a Court Administration and Case Management Committee recommendation that, pursuant to the revenue-neutral mandate imposed by Congress, a miscellaneous fee of US$4,180.00 be established for cases filed under this Act.” 

September 2003: The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management undertook a comprehensive review of the miscellaneous fees set by the Judicial Conference for the courts of appeals, the district courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, the bankruptcy courts, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1913, 1914, 1926, 1930, and 1932, respectively, and recommended several changes, including adjustments for inflation, specific fee increases, establishment of new fees, and clarification of certain provisions, as specifically noted below. The Committee’s recommendations were endorsed in relevant part by the Budget and Bankruptcy Committees.  Inflationary increases. In September 1996, the Judicial Conference raised certain miscellaneous fees to account for inflation and rising court costs (JCUS-SEP 96, p. 54). At that time, the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management determined that it would be appropriate to review the miscellaneous fee schedules approximately every five years to determine if any inflationary adjustments were warranted. At this session, the Conference approved a recommendation of the Committee to adopt inflationary increases to most miscellaneous fees. 

September 2011: “On recommendation of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee, the Conference determined to raise many of these fees to account for inflation, as set forth below, effective November 1, 2011. These fees have not been adjusted for inflation since 2003: 13. Cuban Liberation Civil Filing Fee- Current Fee US$5,431.00.  New Fee US$6,355.00.” 

September 2016: “MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULES Inflationary Fee Increases. The Judicial Conference prescribes miscellaneous fees for the courts of appeals, district courts, United States Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy courts, and Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1913, 1914, 1926, 1930, and 1932, respectively. On recommendation of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee, the Conference raised many of these fees to account for inflation, as set forth below, effective December 1, 2016. The last time miscellaneous fees were increased for inflation was in September 2011.  Cuban Libertad Act Filing: Current Fee US$6,355.00.  New Fee US$6,548.00.” 

September 2018: “For filing an action brought under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, P.L. 104-114, 110 Stat. § 785 (1996), $6,548. (This fee is in addition to the filing fee prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) for instituting any civil action other than a writ of habeas corpus.) 

Related: 28 U.S. Code § 1914 - District court; filing and miscellaneous fees; rules of court (a) The clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350, except that on application for a writ of habeas corpus the filing fee shall be $5.” 

Certified Claims Background 

There are 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the USFCSC and have not been resolved for nearing sixty years.  The USFCSC permitted interest to be accrued in the amount of 6% per annum; with the current value of the 5,913 certified claims approximately US$8,521,866,156.95.  

The first asset to be expropriated by the Republic of Cuba was an oil refinery in 1960 owned by White Plains, New York-based Texaco, Inc., now a subsidiary of San Ramon, California-based Chevron Corporation (USFCSC: CU-1331/CU-1332/CU-1333 valued at US$56,196,422.73).  

The largest certified claim (Cuban Electric Company) valued at US$267,568,413.62 is controlled by Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot, Inc.  The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International.  The smallest certified claim is by Sara W. Fishman in the amount of US$1.00 with reference to the Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust. 

The two (2) largest certified claims total US$449,377,207.76, representing 24% of the total value of the certified claims.  Thirty (30) certified claimants hold 56% of the total value of the certified claims.  This concentration of value creates an efficient pathway towards a settlement.   

Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 requires that an asset had a value of US$50,000.00 when expropriated by the Republic of Cuba without compensation to the original owner.   

Of the 5,913 certified claims, 913, or 15%, are valued at US$50,000.00 or more.  Adjusted for inflation, US$50,000.00 (3.70% per annum) in 1960 has a 2019 value of approximately US$427,267.01.  The USFCSC authorized 6% per annum, meaning the 2019 value of US$50,000.00 is approximately US$1,649,384.54.

LINK To Analysis In PDF Format

President Trump Extends National Emergencies Act For Cuba

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE  


February 19, 2019   

Dear Madam Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) 

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days before the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.  In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to Cuba that was declared on March 1, 1996, in Proclamation 6867, as amended by Proclamation 7757 on February 26, 2004, Proclamation 9398 on February 25, 2016, and Proclamation 9699 on February 22, 2018, is to continue in effect beyond February 22, 2019.

It continues to be United States policy that a mass migration from Cuba would endanger the security of the United States by posing a disturbance or threatened disturbance of the international relations of the United States.  The unauthorized entry of vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States into Cuban territorial waters is in violation of United States law and contrary to United States policy.  Further, the unauthorized entry of United States-registered vessels into Cuban territorial waters continues to be detrimental to United States foreign policy and counter to the purpose of Executive Order 12807 of May 24, 1992, which is to ensure, among other things, safe, orderly, and legal migration.  The possibility of large-scale unauthorized entries of United States-registered vessels would disturb the international relations of the United States by facilitating a possible mass migration of Cuban nationals.  For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Cuba and the emergency authority relating to the regulation of the anchorage and movement of vessels set out in Proclamation 6867, as amended by Proclamation 7757, Proclamation 9398, and Proclamation 9699.

Sincerely, 

DONALD J. TRUMP

P20170614JB-0303-2-1920x720.jpg

Title IV Visa Restrictions For Executives Could Impact Companies With Combined Revenues Of US$550 Billion

Title IV- Restricting Travel Into The United States

22 Potential Targets In 12 Countries

One Company Already Restricted

2018 revenues approximately US$550 billion

2018 market capitalization approximately US$770 billion

What Will EU Do?  What Can EU Do?  Does US Care? 

On 17/18 March 2019, the Trump Administration is planning to permit Title III and further implement Title IV of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”).   

Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim where the owner of the certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using the asset.   

Title IV restricts entry into the United States by individuals who have connectivity to unresolved certified claims.  One company is currently subject to this provision.   

There is a rationale for companies and individuals who are targets of Title IV actions by the United States Department of State to find commercial, economic and political value from negotiating a settlement(s) with a plaintiff(s). 

Upon settlement, the companies and individuals may no longer be subject to impediments to their operations relating to the Republic of Cuba and other countries which are a focus of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury and of the Office of Legal Adviser (OLA) of the United States Department of State. 

Settlements would reasonably result in an increase to the operational value of an asset located in the Republic of Cuba- the value of the asset increases as governments, financial institutions, investors, partners, and suppliers have increased confidence in long-term market-based viability. 

With settlement, there could be commercial, economic and political value to those who were subject to certified claims from having an ongoing presence of companies and individuals subject to United States jurisdiction as a shareholder, partner or leaseholder- meaning that if a company settles with the owner of an asset, and the owner is of Cuban descent residing in the United States or an individual not of Cuban descent, or company located in the United States, there may be an optical and practical benefit- lessening stigma, lessening risk, increasing opportunity and increasing value of the asset.    

What Is Title IV? 

SEC. 401. EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES OF ALIENS WHO HAVE CONFISCATED PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES NATIONALS OR WHO TRAFFIC IN SUCH PROPERTY. 

(a) Grounds for Exclusion.--The Secretary of State shall deny a visa to, and the Attorney General shall exclude from the United States, any alien who the Secretary of State determines is a person who, after the date of the enactment of this Act-- (1) has confiscated, or has directed or overseen the confiscation of, property a claim to which is owned by a United States national, or converts or has converted for personal gain confiscated property, a claim to which is owned by a United States national; (2) traffics in confiscated property, a claim to which is owned by a United States national; (3) is a corporate officer, principal, or shareholder with a controlling interest of an entity which has been involved in the confiscation of property or trafficking in confiscated property, a claim to which is owned by a United States national; or (4) is a spouse, minor child, or agent of a person excludable under paragraph (1), (2), or (3). 

Executives From Canadian Company Remain Subject To Title IV 

From Media Reports on 10/11 July 1996: Under the measures announced today (10 July 1996) by the State Department, the director of the Toronto-based company, Sherritt International Corp., will be barred from entering the United States, along with eight of his top officers and their immediate families. The ban will take effect in six weeks, after a waiting period designed to allow the company time to terminate its investments in Cuba.  At a briefing in Washington announcing the notification of the company executives affected, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns defended the provision affecting families as “likely to enhance . . . the threat that is contained very clearly in Helms-Burton.”  Burns said company executives were notified in letters dated Tuesday that after 45 days, they will not be allowed to enter the United States. The period is supposed to allow the company time to reconsider its investments in Cuba.  “It is unconventional,” Burns said. “It is a very tough action that we are taking today.” 

Potential Targets For Visa Action 

The following companies have been mentioned by claimants (certified and non-certified) as potential targets of lawsuits using provisions of Title IV.    

The targeted companies will expectedly be those who have meaningful financial exposure within the Republic of Cuba and, but not necessarily, have meaningful financial exposure within the United States.  In some instances, the reputational impact upon a company may, rather than the financial exposure, be a catalyst for agreeing to a settlement. 

The combined revenues of the companies in 2018 were approximately US$500 billion and the combined market capitalization of the companies in 2018 was approximately US$600 billion

Amstelveen, Netherlands-based KLM 

Beijing, China-based Air China

Frankfurt, Germany-based Lufthansa

Geneva, Switzerland-based MSC Cruises

Istanbul, Turkey-based Turkish Airlines

Leuven, Belgium-based Anheuser-Busch InBev

London, United Kingdom-based (controlled by Turkey-based interests) Global Ports Holding

London, United Kingdom/Rotterdam, Netherlands-based Unilever

Madrid, Spain-based Iberia Airlines

Madrid, Spain-based NH Hotel Group

Moscow, Russia-based Gazprom

Palma de Mallorca, Spain-based Iberostar Hotels & Resorts

Palma de Mallorca, Spain-based Melia Hotels International

Paris, France-based Accor SA

Paris, France-based Air France

Paris, France-based Pernod Ricard

Shenzhen, China-based Huawei Technologies

Tokyo, Japan-based Mitsubishi (an entity)

Toulouse, France-based Newrest Group Holding

Toronto, Canada-based Air Canada

Toronto, Canada-based Sherritt International

Vevey, Switzerland-based Nestle SA 

Certified Claims Background 

There are 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the USFCSC and have not been resolved for nearing sixty years.  The USFCSC permitted interest to be accrued in the amount of 6% per annum; with the current value of the 5,913 certified claims approximately US$8,521,866,156.95.  

The first asset to be expropriated by the Republic of Cuba was an oil refinery in 1960 owned by White Plains, New York-based Texaco, Inc., now a subsidiary of San Ramon, California-based Chevron Corporation (USFCSC: CU-1331/CU-1332/CU-1333 valued at US$56,196,422.73).  

The largest certified claim (Cuban Electric Company) valued at US$267,568,413.62 is controlled by Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot, Inc.  The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International.  The smallest certified claim is by Sara W. Fishman in the amount of US$1.00 with reference to the Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust. 

The two (2) largest certified claims total US$449,377,207.76, representing 24% of the total value of the certified claims.  Thirty (30) certified claimants hold 56% of the total value of the certified claims.  This concentration of value creates an efficient pathway towards a settlement.   

Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 requires that an asset had a value of US$50,000.00 when expropriated by the Republic of Cuba without compensation to the original owner.  Of the 5,913 certified claims, 913, or 15%, are valued at US$50,000.00 or more.  Adjusted for inflation, US$50,000.00 (3.70% per annum) in 1960 has a 2019 value of approximately US$427,267.01.  The USFCSC authorized 6% per annum, meaning the 2019 value of US$50,000.00 is approximately US$1,649,384.54.  

The ITT Corporation Agreement 

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

Libertad Act of 1996

Sec. 306. Effective date.

TITLE IV--EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ALIENS 

SEC. 401. EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES OF ALIENS WHO HAVE CONFISCATED PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES NATIONALS OR WHO TRAFFIC IN SUCH PROPERTY. 

(a) Grounds for Exclusion.--The Secretary of State shall deny a visa to, and the Attorney General shall exclude from the United States, any alien who the Secretary of State determines is a person who, after the date of the enactment of this Act--  (1) has confiscated, or has directed or overseen the confiscation of, property a claim to which is owned by a United States national, or converts or has converted for personal gain confiscated property, a claim to which is owned by a United States national; (2) traffics in confiscated property, a claim to which is owned by a United States national;  (3) is a corporate officer, principal, or shareholder with a controlling interest of an entity which has been involved in the confiscation of property or trafficking in confiscated property, a claim to which is owned by a United States national; or (4) is a spouse, minor child, or agent of a person excludable under paragraph (1), (2), or (3). 

(b) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) Confiscated; confiscation.--The terms "confiscated" and "confiscation" refer to-- (A) the nationalization, expropriation, or other seizure by the Cuban Government of ownership or control of property-- (i) without the property having been returned or adequate and effective compensation provided; Or (ii) without the claim to the property having been settled pursuant to an international claims settlement agreement or other mutually accepted settlement procedure; and (B) the repudiation by the Cuban Government of, the default by the Cuban Government on, or the failure of the Cuban Government to pay-- (i) a debt of any enterprise which has been nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise taken by the Cuban Government; (ii) a debt which is a charge on property nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise taken by the Cuban Government; or (iii) a debt which was incurred by the Cuban Government in satisfaction or settlement of a confiscated property claim. 

(2) Traffics.--(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person "traffics" in confiscated property if that person knowingly and intentionally-- (i) (I) transfers, distributes, dispenses, brokers, or otherwise disposes of confiscated property, (II) purchases, receives, obtains control of, or otherwise acquires confiscated property, or (III) improves (other than for routine maintenance), invests in (by contribution of funds or anything of value, other than for routine maintenance), or begins after the date of the enactment of this Act to manage, lease, possess, use, or hold an interest in confiscated property, (ii) enters into a commercial arrangement using or otherwise benefiting from confiscated property, or (iii) causes, directs, participates in, or profits from, trafficking (as described in clause (i) or (ii)) by another person, or otherwise engages in trafficking (as described in clause (i) or (ii)) through another person, without the authorization of any United States national who holds a claim to the property. 

(B) The term "traffics" does not include-- (i) the delivery of international telecommunication signals to Cuba; (ii) the trading or holding of securities publicly traded or held, unless the trading is with or by a person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be a specially designated national; (iii) transactions and uses of property incident to lawful travel to Cuba, to the extent that such transactions and uses of property are necessary to the conduct of such travel; or (iv) transactions and uses of property by a person who is both a citizen of Cuba and a resident of Cuba, and who is not an official of the Cuban Government or the ruling political party in Cuba.  (c) Exemption.--This section shall not apply where the Secretary of State finds, on a case by case basis, that the entry into the United States of the person who would otherwise be excluded under this section is necessary for medical reasons or for purposes of litigation of an action under title III.

LINK To Libertad Act Of 1996

LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format

$_1.JPG

Title III Lawsuits For Cuba Expropriations Could Impact 21 Countries And 6 U.S. States

Title III- Lawsuits May Be Filed

31 Potential Targets

21 Countries

6 U.S. States

913 Plaintiffs?

2018 revenues approximately US$700 billion

2018 market capitalization approximately US$1 trillion

Defendants Will Have Resources For Global Legal Defense

Settlement May Be The Most Profitable

Will They Settle?

What Will EU Do?  What Can EU Do?  Does US Care? 

On 17/18 March 2019, the Trump Administration is planning to permit Title III and further implement Title IV of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”).   

Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim where the owner of the certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using the asset.   

Title IV restricts entry into the United States by individuals who have connectivity to unresolved certified claims.  One company is currently subject to this provision. 

There is a rationale for companies and individuals who are targets of Title III lawsuits to find commercial, economic and political value from negotiating a settlement(s) with a plaintiff(s). 

Upon settlement, the companies and individuals may no longer be subject to impediments to their operations relating to the Republic of Cuba and other countries which are a focus of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury and of the Office of Legal Adviser (OLA) of the United States Department of State. 

Settlements would reasonably result in an increase to the operational value of an asset located in the Republic of Cuba- the value of the asset increases as governments, financial institutions, investors, partners, and suppliers have increased confidence in long-term market-based viability. 

With settlement, there could be commercial, economic and political value to those who were subject to certified claims from having an ongoing presence of companies and individuals subject to United States jurisdiction as a shareholder, partner or leaseholder- meaning that if a company settles with the owner of an asset, and the owner is of Cuban descent residing in the United States or an individual not of Cuban descent, or company located in the United States, there may be an optical and practical benefit- lessening stigma, lessening risk, increasing opportunity and increasing value of the asset.    

Potential Lawsuit Targets 

The following companies have been mentioned by claimants (certified and non-certified) as potential targets of lawsuits using provisions of Title III.  A company could be subject to multiple lawsuits.   

If the Trump Administration authorizes the use of Title III by some certified claimants and some non-certified claimants while not authorizing the use of Title III by other certified claimants and other non-certified claimants, there may be legal challenges by those excluded from access to Title III.   

The targeted companies will expectedly be those who have meaningful financial exposure within the Republic of Cuba and have meaningful financial exposure within the United States.  In some instances, the reputational impact upon a company may, rather than the financial exposure, be a catalyst for agreeing to a settlement. 

The combined revenues of the companies in 2018 were approximately US$678 billion and the combined market capitalization of the companies in 2018 was approximately US$860 billion

Amstelveen, Netherlands-based KLM 

Atlanta, Georgia-based Delta Air Lines

Beijing, China-based Air China

Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International

Chicago, Illinois-based United Airlines

Dallas, Fort Worth, Texas-based American Airlines

Dallas, Texas-based Southwest Airlines

Frankfurt, Germany-based Lufthansa

Geneva, Switzerland-based MSC Cruises

Istanbul, Turkey-based Turkish Airlines

Leuven, Belgium-based Anheuser-Busch InBev

London, United Kingdom-based (controlled by Turkey-based interests) Global Ports Holding

London, United Kingdom/Rotterdam, Netherlands-based Unilever

Long Island City, New York-based Jet Blue Airways

Madrid, Spain-based Iberia Airlines

Madrid, Spain-based NH Hotel Group

Miami, Florida-based Carnival Corporation & plc

Miami, Florida-based Norwegian Cruise Line

Miami, Florida-based Royal Caribbean International

Moscow, Russia-based Gazprom

Palma de Mallorca, Spain-based Iberostar Hotels & Resorts

Palma de Mallorca, Spain-based Melia Hotels International

Paris, France-based Accor SA

Paris, France-based Air France

Paris, France-based Pernod Ricard

Shenzhen, China-based Huawei Technologies

Tokyo, Japan-based Mitsubishi (an entity)

Toulouse, France-based Newrest Group Holding

Toronto, Canada-based Air Canada

Toronto, Canada-based Sherritt International

Vevey, Switzerland-based Nestle SA 

Certified Claims Background 

There are 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the USFCSC and have not been resolved for nearing sixty years.  The USFCSC permitted interest to be accrued in the amount of 6% per annum; with the current value of the 5,913 certified claims approximately US$8,521,866,156.95.  

The first asset to be expropriated by the Republic of Cuba was an oil refinery in 1960 owned by White Plains, New York-based Texaco, Inc., now a subsidiary of San Ramon, California-based Chevron Corporation (USFCSC: CU-1331/CU-1332/CU-1333 valued at US$56,196,422.73).  

The largest certified claim (Cuban Electric Company) valued at US$267,568,413.62 is controlled by Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot, Inc.  The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International.  The smallest certified claim is by Sara W. Fishman in the amount of US$1.00 with reference to the Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust. 

The two (2) largest certified claims total US$449,377,207.76, representing 24% of the total value of the certified claims.  Thirty (30) certified claimants hold 56% of the total value of the certified claims.  This concentration of value creates an efficient pathway towards a settlement.   

Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 requires that an asset had a value of US$50,000.00 when expropriated by the Republic of Cuba without compensation to the original owner.  Of the 5,913 certified claims, 913, or 15%, are valued at US$50,000.00 or more.  Adjusted for inflation, US$50,000.00 (3.70% per annum) in 1960 has a 2019 value of approximately US$427,267.01.  The USFCSC authorized 6% per annum, meaning the 2019 value of US$50,000.00 is approximately US$1,649,384.54.  

The ITT Corporation Agreement 

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

TITLE III--SEC. 302. LIABILITY FOR TRAFFICKING IN CONFISCATED PROPERTY CLAIMED BY UNITED STATES NATIONALS. 

(a) Civil Remedy.-- (1) Liability for trafficking.--(A) Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person that, after the end of the 3-month period beginning on the effective date of this title, traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property for money damages in an amount equal to the sum of-- (i) the amount which is the greater of-- (I) the amount, if any, certified to the claimant by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, plus interest; (II) the amount determined under section 303(a)(2), plus interest; or (III) the fair market value of that property, calculated as being either the current value of the property, or the value of the property when confiscated plus interest, whichever is greater; and (ii) court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.  (B) Interest under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be at the rate set forth in section 1961 of title 28, United States Code, computed by the court from the date of confiscation of the property involved to the date on which the action is brought under this subsection.   

(2) Presumption in favor of the certified claims.--There shall be a presumption that the amount for which a person is liable under clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A) is the amount that is certified as described in subclause (I) of that clause. The presumption shall be rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence that the amount described in subclause (II) or (III) of that clause is the appropriate amount of liability under that clause. 

(3) Increased liability.--(A) Any person that traffics in confiscated property for which liability is incurred under paragraph (1) shall, if a United States national owns a claim with respect to that property which was certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, be liable for damages computed in accordance with subparagraph (C).   

(B) If the claimant in an action under this subsection (other than a United States national to whom subparagraph (A) applies) provides, after the end of the 3-month period described in paragraph (1) notice to-- (i) a person against whom the action is to be initiated, or (ii) a person who is to be joined as a defendant in the action, at least 30 days before initiating the action or joining such person as a defendant, as the case may be, and that person, after the end of the 30- day period beginning on the date the notice is provided, traffics in the confiscated property that is the subject of the action, then that person shall be liable to that claimant for damages computed in accordance with subparagraph (C).   

(C) Damages for which a person is liable under subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B) are money damages in an amount equal to the sum of-- (i) the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A)(ii), and (ii) 3 times the amount determined applicable under paragraph (1)(A)(i).  (D) Notice to a person under subparagraph (B)-- (i) shall be in writing; (ii) shall be posted by certified mail or personally delivered to the person; and (iii) shall contain-- (I) a statement of intention to commence the action under this section or to join the person as a defendant (as the case may be), together with the reasons therefor; (II) a demand that the unlawful trafficking in the claimant's property cease immediately; and (III) a copy of the summary statement published under paragraph (8).  (4) Applicability.--(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, actions may be brought under paragraph (1) with respect to property confiscated before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(B) In the case of property confiscated before the date of the enactment of this Act, a United States national may not bring an action under this section on a claim to the confiscated property unless such national acquires ownership of the claim before such date of enactment.  (C) In the case of property confiscated on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, a United States national who, after the property is confiscated, acquires ownership of a claim to the property by assignment for value, may not bring an action on the claim under this section.   

(5) Treatment of certain actions.--(A) In the case of a United States national who was eligible to file a claim with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but did not so file the claim, that United States national may not bring an action on that claim under this section.  (B) In the case of any action brought under this section by a United States national whose underlying claim in the action was timely filed with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but was denied by the Commission, the court shall accept the findings of the Commission on the claim as conclusive in the action under this section. 

(C) A United States national, other than a United States national bringing an action under this section on a claim certified under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, may not bring an action on a claim under this section before the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(D) An interest in property for which a United States national has a claim certified under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 may not be the subject of a claim in an action under this section by any other person. Any person bringing an action under this section whose claim has not been so certified shall have the burden of establishing for the court that the interest in property that is the subject of the claim is not the subject of a claim so certified.  (6) Inapplicability of act of state doctrine.--No court of the United States shall decline, based upon the act of state doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action brought under paragraph (1) . 

(7) Licenses not required.--(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action under this section may be brought and may be settled, and a judgment rendered in such action may be enforced, without obtaining any license or other permission from any agency of the United States, except that this paragraph shall not apply to the execution of a judgment against, or the settlement of actions involving, property blocked under the authorities of section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act that were being exercised on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the President before such date, and are being exercised on the date of the enactment of this Act.

LINK To Complete Text Of Libertad Act Of 1996

LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format

31976-optimized_59055d0b059d4.jpg

Senator Klobuchar Could Be A Catalyst For Claims Or Her Candidacy Could Doom Her Legislation

Senator Klobuchar Could Be A Hero To 5,913 Companies & Individuals

Being Catalyst To Settle 58-Year Problem Is Good Presidential Politics

Her Candidacy Could Also Doom The Effort

Company In Her State Has Certified Claim

Four Senators Will Try To Prevail To Derail

Impact Of Trump Administration March 2019 Title III/Title IV Decision

Embassy Meeting

Cuba: Ask For Assistance- Quickly

Risking Another Tombstone In The Legislative Graveyard 

The Honorable Amy Klobuchar (D- Minnesota), a member of the United States Senate, has framed two (2) announcements- each may impact upon the success of the other.   

Senator Klobuchar, elected to a third term in 2018, was first elected to the United States Senate in 2006.  

On 10 February 2019, Senator Klobuchar commenced an effort to obtain the nomination in 2020 of the Democratic Party for President of the United States.  That announcement could jeopardize any legislation attached to her as opponents (Democratic, Republican, Independent) of her candidacy seek to limit her successes.   

On 8 February 2019, Senator Klobuchar introduced legislation that would make changes to provisions of United States statutes that impact the commercial, economic and political bilateral relationship between the United States and the Republic of Cuba. 

That legislation. S. 428 (“A bill to lift the trade embargo on Cuba”), does “not repeal portions of law that address human rights or property claims against the Cuban government.”  Why not?  Then they must be important. 

Maplewood, Minnesota-based 3M (2018 revenues approximately US$32 billion) has the 615th largest certified claim (CU-0242) against the Republic of Cuba in the amount of US$94,409.20.  Adjusted for inflation (3.70% annual rate), the certified claim is valued at approximately US$835,102.34 in 2019.  Adjusted for 6% annual interest as permitted by the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (USFCSC- https://www.justice.gov/fcsc) at the United States Department of Justice, the certified claim is valued at approximately US$3,114,341.50 in 2019.   

Initial co-sponsors of the legislation are The Honorable Mike Enzi (R- Wyoming) and The Honorable Patrick Leahy (D- Vermont.  There appear not to be any certified claimants located in the states of Wyoming or Vermont.  

Certified Claims Background 

There are 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the USFCSC and have not been resolved for nearing sixty years.  The USFCSC permitted interest to be accrued in the amount of 6% per annum; with the current value of the 5,913 certified claims approximately US$8,521,866,156.95.  

The first asset to be expropriated by the Republic of Cuba was an oil refinery in 1960 owned by White Plains, New York-based Texaco, Inc., now a subsidiary of San Ramon, California-based Chevron Corporation (USFCSC: CU-1331/CU-1332/CU-1333 valued at US$56,196,422.73).  

The largest certified claim (Cuban Electric Company) valued at US$267,568,413.62 is controlled by Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot, Inc.  The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International.  The smallest certified claim is by Sara W. Fishman in the amount of US$1.00 with reference to the Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust. 

The two (2) largest certified claims total US$449,377,207.76, representing 24% of the total value of the certified claims.  Thirty (30) certified claimants hold 56% of the total value of the certified claims.  This concentration of value creates an efficient pathway towards a settlement by providing a logistically-reasonable individual and group outreach opportunity.   

Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against entities that are using a certified claim where the owner of the certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using the asset.  Title IV restricts entry into the United States of individuals who have connectivity to unresolved certified claims. 

Title III requires that an asset had a value of US$50,000.00 when expropriated by the Republic of Cuba without compensation to the original owner.  Of the 5,913 certified claims, 913, or 15%, are valued at US$50,000.00 or more.  Adjusted for inflation, US$50,000.00 (3.70% per annum) in 1960 has a 2019 value of approximately US$427,267.01.  The USFCSC authorized 6% per annum, thus the 2019 value of US$50,000.00 is approximately US$1,649,384.54.   

Headwinds (Derailment) For The Legislation  

With the three senators specifically excluding from their legislation any impact upon the certified claims, they are confirming the fundamental importance of the certified claims, the rights of the certified claimants, and that the Republic of Cuba must agree to a settlement of the certified claims. 

Which leads to the question of why these three senators have focused their public advocacy for changing the bilateral commercial relationship between the United States and the Republic of Cuba, but not public advocacy on behalf of the certified claimants- one of which is a constituent of Senator Klobuchar?  

If the three senators have been convinced by advocates that excluding any impact upon the certified claimants from the legislation will create another “path forward” for the legislation through the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives, they have been misled. 

By excluding the certified claims from the legislation, the three senators likely ensure an outcome they may not desire. 

At least four (4) members of the United States Senate will oppose the legislation with every legislative tool available to them.   

The Honorable Marco Rubio (R- Florida), The Honorable Ted Cruz (R- Texas), The Honorable Rick Scott (R- Florida) and The Honorable Robert Menendez (D- New Jersey) will require the legislation (unless they scuttle it) to 1) have a settlement of the certified claims in advance of the implementation of the legislation and 2) substantial carve-outs for any interaction with entities controlled by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of the Republic of Cuba (FAR).   

The four senators will have support from a bipartisan group of their colleagues including committee chairs and sub-committee chairs. 

Those efforts in the United States Senate will be joined by members of the United States House of Representatives, including those from the State of Florida and the State of New Jersey; along with members who are committee chairs and sub-committee chairs. 

The Trump Administration 

The Trump Administration is focusing upon seeking a resolution of the certified claims and is expected to implement (partially or fully) Title III and enhance activity relating to Title IV of Libertad on 17/18 March 2019.   

For Senator Klobuchar 

Senator Klobuchar would be served well by convening a meeting in Washington DC with the Ambassador of the Republic of Cuba to the United States where all co-sponsors of the legislation, as one group, would convey the importance of the Republic of Cuba negotiating a settlement of the certified claims and obtaining a commitment to negotiate a settlement of the certified claims.   

In December 2018, a proposal was submitted to the Republic of Cuba and to the Trump Administration that would create a specific timetable to reach a settlement. LINK:    https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2018/11/18/lojx6s6oe5epgonh6mub855d5ak143 

While advocating for legislation, Senator Klobuchar and her co-sponsors and supporters should encourage the implementation of Direct Correspondent Banking by Conway, Arkansas-based Home BancShares (2018 assets approximately US$14 billion).  In September 2017, Pompano, Florida-based Stonegate Bank (2017 assets approximately US$2.9 billion) was purchased by Home BancShares through its Centennial Bank subsidiary:   

In 2015, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury authorized Stonegate Bank to have an account with BICSA.  Stonegate Bank provides commercial operating accounts for the Embassy of the Republic of Cuba in Washington, DC and the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cuba to the United Nations in New York City; the financial institution also handles other types of OFAC-authorized transactions.  Stonegate Bank has a correspondent account with Republic of Cuba government-operated Banco Internacional de Comercia SA (BICSA).  However, because BICSA does not have a correspondent account with Stonegate Bank, the fully-operational direct correspondent relationship does not exist, and a multi-country triangular payment process continues- financial institutions in third countries have received fees on more than US$5.8 billion in transactions during the last eighteen years.  The Obama Administration did not authorize BICSA under a general OFAC license or reportedly in the OFAC license issued to Stonegate Bank for it to have an account with Stonegate Bank, so Stonegate Bank has processed some transactions through Panama City, Panama-based Multibank, which has dealings with the Republic of Cuba.   

For The Republic Of Cuba 

The Republic of Cuba needs to uncouple its issues with the Trump Administration from the 5,913 certified claimants.   

The negotiation to settle the certified claims must not be linked to the value the Republic of Cuba places (previously stated as a cumulative US$900 billion) upon the impact of statutes, regulations and policies by the United States since 1960.   

One issue (US$1,902,202,284.95 to US$8,521,866,156.95) which represents assets expropriated without compensation from private entities has no linkage to the perceived value (US$900 billion) of actions by one government against another.   

According to one New York City, New York-based attorney, “They are distinct from one another and attempts to conflate them only delays reckoning and harms the aspirations of the citizens of Cuba and the ROI (Return on Investment) of those governments and companies who have engaged with Cuba during the last fifty-eight years.”  

Maintaining one issue must be negotiated with the other issue may transition certified claimants from a benign group, but which does include some with enthusiasm to seek a settlement, into an attorney-inspired aggressive lot- and the worst outcome would be for the largest certified claimants to become aggressive globally.  It only takes one to create a fire from a spark.  

The Obama Administration and Castro Administration failed to use their unique moment from 17 December 2014 through 20 January 2017 to begin negotiations to settle the certified claims; there is an opportunity for the Diaz-Canel Administration to succeed where predecessors failed. 

If the Diaz-Canel Administration can seek assistance from third parties- European Union (EU)-member countries, specifically France, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, along with Canada, then it should do so promptly.  They can assist with outreach directly to the largest of the certified claimants where the response is likely to be positive. 

Final Thought 

Without a resolution of the certified claims, or at minimum an implemented negotiation process that has a reasonable expectation for success, the legislation proposed by Senator Klobuchar is unlikely to remain intact and could be destined for an already robust legislative graveyard.

LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format

klobuchar-11-ap-er-190210_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg

Commenced In 2016, Stonegate Bank's MasterCard Products Will No Longer Be Valid In Cuba As Of March 2019

As of 5 March 2019, Pompano Beach, Florida-based Stonegate Bank (now known as Centennial Bank) is discontinuing its MasterCard branded credit cards that were valid for use in the Republic of Cuba.  According to a customer service representative, the Stonegate Bank Credit Card Program is being discontinued for both consumers and businesses.  According to the text (first published and then provided by www.cubastandard.com) of a 5 February 2019 letter to customers, “Cuba enabled credit cards are no longer available.” 

In September 2017, Stonegate Bank (2017 assets approximately US$2.9 billion) was purchased by Conway, Arkansas-based Home BancShares (2018 assets approximately US$14 billion) through its Centennial Bank subsidiary. 

Neither Centennial Bank nor Home BancShares has issued a statement as to the reason(s) for the discontinuation of the credit cards for use in the Republic of Cuba.   

Natbank, a wholly-owned subsidiary of National Bank of Canada that has operated in Florida for more than twenty years, confirms that its Mastercard credit card is valid for use in the Republic of Cuba.  Natbank has locations in Boynton Beach, Hollywood and Pompano Beach. San Juan, Puerto Rico-based Banco Popular of Puerto Rico, like Natbank, has authorization from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury and from the Central Bank of the Republic of Cuba to have their Mastercard-branded credit cards and debit cards valid for use in the Republic of Cuba.  

14 June 2016- Stonegate Bank Issues MasterCard For Use In Cuba 

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2016/6/15/stonegate-bank-issues-mastercard-for-use-in-cuba?rq=stonegate%20bank 

19 November 2015- Stonegate Bank and MasterCard Enable U.S.-Issued Debit Cards for Use in Cuba 

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2015/11/19/t72fld4e3oy82ddga7e13qruje7oi8?rq=stonegate%20bank

Stonegate Bank and MasterCard Enable U.S.-Issued Debit Cards for Use in Cuba 

Stonegate is pleased to announce that the bank is now offering a Debit MasterCard that can be used at any of Cuba’s 10,000 hotels, restaurants and other card-accepting merchants. 

“This is the first step in relieving the burden of U.S. travelers carrying cash when travelling to Cuba and another step in normalizing commercial relations between the two countries. Hopefully more issuing banks will help this process by approving credit and debit cards as well,” said Dave Seleski, president and CEO of Stonegate Bank. 

Initially, cardholders will need to sign for all Debit MasterCard purchases. Stonegate expects to expand the use of the cards to ATMs in 2016. 

Before visiting Cuba, Stonegate cardholders will need to ensure they are traveling under one of the 12 categories authorized by U.S. regulations, including religious and professional purposes.

MasterCard originally removed its network block on U.S.-issued cards being used in Cuba in March 2015. Since then, federal rules left the final decision to each bank whether its cardholders will be allowed to use their cards on the island. 

“As the infrastructure continues to develop on the island, this milestone reinforces a collective effort, starting with last spring’s trade mission, to deliver our cardholders a convenient and safe way to pay when traveling to Cuba,” said Jeff Wilson, president. GeoCentral Division at MasterCard. 

For further information on obtaining a debit card, please visit www.stonegatebank.com. 

About Stonegate 

Stonegate Bank (NASDAQ: SGBK) is a full-service commercial bank, providing a wide range of business and consumer financial products and services through its 21 banking offices in its target marketplace of South and West Florida, which is comprised primarily of Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Hillsborough, Lee, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Sarasota Counties in Florida. As of September 30, 2015, Stonegate Bank had $2.31 billion in assets and $1.95 billion in deposits. Stonegate Bank’s principal executive office and mailing address is 400 North Federal Highway, Pompano Beach, Florida 33062 and its telephone number is (954) 315-5500. 

About MasterCard 

MasterCard (NYSE: MA), www.mastercard.com, is a technology company in the global payments industry. We operate the world’s fastest payments processing network, connecting consumers, financial institutions, merchants, governments and businesses in more than 210 countries and territories. MasterCard’s products and solutions make everyday commerce activities — such as shopping, traveling, running a business and managing finances — easier, more secure and more efficient for everyone. Follow us on Twitter @MasterCardNews, join the discussion on the Beyond the Transaction Blog and subscribe for the latest news on the Engagement Bureau. 

14 October 2016- Starwood Has A Problem With Mastercard, Cuba's Central Bank, Stonegate Bank & Banco Popular De Puerto Rico 

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2016/10/14/starwood-has-a-problem-with-mastercard-cubas-central-bank-stonegate-bank-banco-popular-de-puerto-rico?rq=stonegate%20bank 

5 May 2018- Home BancShares Reports On Its Risks Associated With Cuba-Related Banking Services 

https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2018/5/5/home-bancshares-reports-on-its-risks-associated-with-cuba-related-banking-services?rq=stonegate%20bank 

Direct Correspondent Banking has yet to be implemented by Home BancShares.  In September 2017, Stonegate Bank was purchased by Home BancShares through its Centennial Bank subsidiary:   

In 2015, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury authorized Stonegate Bank to have an account with BICSA.  Stonegate Bank provides commercial operating accounts for the Embassy of the Republic of Cuba in Washington, DC and the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cuba to the United Nations in New York City; the financial institution also handles other types of OFAC-authorized transactions.  Stonegate Bank has a correspondent account with Republic of Cuba government-operated Banco Internacional de Comercia SA (BICSA).  However, because BICSA does not have a correspondent account with Stonegate Bank, the fully-operational direct correspondent relationship does not exist, and a multi-country triangular payment process continues- financial institutions in third countries have received fees on more than US$5.8 billion in transactions during the last eighteen years.  The Obama Administration did not authorize BICSA under a general OFAC license or reportedly in the OFAC license issued to Stonegate Bank for it to have an account with Stonegate Bank, so Stonegate Bank has processed some transactions through Panama City, Panama-based Multibank, which has dealings with the Republic of Cuba. 

Stonegate-credit-card-467x300.jpg

US Ag/Food Exports To Cuba Decreased 31.8% In November; Down By 17.4% For Year

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©

January 2019

 

November 2018 Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Decrease 31.8%- 1

17.4% Decrease Year-To-Year-5

Cuba Ranks 58th Of 225 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2

November 2018 Healthcare Product Exports US$321,475.00- 2

November 2018 Humanitarian Donations US$1,558,200.00- 3

Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue To Increase- 3

U.S. Port Export Data- 15 

NOVEMBER 2018 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA DECREASE 31.8%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in November 2018 were US$14,505,604.00 compared to US$21,277,713.00 in November 2017 and US$10,594,557.00 in November 2016. 

Exporters in November 2018 included among others: Atlanta, Georgia-based AJC International (poultry); Chattanooga, Tennessee-based Koch Foods (poultry); Atlanta, Georgia-based Intervision Foods (fish/poultry); Wellesley, Massachusetts-based Grove Services (poultry) and Little Rock, Arkansas-based Mountaire Farms (poultry).

For the period January 2018 through November 2018, exports were US$212,134,634.00 compared with US$256,836,606.00 during the same period in 2017.

LINK To Complete Report In PDF Format

Surviving-Your-First-Sales-Decrease.jpg

There Are 5,913 Certified Claims; But, Only 913, Or 15%, May Be Eligible To File A Lawsuit

Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 requires that an asset had a value of US$50,000.00 when expropriated by the Republic of Cuba without compensation to the original owner. 

Of the 5,913 certified claims, 913, or approximately 15%, are valued at US$50,000.00 or more. 

Adjusted for inflation, US$50,000.00 (3.70% per annum) in 1960 has a value of US$427,267.01 in 2019. Adjusted for the 6% annual interest permitted by the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (USFCSC- https://www.justice.gov/fcsc) at the United States Department of Justice, the value of US$50,000.00 in 2019 is US$1,649.384.54.

There are 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the USFCSC have not been resolved for nearing sixty years.  The USFCSC permitted interest to be accrued in the amount of 6% per annum; with the current value of the 5,913 certified claims approximately US$8,521,866,156.95.  

From the United States District Court: “For filing an action brought under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, P.L. 104-114, 110 Stat. § 785 (1996), $6,548. (This fee is in addition to the filing fee prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) for instituting any civil action other than a writ of habeas corpus.)” 

The United States District Court fees from 913 filings would be US$5,978,324.00, representing .31% of the total value of the certified claims. 

Adjusted for inflation (3.70% per annum), US$6,548.00 (the filing fee today) in 1960 has a value of US$55,954.89 in 2019.  

At US$6,548.00 (the filing fee), filings by 290,501 plaintiffs would yield US$1,902,202,284.95 and filings by 1,301,446 plaintiffs would yield US$8,521,866,156.95. 

There have been estimates of 200,000 potential filings by plaintiffs (individuals/entities who were subject to Republic of Cuba jurisdiction rather than individuals/entities subject to United States jurisdiction) having non-certified claims against the Republic of Cuba- those filing fees would yield US$1,309,600,000.00. 

LINK To Certified Claims List

images.png

A New Way To Settle The Certified Claims? Encourage 1,301,446 Filings And They Are Paid!

One means to compensate the certified claimants without the Republic of Cuba provisioning any funds is for as many certified claimants as possible to file an action in United States District Courts.  The filing fees could fully compensate the certified claimants. 

That’s right.  Encourage as many plaintiffs as possible to file. 

So, what happens?  Plaintiffs are paying plaintiffs.  The ultimate re-circulation of funds. 

There are 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (USFCSC- https://www.justice.gov/fcsc) at the United States Department of Justice have not been resolved for nearing sixty years.  The USFCSC permitted interest to be accrued in the amount of 6% per annum; with the current value of the 5,913 certified claims approximately US$8,521,866,156.95.  

From the United States District Court: “For filing an action brought under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, P.L. 104-114, 110 Stat. § 785 (1996), $6,548. (This fee is in addition to the filing fee prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) for instituting any civil action other than a writ of habeas corpus.)” 

Adjusted for inflation (3.70% per annum), US$6,548.00 (the filing fee today) in 1960 has a value of US$55,954.89 in 2019.  

At US$6,548.00 (the filing fee), filings by 290,501 plaintiffs would yield US$1,902,202,284.95 and filings by 1,301,446 plaintiffs would yield US$8,521,866,156.95. 

There have been estimates of 200,000 potential filings by plaintiffs (individuals/entities who were subject to Republic of Cuba jurisdiction rather than individuals/entities subject to United States jurisdiction) having non-certified claims against the Republic of Cuba- those filing fees would yield US$1,309,600,000.00. 

Important to note that Title III of the Libertad Act requires that an asset had a value of US$50,000.00 when expropriated by the Republic of Cuba without compensation to the original owner. 

Of the 5,913 certified claims, 913 are valued at US$50,000.00 or more. 

Adjusted for inflation, US$50,000.00 (3.70% per annum) in 1960 has a value of US$427,267.01 in 2019.  Adjusted for the 6% annual interest permitted by the USFCSC, the value of US$50,000.00 in 2019 is US$1,649.384.54.

The United States District Court fees from 913 filings would be US$5,978,324.00, representing .31% of the total value of the certified claims. 

LINK To Certified Claims List 

NOTE: In 2017, The Honorable Rick Crawford (R- 1st District, Arkansas) supported a legislative effort to require 2% of each transaction (agricultural commodities and food products) within the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSREEA) by United States-based companies with Republic of Cuba government-operated entities, the proceeds of which would fund repayment of the certified claims.  The legislation would thus absolve the Republic of Cuba from any financial responsibility for compensation to the certified claimants by shifting the creation of a funding stream to the United States taxpayer.  This misguided effort was rebuffed. 

According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on 3 June 2017, “The original version of HR525, the Cuba Agricultural Exports Act, didn't include the fee when it was filed in January.  In an interview Friday, Crawford said he plans to file an amended version of his legislation next week to reflect the change. The lawmaker estimates the 2-percent fee would generate roughly $30 million per year initially, rising to perhaps $60 million within five to seven years.” 

For US$30 million to equal 2% of the value for all TSREEA exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba, the total annual value of those exports would need be US$1.5 billion, which Representative Crawford was reported to believe would be the “within five to seven years.” 

For reference, the following are the U.S. Dollar export values for TSREEA-related exports since the first deliveries in December 2001; the 2% export tax would represent US$116,998,516.76 from all eighteen (18) years of TSREEA-related exports: US$5,849,925,838.00.

Reporting Year

U.S. Dollar Value Of TSREEA-Authorized Exports To Cuba

Export Market Ranking

2018

US$197,629,030.00

56th (of 224)

2017

US$268,800,005.00 (revised +US$8,132,930.00 on 6/18)

52nd (of 229)

2016

US$232,064,645.00

55th (of 232)

2015

US$170,551,329.00

60th (of 230)

2014

US$291,258,881.00

49th (of 223)

2013

US$348,747,293.00

46th (of 224)

2012

US$457,318,357.00

43rd (of 229)

2011

US$358,457,389.00

50th (of 232)

2010

US$366,467,782.00

45th (of 228)

2009

US$528,482,955.00

36th (of 232)

2008

US$710,086,323.00

29th (of 228)

2007

US$437,564,824.00

37th (of 230)

2006

US$340,433,442.00

34th (of 227)

2005

US$350,218,040.00

30th (of 228)

2004

US$391,990,382.00

25th (of 228)

2003

US$256,901,471.00

35th (of 219)

2002

US$138,634,784.00

50th (of 226)

2001

US$4,318,906.00 (December- 1st sales under TSREEA)

144th (of 226)

Total Sales

US$5,849,925,838.00 

There are practitioners within the legal community who present that Representative Crawford's legislation is per se unconstitutional.  See United States v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 517 U.S. 843, 846-48 (1996) “[t]he Export Clause states simply and directly: ‘No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.’ U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 5.  There have been occasions to interpret the language of the Export Clause, but cases have broadly exempted from federal taxation not only export goods, but also services and activities closely related to the export process . . . the Export Clause strictly prohibits any tax or duty, discriminatory or not, that falls on exports during the course of exportation.” 

LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format

RR-381x381.jpg

Update: Court Costs For Filing Libertad Act Title III Lawsuits Is US$6,548.00

Correction To Filing Fee In Analysis (Not US$400.00)

https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule 

From United States District Courts:

13. For filing an action brought under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, P.L. 104-114, 110 Stat. § 785 (1996), $6,548. (This fee is in addition to the filing fee prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) for instituting any civil action other than a writ of habeas corpus.) 

LINK To Complete Corrected 7-Page Analysis

maxresdefault.jpg

Trump Administration To EU, EC, WTO & UN? Bring It On- Title III Is Being Served

EU, WTO, UN Opposition? “Bring It On.”

Ben & Jerry’s- “You’ve Been Served”

Breaking News” For ABC/CBS/CNBC/CNN/FOX/MSNBC/NBC?

Might Title III Work?

“They Stole It.  You’re Using It.  Now They Or You Pay For It”

Media Narrative Likely Will Support Decision

25+ Companies Could Be Challenged

If Maduro Administration Ends, Far Worse For Cuba

How To Recoup US$1.9 Billion?

North Korean Embassy Is Former Home Of U.S. Journalist’s Family

A Day Of Reckoning?  21,446 Days Is Enough 

Consequential to appreciate while some occupants of The White House have absorbed criticism from international organizations as Superman would respond to kryptonite, the Trump Administration, as the MUTO in Godzilla 2014, devours and fuels by such criticism.   

On 17/18 March 2019, the Trump Administration is planning to permit Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”) to become operational.  The proponent slogan for Title III- “If you don’t own it, don’t use it.”   

Lawsuits could be permitted to be filed in United States Federal Courts against individuals, companies, and perhaps governments who are using an asset expropriated without compensation from the original owner and for which compensation was not paid to the original owner by the Republic of Cuba.  

The Trump Administration will likely authorize lawsuits by the 5,913 certified claimants rather than the estimated 50,000 non-certified claimants.  The most consequential decision by plaintiffs will be determining who gets sued and where they get sued.   

The failure of the Obama Administration and Castro Administration to use their unique moment created an opportunity for the Trump Administration. 

From the United States District Court: “For filing an action brought under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, P.L. 104-114, 110 Stat. § 785 (1996), $6,548. (This fee is in addition to the filing fee prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) for instituting any civil action other than a writ of habeas corpus.)”

The following could happen even though the United States-based operations are separate from the non-United States-based corporate entities:  

It’s a “Breaking News” event for ABC/CBS/CNBC/CNN/FOX/MSNBC/NBC

Another sunny day in South Florida.  The General Manager (GM) of the ME Miami on Biscayne Boulevard greets in the lobby an individual with a warm “Buenos Dias.”  The GM then receives a document and a response- “You’ve been served.”  Palma de Mallorca, Spain-based Melia Hotels International manages thirty-four (34) properties in the Republic of Cuba. 

The process is repeated at the Sofitel Washington DC Lafayette Square managed by Paris, France-based Accor SA which manages properties in the Republic of Cuba. 

And on the Concourse Level at 1 Rockefeller Plaza in New York City at Blue Bottle Coffee managed by Oakland, California-based Blue Bottle Coffee Inc. or at the Nespresso Boutique on Century Square Terrace in Austin, Texas.  Vevey, Switzerland-based Nestle SA owns both companies. 

And in picturesque, South Burlington, Vermont, at the office of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Holdings Inc.  The company is owned by London, United Kingdom/Rotterdam, Netherlands-based Unilever

At Kenwood, California-based Kenwood Vineyards on Highway 12, guests are enjoying a tasting, when the document arrives.  Paris, France-based Pernod Ricard owns Kenwood Vineyards. 

At O’Hare International Airport (ORD) in Chicago, Illinois, document servers enter the offices of Madrid, Spain-based Iberia Airlines; Toronto, Canada-based Air Canada; Paris, France-based Air France; Frankfurt, Germany-based Lufthansa; Istanbul, Turkey-based Turkish Airlines; and Amstelveen, Netherlands-based KLM.  Each airline services the Republic of Cuba. 

NH New York Jolly Madison Towers could be the scene for another document service as Madrid, Spain-based NH Hotel Group (2017 revenues approximately US$1.3 billion) with approximately 382 properties located in thirty countries, manages two properties in the Republic of Cuba.

The Seattle, Washington office of Tokyo, Japan-based Mitsubishi Corporation could see their morning newspapers accompanied by a notification from a court.

The captain of the 6,297-passenger MSC Virtuosa operated by Geneva, Switzerland-based MSC Cruises arrives to the Port of Miami, Florida, to be presented with a document from a court. 

United States Federal Courts in Miami, Florida; Newark, New Jersey; and in Tampa, Florida, are likely to be the epicenter of filing activity as those locations have the largest populations of individuals of Cuban descent. 

There might be filings against governments who are using a residence or other structure for an embassy, consulate, residence, etc., in the Republic of Cuba.  The Libertad Act restricts such actions, but the restriction could be challenged in court.  Certainly, unwanted publicity for a government- especially if the property is subject to a certified claim.  The residence of the family of a reporter for The Wall Street Journal is the Embassy of North Korea.  A judge might be sympathetic to that story. 

The response from the served companies (there could be twenty or more and some could be served by multiple plaintiffs) will be swift as in the words of one prominent attorney: “These are real companies with real lawyers.”  With the potential liability including treble damages, there could be substantive work for legions of paralegals. 

Or, nothing may happen, or a little may happen or a lot may happen.  That’s the challenge: no one knows; there is only speculation…. and there is a lot of that.   

The cost-effective and time-efficient solution is for the Trump Administration to agree and for the Republic of Cuba to agree to direct settlement negotiations

The certified claimants would logically prefer a “hard target” message from the Trump Administration to the Republic of Cuba- announce that by the end of one (1) additional six-month waiver of Title III, a certified claims settlement would need to be substantially near completion.  If not, then Title III would be implemented- fully implemented, which is neither beneficial to the 5,913 certified claimants nor the unknown number of non-certified claimants; only retainer-based attorneys and contingency-based attorneys would be the lottery winners.  

The Certified claimants have no reason not to want a settlement.  The is no public reporting that the largest (in terms of U.S. Dollar value) certified claimants support implementation of Title III. 

Negotiation is almost always preferable to litigation. 

Trump Administration’s Position 

From the Trump Administration- Don’t get mad at us; get mad at the three (3) successive governments of the Republic of Cuba since 1959 that have refused to agree to negotiate a settlement for the 5,913 certified claims.  And, why didn’t the Obama Administration do anything? 

If moments for a negotiation to settle the certified claims were not opportune during Obama Administration, then when?  Certainly, the bilateral relationship today would not accurately be described as optimum, but when has it been optimum?  The Obama Administration and Castro Administration failed to use the unique opportunity they created from 17 December 2014 to 20 January 2017. 

The Trump Administration has its favorite things.  Foremost is doing what the Obama Administration did not do or not doing what the Obama Administration did do.  Second, is correcting or updating what other occupants of The White House did do or did not do. 

For example, seeking changes to the Washington/Ottawa/Mexico City-based North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); Brussels, Belgium-based North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); Geneva, Switzerland-based World Trade Organization (WTO); Brussels, Belgium-based European Union (EU) and European Commission (EC); New York, New York-based United Nations (UN); and Washington DC-based Organization of American States (OAS) among other bilateral, regional and multilateral entities. 

Venezuela Could Prompt Delay 

Likely only issues relating to the commercial, economic and political situation within Venezuela and its impact upon other countries could create enough momentum for a delay in the implementation of Title III. 

If the Maduro Administration ends, the financial peril for the Republic of Cuba becomes far more problematic as other countries are unlikely to replicate the sustainable economic and commercial support, which has primarily not been market-based.  The successor government will on its own, and with encouragement from the Trump Administration, curtail non-market-based transactions with the Republic of Cuba and require payment arrears to be brought current.  The Trump Administration would sense opportunity to align additional leverage to seek a settlement to the certified claims. 

Unsurprising would be for the Trump Administration to link, publicly or privately, issues relating to Venezuela with support from the EU/EC and other countries (Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, etc.) to convince the Republic of Cuba to agree to settlement negotiations of the certified claims. 

No coincidence the Trump Administration is focusing upon commercial interests in Venezuela- as there are United States-based companies whose assets were expropriated by the government of Venezuela without compensation.  That connectivity will not serve well the Republic of Cuba. 

Unhelpful to creating a bilateral (or multilateral) landscape for a settlement of the certified claims, the Trump Administration is creating a foundational narrative from which to re-designate (or threaten to re-designate) the Republic of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” primarily due to the involvement of the [Miguel] Diaz-Canel Administration in Venezuela, Colombia (ELN, FARC) and Nicaragua; and support for and relations with Iran, Syria and North Korea.  Add to this the unresolved health-related issues of diplomats from the United States and Canada in the Republic of Cuba.  Such a decision would not be in the interests of the certified claimants.  

View Of Careerists 

The decision to do something relating to Title III is done.  What the something is remains in review.   

United States Government careerists are in a majority believing that an operational Title III would 1) re-create tensions last visited in 1996 and in 1998 with the WTO, EU, EC, UN, OAS and with countries and 2) create distractions to solving other issues that are far more important to the United States than is the Republic of Cuba.    

Senior officials at the United States Department of State (DOS), United States Department of Commerce (DOC), United States Department of Agriculture (DOA) and United States Trade Representative (USTR) substantially concur that there is no vital United States interest in or gain from “pitching a hand grenade when uncertain as to how much powder is in it” in the direction of the Republic of Cuba.  That position is shared by members of the United States Congress, but not necessarily shared by the staff at the National Security Council (NSC) in The White House. 

What Could Happen & EU Reaction 

Will the Trump Administration interpret language in Title III to permit only certain claimants to file lawsuits, thus excluding others and providing preference to one class of plaintiffs at the expense of another class of plaintiffs?  That might be basis for another lawsuit. 

Certainly, the EU/EC and WTO will do something to forestall the impact of an operational Title III.  Certain countries will likely pursue recourse to protect the assets of their companies and individuals. 

The EU/EC and WTO and countries will howl if the Trump Administration permits Title III lawsuits against companies and individuals within their jurisdictions while excluding Title III lawsuits against United States-based companies and individuals who are operating in the Republic of Cuba and using an asset upon which there is a certified claim or non-certified claim.   

There will be cries of a double standard.  Lawsuit against Spain-based Iberia Airlines- OK; against Atlanta, Georgia-based Delta Air Lines (which has a certified claim)- No.  MSC Cruises- OK; against Miami, Florida-based Carnival Corporation & plc, Miami, Florida-based Norwegian Cruise Line and Miami, Florida-based Royal Caribbean International- NO.  The Trump Administration response will be: So what

All countries who have companies and individuals using assets that could be subject to Title III will argue, as they did in 1996, that Title III is exterritorial- inflicting United States laws on individuals and companies not subject to United States jurisdiction.  The countries will also remind individuals and companies subject to their jurisdiction that there are regulations and statutes in place which prevent them from complying with provisions of Title III. 

The Trump Administration (and supporters in the United States Congress) is relatively unconcerned as to the impact of implementing Title III upon the 1998 agreement with the EU/EC negotiated by The Honorable Stuart Eisenstadt, then Under Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, to remove a legal challenge by the EU/EC to the WTO:   

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/21/world/europeans-drop-lawsuit-contesting-cuba-trade-act.html 

Could Title III Be Effective? 

An important question to ask (and answer) is why the 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (USFCSC- https://www.justice.gov/fcsc) at the United States Department of Justice have not been resolved for nearing sixty years.  The USFCSC permitted interest to be accrued in the amount of 6% per annum; with the current value of the 5,913 certified claims approximately US$8,521,866,156.95.

Might using an incendiary, provocative, combustible statutory device such as Title III be such a bad idea?   

Certainly, its potentially messy, and aggravating to other countries and international organizations, and not the most congenial manner by which to have the Republic of Cuba agree to a settlement…. But, could it work?  It might.  

The largest certified claimant (Cuban Electric Company) is valued at US$267,568,413.62 and controlled by Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot, Inc.  The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) is valued at US$181,808,794.14 and controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International.   

The two (2) largest certified claims total US$449,377,207.76, representing 24% of the total value of the certified claims.  Thirty (30) certified claimants hold 56% of the total value of the certified claims.  This concentration of value creates an efficient pathway towards a negotiated settlement. 

Negotiating a settlement baseline with representatives of thirty certified claimants from a logistical perspective is a one-conference room exercise.  There are many rooms in Washington DC and in Havana that would be available for use.      

In December 2018, a detailed settlement negotiation proposal [https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2018/11/18/lojx6s6oe5epgonh6mub855d5ak143] was presented to representatives of the Trump Administration, staff and members of the United States Congress and to representatives of the Republic of Cuba.  The proposal outlined a public-private settlement process and included a timetable.  The purpose of the proposal was to remove the settlement process from the traditional United States government playbook and insert the private sector, the certified claimants and settlement representative.  Members of the United States Congress believe that a settlement process is preferable to intimidation. 

The Media Messaging Favors The White House 

The media narrative with respect to Title III is favorable to the Trump Administration as it appreciates each day there are additional options from which readers, viewers and listeners digest information; and the number of seconds and minutes during which a subject has for explanation continues to decrease. 

The history of the certified claims, non-certified claims, Libertad Act, EU/EC agreements, WTO agreements, etc., does not fit well into a segment, block, or limited inches of column.  

The Trump Administration, members of the United States Congress, the plaintiffs who file a lawsuit (or multiple lawsuits) and attorneys who represent the plaintiffs will dramatize simply the story: “Texaco had an oil refinery, its shareholders owned it, Cuba’s government took it and never paid for it.  Sixty years is long enough to wait to get paid.” 

The Trump Administration will ask what during the last twenty-three (23) years, what concrete steps has the EU/EC or WTO taken that have resulted in the Republic of Cuba engaging in direct settlement negotiations for the certified claims? 

The Trump Administration is gambling the EU/EC and WTO will not engage in a rhetorical, commercial, economic and political conflict with the United States because of the Republic of Cuba and at the potential determent to cooperation on other issues.  And, if the gamble is inartful, if wrong, then so be it. 

The Republic of Cuba is a commodity- and its value is low and becoming lower.  The Republic of Cuba today has far less influence, leverage and significance because of an increasing assurance among its trading partners, financial benefactors, and political brethren that the Republic of Cuba is choosing not to make commercial, economic and political changes which would provide its citizenry (and thus the government) with additional opportunities to earn foreign exchange rather than being unable to do so due to external actions by the United States.  There is less empathy for the Republic of Cuba. 

The Bilateral relationship between the EU/EC and the United States is more consequential to the EU/EC than is the EU/EC relationship with the Republic of Cuba.  Unfair, but true. 

Support by the Republic of Cuba for the governments of Venezuela and Nicaragua and Syria and Iran and North Korea and China and Russia make the lack-of-support contagion even more manifest. 

Advocacy Groups- Hysteria Now; Where Were They On Certified Claims? 

The hysteria about Title III among some Washington, DC-based advocacy groups is hysterical.   

They adhere to pre-packaged and meaningfully inaccurate narratives rather than focusing upon how to solve the problem.  Focusing upon how “bad” a decision will be does little, if anything, to create alternatives for the decision-makers.  Repeating “200,000 lawsuits” is neither a viable counter-argument nor a viable strategy. 

With their professed relationships and “under the radar” influence with the government of the Republic of Cuba and during the eight years of the Obama Administration, where was a focus by the advocacy groups upon seeking settlement negotiations for the 5,913 certified claims against the Republic of Cuba? 

Arguably, the Republic of Cuba would have received a most beneficial settlement result during the Obama Administration- but it, like to Obama Administration, never modeled for a 2016 election result that was not anticipated, or desired.   

Where were the advocacy groups when the Obama Administration would approve only 50% of the license required to implement direct correspondent banking?  Silent.  Where there they when the DOC and DOA during the Obama Administration wrongly declared that their respective secretaries could not have representatives of United States companies travel with them to the Republic of Cuba?  They blindly defended the position of the Obama Administration.  

Final Thoughts 

The Republic of Cuba needs to compartmentalize the official bilateral relationship with the Trump Administration and focus upon a parallel track with the certified claimants. 

From 12 March 1996 when the Libertad Act became law to 17 March 2019 is twenty-three (23) years or 8,406 days.   

That’s Eight (8) years of the Clinton Administration, eight (8) years of the Bush Administration, eight (8) years of the Obama Administration and two (2) years of the Trump Administration.  Four presidencies

On 29 June 1960, the Republic of Cuba expropriated without compensation an oil refinery owned by White Plains, New York-based Texaco, Inc., now a subsidiary of San Ramon, California-based Chevron Corporation (USFCSC: CU-1331/CU-1332/CU-1333 valued at US$56,196,422.73).   

That’s fifty-eight (58) years ago; or more than 21,446 days.   

It’s time for direct negotiations.  Call it mediation.  Call it settling.  For the certified claimants, let’s finish it.

LINK To Complete Report In PDF Format

Trump Administration Creating Foundational Narrative To Re-Designate Cuba As "State Sponsor Of Terrorism"

The Honorable Mike Pence, Vice President of the United States, referenced the Republic of Cuba in remarks delivered on 1 February 2019 in Doral, Florida.   

The Trump Administration is creating a foundational narrative from which to re-designate (or threaten to re-designate) the Republic of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” primarily due to the involvement of the [Miguel] Diaz-Canel Administration in Venezuela, Colombia (ELN, FARC) and Nicaragua; and support for and relations with Iran, Syria and North Korea.  

From The United States Department of State: “Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.  Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Iran, Sudan, and Syria.”  

From Vice President Pence: “The only way he clings to power is with the help that he receives from communist Cuba.  (Applause.) The people of Venezuela know Cuba’s leaders are the real imperialists in the western hemisphere.  (Applause.)  The truth has to be told.  For decades, Cuba has tried to create client states across the region.  While normal countries export goods, Cuba exports tyranny and strong-arm tactics.  Cuba’s influence has driven Venezuela’s failure, and the time has come to liberate Venezuela from Cuba.  (Applause.) Cuba’s malign influence is evident in Venezuela, and also in Nicaragua, where the regime of Daniel Ortega is oppressing the people and denying their basic rights.  (Applause.)  That’s just one more reason why President Trump kept his promise when he reversed the failed policies of the last administration toward Cuba, because the Cuban people have the same birthright of liberty that God gave us all.  Venezuela deserves to be free.  Nicaragua deserves to be free.  And in this White House, under this President, it will always be Que Viva Cuba Libre!  (Applause.)”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 1, 2019

REMARKS BY VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AT VENEZUELA SOLIDARITY EVENT
 
Iglesia Doral Jesus Worship Center
Doral, Florida
 
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT:   Buenas tardes a todos!  (Applause.)  Thank you, Governor DeSantis; First Lady Casey DeSantis; members of Congress; Ambassador Trujillo; distinguished guests.  Karen and I are so honored to join you here in this beautiful place of worship with our fellow Americans and so many proud sons and daughters of Venezuela.  (Applause.)

And as I begin allow me to bring greetings from a friend of mine, and a great champion of liberty in Venezuela and all across this hemisphere of freedom.  I bring greetings from the 45th President of the United States of America, President Donald Trump.  (Applause.)

AUDIENCE:  USA!  USA!  USA!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Not long ago, on the President’s behalf, I came here to this very city to deliver a message to you.  I told you that we would be with you, that America would stand for a free Venezuela. 

And, today, the United States is proud to stand with the Venezuelan people.  And I believe the day is coming when Venezuela will be free once more -- (applause) -- when Venezuela reclaims its libertad!

AUDIENCE:  Libertad!  Libertad!  Libertad!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Now, on the President's behalf, I want to thank you all -- so many heroes in the room -- for your tireless efforts.  But let me give special thanks, before I begin, to four relentless champions of freedom for the Venezuelan people -- four leaders who have been at President Trump's side since day one, championing freedom and the restoration of democracy for the Venezuelan people.  Would you join me in thanking Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, Senator Rick Scott, Governor Ron DeSantis, and Senator Marco Rubio?  (Applause.) 

The President asked me to be here to show our unwavering commitment to the good people of Venezuela.  For too long, the people of Venezuela have suffered under the heavy hand of oppression.  But now there is hope.  There is hope in Venezuela.  Across that country, in the largest cities and the smallest towns, people are rising up in defense of their rights.  And as President Trump said just last week, “the fight for freedom has begun.”  (Applause.)

And to be clear: The struggle in Venezuela is between dictatorship and democracy, and freedom has the momentum.  Nicolas Maduro is a dictator with no legitimate claim to power, and Nicolas Maduro must go.  (Applause.)

Just three weeks ago, the National Assembly –- the only legitimate elected body in Venezuela -– declared that it no longer recognized the Maduro regime.  The National Assembly invoked the constitution and recognized a new leader, a man who speaks for the people of Venezuela and cherishes their rights.

And last week, as hundreds of thousands of citizens marched through the streets in the name of freedom, that leader stood before his country and took an oath “before Almighty God.”  And the United States of America was proud to be the first nation on Earth to recognize the only legitimate President of Venezuela, President Juan Guaidó.  (Applause.)

I spoke to Juan Guaidó the night before he took that oath, and I'll never forget it.  I marveled at his calm, his courage, and his faith.  Just two days ago, President Trump spoke to President Guaidó and congratulated him on his historic assumption of the presidency of Venezuela.  (Applause.)  He reinforced our strong support for his leadership and for Venezuela’s fight to regain its freedom.

And the United States has made it clear: The safety and security of President Guaidó and his family are of great importance to the American people.  (Applause.) 

Just yesterday, Maduro threatened President Guiadó's family, sending paramilitary police to his home.  But we know that President Guaidó and the Venezuelan people will never be intimidated, and neither will we.  (Applause.)

The United States is proud to recognize Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president.  And Brazil, Colombia, Canada, Argentina, and many other countries have followed America’s lead.  All told, more than 20 nations have announced their support for President Guaidó.  (Applause.)

But let me make it clear to leaders around the world: That is not enough.  There can be no bystanders in the struggle for Venezuela’s freedom.  The United States, today, calls on every nation to recognize Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s President, and take the side of freedom.  (Applause.)

The United States has also taken action to support the National Assembly and the government of Juan Guaidó.  And just this week, it was my privilege to welcome its newest representative to the White House -- a man who was imprisoned twice by the Maduro regime, forced into exile here in Florida.  But despite all he’s faced, he still works tirelessly to restore democracy in his homeland.  Would you join me in thanking the new Ambassador to the United States of America from a free Venezuela, Ambassador Carlos Vecchio.  (Applause.)

As I told Ambassador Vecchio, the National Assembly and President Guaidó have our full support because we recognize the truth that Nicolas Maduro’s dictatorship is destroying Venezuela.  When the dictator came to power six long years ago, he promised to deliver an agenda of socialism.  And sadly for the Venezuelan people, Maduro did just that. A

As we gather here, Venezuela's socialism has shrunk their economy by nearly half.  More than 9 out of 10 people live in poverty, and the average Venezuelan has lost more than 20 pounds through deprivation and malnutrition.  Thousands of Venezuelan children are starving at this very hour.

And rising desperation has fueled a mass exodus.  More than three million Venezuelans have now abandoned their beloved country.  And if things don’t get better, another two million are expected to follow them before the year is out.

And those who stay behind are subject to lawlessness and crime, as well as deprivation.  Thieves in Venezuela don’t target banks; they target restaurants.  Vicious gangs and government-backed cartels have turned the streets into literal warzones.  Venezuela now has the second-highest murder rate in the world, and more than 70 people are slaughtered every single day.

For years, the Venezuelan people have tried to save their country in the ballot box.  In 2015, they elected the National Assembly that is still Venezuela’s best hope.  But in response, the dictator imprisoned his opponents, orchestrated sham elections, cracked down on protests with lethal force.  In fact, in just the past two weeks, security forces have jailed more than 850 protestors, and murdered at least 40 more.

We will never forget them.  We will always honor the memory of the martyrs who died for democracy in Venezuela.  (Applause.)

Just a few moments ago, Karen and I had the privilege to meet with several Venezuelans who have fled in search of a better life.  We heard their stories.  And they told us then that they weren’t there to tell us their story; they were there to represent all of those who could not speak in this moment. 

We spoke with Jose and Francis, who took their children and left their home two years ago.  Jose had spoken out for freedom, placing his own life in danger.

We heard from Jesus, a former council member from the city of Valera.  The government gangs began to target him, even telling his mother that they would murder him.  He had to leave his home to save his life.

We listened to Raul, wrongly accused and imprisoned for seven years, where he was tortured by the regime and witnessed others tortured as well.  He saw the murder of fellow inmates.  And he spoke today on behalf of those who are still being held.

To all of these courageous men and women, to all of you who have fled Venezuela: We are with you, and I promise we will stay with you until you can safely return home to a free Venezuela.  (Applause.)

Venezuela’s plight has captured not just the attention of our President and our people, it has stirred the United States of America to act.  We do this because it is what justice requires.  We also do this because it is in our interest, as well.

Venezuela is a failed state, and failed states know no boundaries, have no borders.  A Venezuela overrun with drug smugglers, gangs, human traffickers is a danger to all people and all nations in this hemisphere.

The very crisis on our southern border today is driven, in large part, by criminal organizations that have overwhelmed countries across our hemisphere.  Let me be clear: The United States of America wants every nation in our hemisphere to be a place where people can flourish and build their own futures in their own homeland.  (Applause.)

And so we stand.  We stand for freedom and security for the Venezuelan people.  We stand for the security of both our nations.  And I promise you, the United States will continue to stand with the Venezuelan people, and we will continue to stand up to their oppressors.  (Applause.)

At President Trump’s direction, the United States has imposed sanctions on more than 50 current and former Venezuelan officials, targeting known drug-runners and human rights abusers, and government thieves who’ve enriched themselves by impoverishing the people.

And since oil is the lifeblood of that corrupt regime, this week the United States of America sanctioned Venezuela's state-owned oil company.  Venezuela's oil belongs with the Venezuelan people.  (Applause.)

And you can be assured the United States will always support the Venezuelan people as they work to restore a constitutional government and hold free and transparent elections.  But let's be clear: This is no time for dialogue; this is time for action.  (Applause.)  And the time has come to end the Maduro dictatorship once and for all. 

(Applause.)

AUDIENCE:  USA!  USA!  USA!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  To that end, the United States will continue to exert all diplomatic and economic pressure to bring about a peaceful transition to democracy.

But those looking on should know this: All options are on the table.  (Applause.)  And Nicolas Maduro would do well not to test the resolve of the United States of America.  (Applause.)

Maduro’s tyranny must end, and it must end now.  But as the Venezuelan people know, their oppressors do not act alone.  Under President Donald Trump, the United States has also stood up to those who have aided and abetted the dictatorship in Venezuela.  The truth is, the dictator has lost the support of his people, and even now is beginning to lose the support of his military.  The only way he clings to power is with the help that he receives from communist Cuba.  (Applause.)

The people of Venezuela know Cuba’s leaders are the real imperialists in the western hemisphere.  (Applause.)  The truth has to be told.  For decades, Cuba has tried to create client states across the region.  While normal countries export goods, Cuba exports tyranny and strong-arm tactics.  Cuba’s influence has driven Venezuela’s failure, and the time has come to liberate Venezuela from Cuba.  (Applause.)

Cuba’s malign influence is evident in Venezuela, and also in Nicaragua, where the regime of Daniel Ortega is oppressing the people and denying their basic rights.  (Applause.)  That’s just one more reason why President Trump kept his promise when he reversed the failed policies of the last administration toward Cuba, because the Cuban people have the same birthright of liberty that God gave us all.

Venezuela deserves to be free.  Nicaragua deserves to be free.  And in this White House, under this President, it will always be Que Viva Cuba Libre!  (Applause.)

AUDIENCE:  USA!  USA!  USA!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  In addition to the strong actions President Trump has taken -- economic and diplomatic efforts -- I want to assure all of you that America has also been there for the Venezuelan people, over $100 million in humanitarian support so far.

You know, Karen and I saw firsthand the hardship facing families who’ve fled the collapse of Venezuela when we travelled through the region last year.  Like the grandmother my wife and I met in Cartagena, Colombia.  She literally gathered her four grandchildren with her because she told me how it had gotten so bad in their small town in Venezuela that the children had to rise at four in the morning to gain a ticket to buy one piece of bread at four in the afternoon.  So she gathered up her grandchildren and she made the journey to Colombia.

We gathered with families in Manaus, Brazil. And I'll never forget the father, with his two little boys at his side looking up, who told me how hard it was, and how many times he had to tell those boys, "We're not going to eat today." 

Let me assure them and you: The United States of America stands ready to deliver humanitarian aid to the Venezuelan people in Venezuela, as well.  (Applause.)

We are prepared to work with the legitimate government of Venezuela, the National Assembly, and President Guaidó.  The American people will marshal our resources and the resources of nations around the world to provide millions in humanitarian relief. 

The truth is, it is unconscionable that Maduro himself has publicly refused to accept even a penny from America or the wider world in the form of humanitarian relief for his people. 

The truth is, every day the dictator remains in power is another day of starvation and suffering.  For the sake of the men, women, and children of Venezuela, Maduro must go.  (Applause.)

Thank you all for being here today.  We’re truly honored by your presence and your support.  You know, freedom springs from the hearts of all the people of across this New World, doesn’t it?  And in the words of Simón Bolivar, “A people that loves freedom will, in the end, be free.”  (Applause.)  And we believe that.

Tomorrow, for the second time this week, from the shores of the Caribbean to the streets of Caracas, to the foothills of the Andes, the Venezuelan people will rise again in peaceful protest.  They will speak again with one voice, as one movement, with one purpose as they take to the streets to demand their rights, and the United States of America will stand with them.  (Applause.)

And to them we say, as you make your voices heard tomorrow, on behalf of the President of the United States and the American people, we say to all the good people of Venezuela: Estamos con ustedes.  We are with you, we stand with you, and we will stay with you until democracy is restored.  (Applause.)

And we also say from our hearts that as you take to the streets again, know that you do not go alone.  You go with the support of the American people and with freedom-loving people all across the world.  And you also go, I believe with all of my heart, with the author of freedom, who said, “Do not be afraid; stand firm and you will see the deliverance the Lord will bring you today… for where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”  (Applause.)

With faith in that great promise, faith in all who have joined us in this hemisphere of freedom, with faith in the courage and strength of the Venezuelan people, and the generosity and strength of the American people, I believe with all my heart: The day is coming soon when Venezuela will once more be free, when her people will see a “new birth of freedom,” in a nation reborn to libertad.

So to the good people of Venezuela: As you go to seek your freedom, we go with you.  You go with God.  Vayan con Dios.  God bless you, God bless the good people of Venezuela, and God bless the United States of America.

Vice President Mike Pence makes South Florida stop to discuss crisis in Venezuela 20190201171645.jpg_18407029_ver1.0_1280_720.jpg