Paris Club Of Creditor Nations Reported To Propose New Repayment Schedule For Cuba Which Has Not Maintained A Previous 76% Write-Off From 2015.

AFP (31 August 2023): “The Paris Club of creditors on Wednesday proposed a new timetable for the repayment of Cuban debt amid the communist island's worst economic crisis in decades, the state-owned press agency said.  The agency reported that William Roos, the club's co-chairman, had during a visit to the country "proposed to establish a new timetable according to Cuba's ability to pay, and thus work together to find a solution" to payment delays. 

• NOTE: Mr. Roos is Assistant Secretary for Multilateral, Development and Trade Affairs, Direction Générale du Trésor (French Treasury). 

A 2015 agreement between Cuba and the club wiped $8.5 billion of a sum of $11.1 billion owed, the rest being converted into investment projects or repayment staggered until 2033.  But Cuba's financial difficulties have prevented the country from making payments due in 2019 and forced it to seek a moratorium on repayments until 2022.  In June 2021, the parties agreed on a further delay.  The Paris Club is an informal group of official creditors whose role is to find solutions to countries' debt repayment difficulties.  Cuba also owes money to the London Club of private creditors.  In February last year, the Russian Duma ratified a plan to restructure $2.3 billion of Cuban debt.” 

THE GROUP OF CREDITORS OF CUBA AND THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA AGREE TO DEFER PAYMENTS DUE UNDER THE 2015 AGREEMENT [LINK]

“10 June 2021: The representatives of the Group of Creditors of Cuba and of the Government of the Republic of Cuba met in Paris on June 9, 2021 to amend the terms of the Arrangement dated 12 December 2015. 

This agreement provides more time to the Republic of Cuba to honor several payments due under the 2015 Arrangement, while maintaining the present value of these amounts.

During the meeting, the delegation of the Republic of Cuba provided a description of the economic and financial situation of its country and presented the measures taken by the Government of the Republic of Cuba to support Cuban economic development in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. 

The representatives of the Governments of the Group of Creditors of Cuba and the Republic of Cuba confirmed their willingness to preserve the 2015 Arrangement and their commitment to ensure the full implementation of this arrangement, which is a key milestone and entailed a normalization of financial relationships between the Group of Creditors of Cuba and the Republic of Cuba.  

Background note: The Group of Creditors of Cuba includes Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.” 

AGREEMENT ON THE DEBT BETWEEN CUBA AND THE GROUP OF CREDITORS OF CUBA [Link]

“12 December 2012: The representatives of the Group of Creditors of Cuba and of the Government of the Republic of Cuba met from 10 December to 12 December and agreed on 12 December 2015 on an arrangement to clear USD 2.6 billion of debt in arrears due to the Group of Creditors of Cuba over an 18-year period. 

This arrangement offers a framework for a sustainable and definitive solution to the question of arrears due by the Republic of Cuba to the Group of the Creditors of Cuba covering a total stock of debt of USD 11.1 billion, including late interest, as of 31 October 2015. 

During the meeting, the delegation of the Republic of Cuba provided a description of the economic and financial situation of its country and presented the measures taken by the Government of the Republic of Cuba aimed at supporting the Cuban economic development.

The Group of Creditors of Cuba welcomed progress made by the Republic of Cuba towards the normalization of its relations with creditors and the international financial community. 

Realization of payments under a formal commitment of the Republic of Cuba to fully clear its arrears is a necessary and important step for the normalization of financial relationships between the Group of Creditors of Cuba and the Republic of Cuba. The Group of Creditors of Cuba's export credit agencies that wish to do so will resume their export credit activities.  

Background note: The Group of Creditors of Cuba includes Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.” 

Paris Club’s claims as of 31 December 2022, excluding late interest (in USD million) [Link]

ODA: Official Development Assistance
NODA: Non-Official Development Assistance
Cuba ODA: US$238 million; NODA: US$4.589 billion; TOTAL: US$4.827 billion

Who are the members of the Paris Club? 

“The Paris Club is a group of currently 22 permanent members.  Other creditor countries can participate in negotiation meetings on a case by case basis, provided that certain conditions are met.  Finally, representatives of international financial institutions or countries can be invited to attend the meetings as observers.  

The 22 Paris Club permanent members are countries with large exposure to other States woldwide and that agree on the main principles and rules of the Paris Club. The claims may be held directly by the government or through its appropriate institutions, especially Export credit agencies. These creditor countries have constantly applied the terms defined in the Paris Club Agreed Minutes to their bilateral claims and have settled any bilateral disputes or arrears with Paris Club countries, if any.

The following countries are permanent Paris Club members: AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, BRAZIL, CANADA, DENMARK, FINLAND, FRANCE, GERMANY, IRELAND, ISRAEL, ITALY, JAPAN, KOREA, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Other official creditors can also actively participate in negotiation sessions or in monthly "Tours d'Horizon" discussions, subject to the agreement of permanent members and of the debtor country. When participating in Paris Club discussions, invited creditors act in good faith and abide by the practices described in the table below. The following creditors have participated as creditors in some Paris Club agreements or Tours d'Horizon in an ad hoc manner: Abu Dhabi, Argentina, China, Czech Republic, India, Kuwait, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Africa (* prospective member on 8 July 2022), Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey” 

LINK To Related Analysis 

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

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

H.E. Bruno Rodriguez, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba, referenced in a statement on 29 June 2023 that exports agricultural commodities and food products from the United States to the Republic of Cuba using provisions of the Trade Sanctions and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000 require the use of United States-registered (owned) vessels. 

Was he accurate? 

• The TSREEA re-authorized the direct commercial (on a cash basis) export of food products (including branded food products) and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba, irrespective of purpose. 

• The Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992 re-authorized the direct commercial (on a cash basis and with payment terms) export of medical equipment, medical instruments, medical supplies, medicines, and pharmaceuticals.   

“Havana, 29 June 2023 (Prensa Latina News Agency)- Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez reiterated the denunciation that the United States prevents the importation of products from that country to Cuba, by virtue of the blockade imposed on the island more than 60 years ago.  In his Twitter profile, the top representative of Cuban diplomacy clarified that the markedly discriminatory character for the authorization of the sale of some agricultural products constitutes a very singular exception, rigorously limited, which cannot be called trade.  The Cuban Foreign Minister pointed out in his message that the law establishes that Cuba must pay for these sales in cash and in advance, and prohibits the granting of commercial credits.  In addition -he pointed out- it imposes other conditions, in violation of the rules of international trade and freedom of navigation.  He cited as an example the obligation to transport any cargo in U.S. ships, which return empty, thus preventing the import of Cuban products, which makes this relationship -he said- brutally unidirectional as it does not work today in any part of the world, not even in war situations.” [emphasis added] 

Answer from the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce: 

22 August 2023: “BIS regulations do not require the vessel to be United States-registered (owned).  The vessel becomes subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) when it enters the U.S., regardless of whether it’s U.S. or foreign-flagged.  In addition, cargo vessels most likely qualify for License Exception AVS so a license is not required in most situations.  As far as Cuban imports and the 180-day rule, those regulations fall under the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), so we would recommend you contact OFAC for questions regarding Cuban imports and vessels returning to the U.S. from Cuba.  BIS Office of Congressional and Public Affairs.” 

OFAC CUBA SANCTIONS 

779. What are the “180-day rule” and the “goods/passengers-on-board rule”? 

The 180-day rule is a statutory restriction prohibiting any vessel that enters a port or place in Cuba to engage in the trade of goods or the purchase or provision of services there from entering any U.S. port for the purpose of loading or unloading freight for 180 days after leaving Cuba, unless authorized by OFAC. This restriction is applied even if a vessel has stopped in Cuba solely to purchase services unrelated to the trade of goods, such as planned ship maintenance. The 180-day rule is separate from a second statutory restriction – the goods/passengers-on-board rule – which prohibits any vessel carrying goods or passengers to or from Cuba or carrying goods in which Cuba or a Cuban national has an interest from entering a U.S. port with such goods or passengers on board, unless authorized or exempt. There are certain exceptions to these rules. For a complete description of the 180-day rule, the goods/passengers-on-board rule, and the general licenses and exemptions that apply, see 31 CFR §§ 515.206, 515.207, and 515.550.  Date Released November 8, 2017 

§ 515.206 Exempt transactions.  (a) Information and informational materials.  (1) The importation from any country and the exportation to any country of information or informational materials as defined in § 515.332, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, are exempt from the prohibitions and regulations of this part except for payments owed to Cuba for telecommunications services between Cuba and the United States, which are subject to the provisions of § 515.542.  (2) This section does not authorize transactions related to information or informational materials not fully created and in existence at the date of the transaction, or to the substantive or artistic alteration or enhancement of information or informational materials, or to the provision of marketing and business consulting services by a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Such prohibited transactions include, without limitation, payment of advances for information or informational materials not yet created and completed, provision of services to market, produce or co-produce, create or assist in the creation of information or informational materials, and payment of royalties to a designated national with respect to income received for enhancements or alterations made by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to information or informational materials imported from a designated national.  (3) This section does not authorize transactions incident to the transmission of restricted technical data as defined in the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730–774, or to the exportation of goods for use in the transmission of any data. The exportation of such goods to designated foreign countries is prohibited, as provided in § 515.201 of this part and § 785.1 of the Export Administration Regulations.  (4) This section does not authorize transactions related to travel to Cuba when such travel is not otherwise authorized under § 515.545.  Note to paragraph (a): See § 515.545 for general licenses authorizing certain travel-related and other transactions that are directly incident to the export, import, or transmission of informational materials and certain transactions related to the creation, dissemination, or artistic or other substantive alteration or enhancement of informational materials.  (b) Donation of food. The prohibitions contained in this part do not apply to transactions incident to the donation of food to nongovernmental organizations or individuals in Cuba. 

§ 515.207 Entry of vessels engaged in trade with Cuba.  Except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury (or any person, agency or instrumentality designated by him), by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, licenses or otherwise, (a) No vessel that enters a port or place in Cuba to engage in the trade of goods or the purchase or provision of services, may enter a U.S. port for the purpose of loading or unloading freight for a period of 180 days from the date the vessel departed from a port or place in Cuba; and (b) No vessel carrying goods or passengers to or from Cuba or carrying goods in which Cuba or a Cuban national has an interest may enter a U.S. port with such goods or passengers on board.  Note to § 515.207: For the waiver of the prohibitions contained in this section for vessels engaged in certain trade and travel with Cuba, see § 515.550.  [58 FR 34710, June 29, 1993, as amended at 66 FR 36687, July 12, 2001; 80 FR 2292, Jan. 16, 2015; 80 FR 56918, Sept. 21, 2015].

§ 515.550 Certain vessel transactions authorized.  (a) Unless a vessel is otherwise engaging or has otherwise engaged in transactions that would prohibit entry pursuant to § 515.207, § 515.207 shall not apply to a vessel that is: (1) Engaging or has engaged in trade with Cuba authorized pursuant to this part; Note to paragraph (a)(1): The authorization in this paragraph includes, for example, trade with Cuba authorized pursuant to § 515.533, § 515.559, or § 515.582, or by specific license.  (2) Engaging or has engaged in trade with Cuba that is exempt from the prohibitions of this part (see § 515.206); (3) Engaging or has engaged in the exportation or reexportation to Cuba from a third country of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices that, were they subject to the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) (EAR), would be designated as EAR99; (4) A foreign vessel that has entered a port or place in Cuba while carrying students, faculty, and staff that are authorized to travel to Cuba pursuant to § 515.565(a); or (5) Carrying or has carried persons between the United States and Cuba or within Cuba pursuant to the authorization in § 515.572(a)(2) or, in the case of a vessel used solely for personal travel (and not transporting passengers), pursuant to a license or other authorization issued by the Department of Commerce for the exportation or reexportation of the vessel to Cuba.  (b) Unless a vessel is otherwise engaging or has otherwise engaged in transactions that would prohibit entry pursuant to § 515.207, § 515.207(a) shall not apply to a foreign vessel that has engaged in the exportation to Cuba from a third country only of items that, were they subject to the EAR, would be designated as EAR99 or would be controlled on the Commerce Control List only for anti-terrorism reasons.

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT

Links To Related Analyses 

U.S. Agricultural Commodity/Food Exports To Cuba Increased 60.8% In June 2023; Up 11.1% Year-To-Year. Surprise: US$30,241.00 In Sugar. Coffee Thus Far In 2023- US$1.9 Million. Aug 15, 2023  

U.S. Agricultural Commodity/Food Product Exports To Cuba Increased 3.7% In May 2023; Up 1.7% Year-To-Year. Jul 6, 2023  

Milestone... With US$19 Million Purchases In April 2023, Cuba Has Purchased US$7 Billion In Agricultural Commodities And Food Products From U.S.; Exports Up 6.4% In April 2023; Up 1.1% Year-To-Year. Jun 26, 2023  

State Department, NSC, OFAC, BIS, USDA Don't Understand Requirements For Financial Plumbing To Function Efficiently.  They Excel In Creating, Maintaining, And Defending Clogs. May 16, 2023   

Port Of Mariel Reports Readiness To Receive Neo-Panamex Vessels May 15, 2023  

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

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

U.S. Agricultural Commodity/Food Exports To Cuba Increased 60.8% In June 2023; Up 11.1% Year-To-Year. Surprise: US$30,241.00 In Sugar. Coffee Thus Far In 2023- US$1.9 Million.

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
August 2023

June 2023 Ag/Food Exports To Cuba Increase 60.8%- 1
47th Of 223 June 2023 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
Year-To-Year Exports Increase 11.1%- 2
Cuba Ranked 56th Of U.S. 2023 Ag/Food Export Markets- 2
June 2023 Healthcare Product Exports US$57,167.00- 2
June 2023 Humanitarian Donations US$3,296,330.00- 3
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 17

JUNE 2023 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA INCREASE 60.8%%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in June 2023 were US$37,071,007.00 compared to US$23,055,838.00 in June 2022 and US$28,256,268.00 in June 2021.

June 2023 exports included among other items: Bacon; Butter; Olive Oil; Sunflower Oil; Rapeseed Oil; Sugar; Waffles and Wafers; Coffee; Pasta; Communion Wafers; Ice Cream; Cookies; Powdered Milk; Beer; Toilet Paper; Chicken Leg Quarters (Frozen); Chicken Meat (Frozen); Chicken Legs (Frozen); Meat of Swine; Preserved Chicken Meat.

January 2023 through June 2023 TSREEA exports were US$160,259,463.00 compared to January 2022 through June 2022 exports of US$144,185,093.00. Total TSREEA exports since first deliveries in December 2001 exceed:US$7,063,985,829.00.

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

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

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

COMPLETE REPORT IN PDF FORMAT

New Filings To Court Of Appeals For Cruise Line Libertad Act US$439.2 Million Verdict. Arguing About Definition Of "Amici" And Planning For 2024 Request By Loser(s) For U.S. Supreme Court Review?

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-21724; Southern Florida District; 23-10171, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Walker (defendant)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. MSC CRUISES SA CO, AND MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-21724; Southern Florida District; 23-10171, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Venable (defendant)

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS, LTD. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-21724; Southern Florida District; 23-10171, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Hogan Lovells US LLP (defendant)

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION VS. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. [Consolidated to 1:19-cv-23591; 1:19-cv-21724; Southern Florida District; 23-10171, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]
Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

LINK: Libertad Act Title 3 Lawsuit Filing Statistics

LINK: Brief of Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee Carnival Corporation (6/30/23)

Excerpt: “Argument: Carnival did not use 'property' that was 'confiscated' from Havana Docks.  Havana Docks' limited concession did not confer a right to conduct passenger operations.  Havana Docks' concession would have expired in 2004.  Carnival did not engage in trafficking because its conduct was 'incident' and 'necessary' to 'lawful travel'.  Carnival's travel was 'lawful'- Carnival’s use of the termina was ‘necessary to” the conduct of its lawful travel.  Havana Docks is not a proper plaintiff because it is not a United States national.  At a minimum, the damages award should be set aside.  The 'one-satisfaction rule' prohibits duplicative awards for the value of the terminal.  The damages award violates the Due Process Clause.” 

LINK: Joint Brief For Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd., MSC Cruises S.A., MSC Cruises S.A. Co., And MSC Cruises (USA), Inc. (6/30/23) 

LINK: Brief Of The Chamber Of Commerce Of The United States Of America As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees And Reversal (7/7/23) 

LINK: Brief Of Amici Curiae U.S. Travel Association, United States Tour Operators Association, Inc., And American Society Of Travel Advisors, Inc., In Support Of Appellants/Cross-Appellees Brief Of Amici Curiae U.S. Travel Association, United States Tour Operators Association, Inc., And American Society Of Travel Advisors, Inc., In Support Of Appellants/Cross-Appellees (7/7/23) 

LINK: Brief For Amicus Curiae Peter Kucik, Former OFAC Official, In Support Of Appellants And Reversal (7/7/23) 

Excerpt: “BY IGNORING OFAC’S VIEWS, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE THE PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE TRAVEL EXCEPTION AN UNDULY NARROW READING.  OFAC manifestly meant for the people-to-people travel exception to apply broadly. By disregarding its views, the district court adopted an unnaturally crabbed reading of the provision and undermined the Executive’s leading role to conduct foreign policy toward Cuba.” 

LINK: Motion For Leave To File Brief Of Cruise Lines International Association As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Defendants-Appellants And Reversal (7/7/23) 

LINK: Opposition To Motion For Leave To File Amicus Brief Of Cruise Lines International Association (7/11/23) 

Excerpt: Havana Docks has no problem with the four appellants in this case rounding up as many amici as they wish, as long as those amici are independent of appellants. Thus, Havana Docks did not object to any of the other three amicus briefs filed in support of appellants. 2. Proposed amicus CLIA, however, does not meet even this minimal standard, because CLIA is not independent of appellants. Rather, as CLIA itself recognizes, “Defendants-Appellants … are four of the six voting members of [CLIA’s] Global Executive Committee, which voted to authorize and file the proposed brief.” CLIA Mot. 1 n.*. In other words, CLIA is not just a trade association that happens to include appellants among its members (as some of the other amici—the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and various travel-related associations—may be). Rather, CLIA is controlled by appellants, and (by CLIA’s own admission) appellants themselves “voted to authorize and file” the CLIA brief. Id. USCA11 Case: 23-10171 Document: 101 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 50 of 57 2 3. CLIA’s motion identifies no precedent in the history of American law where an entity controlled by a party has been allowed to file an amicus brief in support of that party. That omission is not surprising: an amicus brief filed by an entity controlled by a party provides no independent perspective, but instead simply allows that party to evade the court’s word limitations. If this brief is allowed, no logical stopping point would prevent amicus briefs filed by a party’s corporate subsidiaries, affiliates, or other controlled entities. 4. CLIA’s assertion that its “internal operations are not relevant to this motion,” id. at 5, can only be described as puzzling. No one is challenging CLIA’s “internal operations” per se. Rather, Havana Docks is simply pointing out that it would be an unprecedented abuse of the amicus process to allow an entity concededly controlled by certain litigants to file an amicus brief in support of those very same litigants. 5. Such abuse is particularly manifest here because the record developed below shows that appellants used CLIA as a joint defense group to coordinate their legal strategy in response to private lawsuits (like this one) filed under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act, Pub. L. No. 104- 114, 110 Stat. 785 (1996). As Bradley M. Rose, CLIA’s longtime outside USCA11 Case: 23-10171 Document: 101 Date Filed: 07/11/2023 Page: 51 of 57 3 General Counsel, explained in a declaration filed below, every CLIA member is required to sign an agreement known as the “CLIA Common Legal Interest Agreement” in an effort to bring their communications within the scope of the attorney-client privilege. See Carnival Dkt. (No. 19-21724) 318-40 at ECF pp. 3-4. As a joint defense group, CLIA “spearheaded” a “common legal strategy … related to challenging Title III, defending potential Title III litigation, and resolving Title III claims on behalf of its members.” 

LINK: Cruise Lines International Association’s Reply In Support Of Motion For Leave To File Brief As Amicus Curiae Supporting Defendants-Appellants And Reversal (7/18/23) 

Excerpt: Plaintiff-Appellee Havana Docks opposes CLIA’s motion, but its arguments lack merit. First, Havana Docks contends that Defendants-Appellants seek to use CLIA’s proposed brief to “evade the court’s word limitations.” ECF No. 101, at 2 (Opp.). Basic math refutes that claim. Each of the four Defendants-Appellants was entitled to file a separate brief of up to 13,000 words, for a total of 52,000 words. See Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(i). Even so, three of the Defendants-Appellants successfully sought leave to file a joint opening brief not to exceed 20,000 words—a reduction of 19,000 words as compared with the aggregate limit to which they were entitled. See ECF No. 76 (requesting leave); ECF No. 78 (granting leave). CLIA has its own arguments to make in the proposed amicus curiae brief—arguments the parties have not made and which do not reflect an attempt to exceed the aggregate word limits that Defendants-Appellants’ briefs don’t approach in the first place. Second, and relatedly, Havana Docks argues that the Court should deny leave to file because four of the six voting members of CLIA’s executive USCA11 Case: 23-10171 Document: 105 Date Filed: 07/18/2023 Page: 4 of 9 - 3 - committee are Defendants-Appellants in this case. Havana Docks thus argues that CLIA cannot provide an “independent perspective” on the issues in the case. Opp. 2. That objection is just another way of saying that CLIA shouldn’t be able to file an amicus brief because its and its members’ interests are aligned with Defendants-Appellants’. But that is often the case—as then-Judge Alito noted, “corporations, unions, trade and professional associations, and other parties with ‘pecuniary’ interests appear regularly as amici” before the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. Neonatology Assocs., 293 F.3d at 131-32; see also Prairie Rivers Network, 976 F.3d at 763 (“To be sure, the fiction that an amicus acts as a neutral information broker, and not an advocate, is long gone.”). Indeed, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require proposed amici to declare their “interest” in the case. Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(3)(A). As to the composition of CLIA’s executive board, the Court should not endorse Havana Docks’ attempt to use the fact that it has sued four of the six members of CLIA’s board as a reason to exclude the trade group that speaks for the entire industry. Third, Havana Docks incorrectly asserts that CLIA’s brief is duplicative of amicus curiae briefs filed by the U.S. Travel Association and a former official from the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Opp. 4. Neither of those USCA11 Case: 23-10171 Document: 105 Date Filed: 07/18/2023 Page: 5 of 9 - 4 - briefs provides the perspective of the cruise industry in particular—a focus of CLIA’s proposed brief. Nor do those briefs discuss the broader context of travel to Cuba between 2015 and 2017 to situate the cruise industry’s operations in the broader setting of the overall travel industry. CLIA’s brief highlights factual and historical nuance and explains the broader commercial context of this dispute. See Prairie Rivers Network, 976 F.3d at 763. Finally, Havana Docks relies on the district court’s denial of leave to file to urge the same result before this Court. Opp. 5. But the district court denied leave for reasons that do not apply here. For one thing, CLIA’s proposed brief before this Court discusses different issues than the brief CLIA proposed filing before the district court. CLIA’s proposed district court brief discussed the constitutional problems with Havana Docks’ interpretation of the LIBERTAD Act. See Dkt. No. 313-1, Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp., No. 1:19-CV-21724-BB (S.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2021). The district court denied leave on the grounds that the Defendants-Appellants had already addressed those constitutional issues in their summary judgment briefs. See Dkt. No. 358, at 2-3, Havana Docks Corp. (Oct. 15, 2021). Here, in contrast, CLIA’s proposed brief brings to the Court’s attention factual and historical context that no party or other amicus brief has raised. Moreover, CLIA’s interests in this USCA11 Case: 23-10171 Document: 105 Date Filed: 07/18/2023 Page: 6 of 9 - 5 - appeal are even stronger than its interests before the district court, because any decision from this Court will be binding on CLIA’s members throughout the Circuit. Given these stakes, there are good reasons for the Court to allow CLIA’s voice to be heard.

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT

U.S. District Court Dimisses Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Expedia, Booking, Hotels, Trivago, Orbitz. All About Timing.

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

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

LINK To Order Granting Motion To Dismiss (8/10/23) 

LINK To Libertad Act Title 3 Lawsuit Filing Statistics

“The Court finds that Plaintiffs Falla and Pou cannot plead a claim for relief under the Helms Burton Act because they acquired claims after the Act’s claims bar date, which acts as a total bar to recovery. Further, the Court finds that all three of the Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead that the Defendants knowingly and intentionally trafficked in the confiscated properties. Because these findings are sufficient to determine that the third amended complaint must be dismissed and therefore dispositive, the Court declines to address the remainder of the parties’ arguments relating to the Act, its definitions, and application here.” 

“4. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the Court grants the Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 112) and dismisses the third amended complaint, with prejudice. (ECF No. 100.) The Plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities to plead valid claims and knowing and intentional trafficking by the Defendants, but they have failed to do so. Further, the Plaintiffs have not requested leave to amend; nor have they indicated in their response to the Defendants’ motion any inclination whatsoever to do so. Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002) (“A district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court.”)  The Court will separately enter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Any pending motions are denied as moot.”

Why Is USAID Administrator Samantha Power Risking Lawsuit For Failing To Disclose Data Sought By FOIA Request Filed In 2022 About PPE Deliveries In 2022 To Cuba.

USAID Administrator Samantha Power Risking Lawsuit For Failing To Disclose Data About PPE Deliveries In 2022 To Cuba. 

FOIA Filed In October 2022 And USAID Continues To Refuse To Provide Information 

What Is USAID Hiding?  

• 24 August 2023: “Thank you for your continued patience while we process your FOIA request. Unfortunately, USAID is experiencing a backlog of FOIA requests.  Please know that USAID management is very committed to providing responses to FOIA requests and remedying the FOIA backlog. I will provide you with an update on or before September 5, 2023.”

• 16 August 2023: “Thank you for your continued patience while we process your FOIA request. Unfortunately, USAID is experiencing a backlog of FOIA requests. Please know that USAID management is very committed to providing responses to FOIA requests and remedying the FOIA backlog. I will provide you with an update on or before August 23, 2023.”

• 17 July 2023: “Thank you for your continued patience. Additional search time is needed to complete your request. I will provide you with an update on or before July 31, 2023.” 

• 16 June 2023: “Greetings, Thank you for your continued patience.  Additional search time is needed to complete your request. I will provide you with an update on or before June 30, 2023.” 
  

• 24 May 2023: “Greetings, We are still working on your FOIA request and should have a response for you by June 14, 2023.” 

“This acknowledges receipt of your October 14, 2022, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).  Specifically, you requested all information about the following delivery in August 2022/September 2022/October 2022 from USAID of PPE to Cuba: 1) How was the donation delivered- air, vessel? 2) What is the brand/manufacturer of the PPE? 3) Was the delivery directly to a Republic of Cuba government-operated entity or through first the U.S. Embassy in Havana? 4) What was the U.S. Dollar value of the delivered 43 sets of PPE? 5) What is the U.S. Dollar value of the 57 sets of PPE to be delivered? 6) Did USAID use its government funding for the purchase(s)?   (Date Range for Record Search: From 08/01/2022 To 10/14/2022).  You also requested expedited processing and a fee waiver.

Expedited Processing: The FOIA provides that expedited processing is warranted if the request involves circumstances in which the lack of expedited processing could (1) reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual, or (2) an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information.  You indicated you requested expedited processing "because the public has an urgent and compelling need for information about the all information about the following delivery in August 2022/September 2022/October 2022 from USAID of PPE to Cuba: 1) How was the donation delivered- air, vessel? 2) What is the brand/manufacturer of the PPE? 3) Was the delivery directly to a Republic of Cuba government-operated entity or through first the U.S. Embassy in Havana? 4) What was the U.S. Dollar value of the delivered 43 sets of PPE? 5) What is the U.S. Dollar value of the 57 sets of PPE to be delivered? 6) Did USAID use its government funding for the purchase(s)?  (Date Range for Record Search: From 08/01/2022 To 10/14/2022).  After review of your justification, your request for expedited processing is denied.  Your rationale does not articulate an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual, nor is it an urgency to inform the public.  Below is information on how to submit an appeal for this expedited processing denial.

Fee Waiver: The FOIA provides that fees should be waived or reduced if disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.  As a member of the media, the only applicable fee is duplication.  Duplication is $0.10 per page, but the first 100 pages are free.  After review of the fee waiver criteria, your fee waiver request is moot.  Since the only applicable fee is duplication, and USAID routinely furnishes responsive records to FOIA requesters in electronic format, it's most likely there will be no duplication fees to assess. 

Appeal rights: You have a right to appeal the denial of expedited processing.  Your appeal must be received by USAID no later than 90 days from the date of this communication.  To protect its workforce from COVID-19, USAID is implementing maximum telework.  Our FOIA professionals are therefore working from home and do not have access to postal mail and fax machine.  Please send your appeal to foia@usaid.gov, and address it to the Deputy Director of the Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services.  In addition, please include your tracking number in your email. 

Extending the FOIA’s Time Limits due to Unusual Circumstances: The FOIA provides that an agency  may extend its time limits when “unusual circumstances” occur in the processing of a request. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i) (2016).  Those “unusual circumstances” are set forth in the statute, 5 U.S.C § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii), and are described as: 1) The need to search for records from field facilities or other locations separate from the office processing the request; 2) The need to search, collect and examine voluminous records; and 3) The need for consultation with another agency.   

Based upon the records you have requested, we have determined that one or more unusual circumstances will occur during the processing of your request.  Accordingly, your response time-limit has been extended beyond the 20 days required by statute; therefore, 10 additional processing days have been added to your request.  To mitigate this action, you may limit the scope of the request so that it can be processed more quickly or to arrange an alternative time to respond.” 

LINK: In Controversial Decision, Biden-Harris Administration Directs (Indirectly) US$2 Million In U.S. Taxpayer Funds To Cuba For Hurricane Ian Support. Some Members Of Congress Irate. October 18, 2022 

United States Department of State
Washington DC
18 October 2022

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

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

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

United States Department of State
Washington DC
19 October 2022

Question Posed: “Prior to today's announcement that USAID was spending US$2 million in taxpayer funds for indirect assistance to Cuba, when was the last time that taxpayer funds were directed, directly or indirectly, by the United States government to Cuba?” 

United States Department of State
Washington DC
21 October 2022

“Thanks for the question and your patience. The following is offered on background and should be attributable to a State Department spokesperson: Each year since 1996, USAID and the Department of State have funded democracy programs that support human rights, fundamental freedoms, and democratic values in Cuba.  In September 2022, USAID provided personal protective equipment in response to diminished fire-fighting capacity following the large-scale oil fire at the Matanzas Oil Terminal.  In 2008, USAID provided $1.6 million to non-governmental organization (NGO) partners for emergency relief supplies in response to the impact of Hurricane Gustav.  USAID also funded emergency relief commodities through a disaster response cable for damages caused by hurricanes in 2004-2006.  USAID provided $50,000 for Hurricane Charley in 2004, $100,000 for Hurricane Dennis in 2005, and $100,000 for Hurricane Wilma in 2006.  Since early 2021, we have prioritized review of license applications to export privately sourced or donated goods to the Cuban people, focusing specifically on U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba.”

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT