After 65 Months, Trump Administration Returns Cuba To List Of State Sponsors Of Terrorism

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 three countries designated under these authorities:  

Republic of Cuba added 1 March 1982 removed on 14 April 2015 returned on 11 January 2021
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) on 20 November 2017
Islamic Republic of Iran on 19 January 1984
Syrian Arab Republic on 29 December 1979

Baker & McKenzie
Chicago, Illinois
12 January 2020

“On January 11, 2021, the US State Department published a press release announcing Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism (“SST”) for allegedly providing support for acts of international terrorism in granting safe harbor to terrorists. Cuba was originally designated as an SST in 1982 but was delisted in 2015 by President Barack Obama. Cuba’s SST designation follows increasingly stringent sanctions imposed by the US Government including restriction on remittances to Cuba and further restrictions on travel.

Legal Implications of the SST Designation- Cuba’s SST designation triggers the following sanctions and restrictions: A licensing requirement for exports or reexports of goods or technology that could significantly enhance Cuba’s military capability or ability to support terrorism; A prohibition on exports and reexports to Cuba of defense articles and defense services and related technology under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations; A requirement for the United States to oppose loans to Cuba by the World Bank and other international financial institutions; A prohibition on any assistance to Cuba under the Food for Peace, Peace Corps, and Export-Import Bank programs; A prohibition on US Persons (i.e., entities organized under US laws and their non-US branches; individuals and entities physically located in the United States; and US citizens and permanent resident aliens, wherever located or employed) from engaging in financial transactions with the Cuban government without a license from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, under the Terrorism List Governments Sanctions Regulations; and An exception to sovereign immunity that would allow individual US Persons to bring claims against the Cuban government in US courts for personal injury and death resulting from terrorism or material support for terrorism.

The legal implications of Cuba’s SST designation are likely to be limited. Many of the above activities have remained prohibited by US sanctions or export controls even after Cuba was delisted as an SST in 2015. For example, an SST designation normally triggers a change under the Export Administration Regulations to claim US jurisdiction over non-US items that incorporate more than 10% controlled US content rather than the 25% de minimis threshold used for most other countries. However, the Trump Administration imposed the 10% de minimis threshold on Cuba in October 2019 (see here) even though Cuba was not then an SST.

Increased Scrutiny for US-Listed Companies from the US Securities and Exchange Commission- Cuba’s SST designation may lead to increased scrutiny for US-listed companies if they engage in dealings with Cuba. Specifically, the Office of Global Security Risk (“OGSR”) within the US Securities and Exchange Commission may periodically request information from US-listed companies regarding material dealings with SST countries if such dealings have not been previously disclosed in a company’s regular annual and quarterly filings. Accordingly, US-listed companies that receive OGSR inquiries can now expect them to ask about Cuba transactions.”

LINK To Congressional Research Service (CRS) Terrorism Report

LINK To 2019 Country Reports on Terrorism 

Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Cuba  

Overview:  Cuba was designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1982 because of its long history of providing advice, safe haven, communications, training, and financial support to guerrilla groups and individual terrorists.  This designation was rescinded in 2015.  Cuba maintains close and collaborative ties with designated state sponsors of terror such as Iran and North Korea.  The Cuban regime continues to host ELN leaders associated with now-defunct peace talks to reside in Cuba, despite Colombia’s repeated requests for their extradition.  Cuba also continues to harbor multiple fugitives who committed or supported acts of terrorism in the United States.  The U.S. Department of State certified Cuba as “not cooperating fully” with U.S. counterterrorism efforts for 2019, the first such certification of Cuba since 2015. 

2019 Terrorist Incidents:  There were no terrorist attacks in Cuba in 2019. 

Legislation, Law Enforcement, and Border Security:  Citing peace negotiation protocols, Cuba refused Colombia’s request to extradite 10 ELN leaders living in Havana after that group claimed responsibility for the January 2019 bombing of a Bogota police academy that killed 22 people and injured 87 others.  On October 11, Colombia filed extradition requests for ELN leaders Victor Orlando Cubides (aka “Pablo Tejada”) and Isreal Ramirez Pineda (aka “Pablo Beltran”) with the Cuban government, which has pointedly not responded.  Though Cuba’s government denies allowing ELN members to plan terrorist attacks from its territory, fugitive ELN terrorists continue to live in Havana, shielded by the Cuban regime, while ELN members continue to attack, kidnap, and murder in Colombia. 

In addition to ELN terrorists, there was credible reporting that FARC dissidents who abandoned the peace process in Colombia traveled to Havana to seek the regime’s support.  On July 28 during the closing remarks of the Sao Paolo Forum in Caracas, Nicolas Maduro stated that Iván Márquez and Jesús Santrich – former FARC leaders who fled Colombia after abandoning the peace process and announced a return to terrorist activities – were both welcome in Venezuela.  Cuba is a key supporter of Maduro’s narco-regime and is an active participant in maintaining Maduro’s authority. 

Cuba also harbors several U.S. fugitives from justice wanted on charges of political violence, many of whom have resided in Cuba for decades.  For example, the Cuban regime has refused to return Joanne Chesimard, aka Assata Shakur, a fugitive on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List, who was convicted of executing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster.  Cuba also has refused to return William “Guillermo” Morales, a fugitive bomb maker for the Armed Forces for National Liberation (FALN), who is wanted by the FBI and escaped detention after being convicted of charges related to domestic terrorism; Ishmael LaBeet, aka Ishmael Muslim Ali, who received eight life sentences after being convicted of killing eight people in the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1972 and hijacking a plane to flee to Cuba in 1984; Charles Lee Hill, who has been charged with killing New Mexico state policeman Robert Rosenbloom in 1971; and Ambrose Henry Montfort, who used a bomb threat to hijack a passenger aircraft and fly to Cuba in 1983.  Cuba is also believed to host or have hosted U.S. fugitive terrorists Catherine Marie Kerkow and Elizabeth Anna Duke.  The Cuban government provides housing, food ration books, and medical care for all of the fugitives residing there. 

Countering the Financing of Terrorism:  Cuba is a member of the GAFILAT.  Its FIU, the Dirección General de Investigación de Operaciones Financieras, is a member of the Egmont Group.  There were no significant updates in 2019. 

Countering Violent Extremism:  Cuba conducted no CVE efforts in 2019. 

International and Regional Cooperation:  Cuba is an inactive member of the OAS and is not a member of NATO or the OSCE.

Screenshot_2021-01-11 State Sponsors of Terrorism - United States Department of State.png

U.S. Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Increase 282.3% In November; Decrease 41.0% Year-To-Year

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
January 2021

November 2020 Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Increase 282.3%- 1
69th Of 226 October U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
Year-To-Year Exports Decrease 41.0%- 2
Cuba Ranks 62nd Of Ag/Food Export Markets- 2
November 2020 Healthcare Product Exports US$0.00- 2
November 2020 Humanitarian Donations US$27,749.00- 3
November Administration Initiatives Exports Continue- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 16

NOVEMBER 2020 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA DECREASE 282.3%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in November 2020 were US$11,339,843.00 compared to US$2,965,515.00 November 2019 and US$14,505,604.00 in November 2018.

Agricultural commodity and food product exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba thus far reported in 2020 are US$149,209,570.00 compared to US$253,288,353.00 in 2019, representing a decrease of 41.0%.

Since December 2001, agricultural commodity and food product exports reported from the United States to the Republic of Cuba is US$6,282,082,266.00.

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

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

LINK To Complete Report In PDF Format

Group-6759.png

On 20 January 2021, This Skilled Politician Will Be The Most Important Member Of Congress For Issues Relating To Cuba

On 20 January 2021, The Honorable Robert Menendez (D- New Jersey), a three-term member of the United States Senate and before that a seven-term member of the United States House of Representatives, will be 69th Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate.  Senator Menendez was previously Chairman (2013-2014).  The Honorable Joseph Biden (D- Delaware), President-elect of the United States, served three times as Chairman (2001; 2001-2003; 2007-2009).  

Possessing the gavel, Senator Menendez will become the most influential Member of the United States Congress for issues relating to the Republic of Cuba and Venezuela, replacing a colleague with whom he agreed often, The Honorable Marco Rubio (R- Florida).   

A mistake for advocates to believe Chairman Menendez will not oppose the Biden Administration on issues relating to the Republic of Cuba and Venezuela as a gesture of political party unity.  And, to believe that Chairman Menendez and Senator Rubio will not align- and bring along others, against decisions by the Biden Administration relating to the Republic of Cuba and Venezuela. 

Senator Menendez’s primary challenge will be to navigate a Biden Administration inclined to adjust downward Trump Administration policies impacting the Republic of Cuba and Venezuela. 

There are three Trump Administration policies which the incoming Biden Administration has telegraphed are likely for de-escalation: 1) Removing the US$1,000.00 per quarter limit upon remittances 2) Easing the Havana-only restriction upon commercial airlines and 3) Restructuring consulate operations in Havana to better serve visa applicants.  Changes to Trump Administration restrictions/prohibitions upon transactions with entities controlled by the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) of the Republic of Cuba are expected to remain in place.

As did his colleague Senator Rubio during the Trump Administration, Chairman Menendez will do the opposite- leverage what the Biden Administration wants to lessen with increasing pressure somewhere else.  For example, during negotiations for the 2018 Farm Bill, as a condition for his support, Senator Rubio successfully attached an amendment to preclude transactions by United States organizations with FAR-related entities when implementing Foreign Market Development (FMD) and Market Access Program (MAP) taxpayer-provided funding in the Republic of Cuba.  Quid pro quo

There are ten (10) self-identified Cuban-American members of the 117th United States Congress: three (3) in the United States Senate and seven (7) in the United States House of Representatives, consisting of two (2) members of the Democratic Party and eight (8) members of the Republican Party. 

They are expected to act as a voting bloc to oppose most efforts by the Biden Administration to alter Trump Administration policies impacting the Republic of Cuba and Venezuela where the perception, if not reality, may benefit either country.

United States Senate
The Honorable Ted Cruz (R- Texas)
The Honorable Marco Rubio (R- Florida)
The Honorable Robert Menendez (D- New Jersey)

United States House of Representatives
The Honorable Albio Sires (New Jersey; D- 8th)
The Honorable Alex Mooney (West Virginia; R- 2nd)
The Honorable Anthony E. González (Ohio; R- 16th)
The Honorable Mario Díaz-Balart (Florida; R-25th)
The Honorable Carlos Gimenez (Florida; R- 26th)
The Honorable Maria Elvira Salazar (Florida; R- 27th)
The Honorable Nicole Malliotakis (New York; R- 11th)

United States Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations (Current Republican Majority)
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/
Total Members: 19
Subcommittees (7)


Majority Members (10)
Risch, James E. (ID), Chairman
Rubio, Marco (FL)
Johnson, Ron (WI)
Romney, Mitt (UT)
Graham, Lindsey (SC)
Barrasso, John (WY)
Portman, Rob (OH)
Paul, Rand (KY)
Young, Todd (IN)
Cruz, Ted (TX)

Minority Members (9)
Menendez, Robert (NJ), Ranking Member
Cardin, Benjamin L. (MD)
Shaheen, Jeanne (NH)
Coons, Christopher A. (DE)
Murphy, Christopher (CT)
Kaine, Tim (VA)
Markey, Edward J. (MA)
Merkley, Jeff (OR)
Booker, Cory A. (NJ)

Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, and Global Women's Issues

Total Members: 9
Majority Members
Rubio, Marco (FL), Chairman
Portman, Rob (OH)
Cruz, Ted (TX)
Barrasso, John (WY)
Risch, James E. (ID), Ex Officio

Minority Members
Cardin, Benjamin L. (MD), Ranking Member
Shaheen, Jeanne (NH)
Kaine, Tim (VA)
Menendez, Robert (NJ), Ex Officio

Attorneys Suing Expedia, Hotels.com, Orbitz, Booking.com Reply To Cruise Lines Association Appellete Brief; Case Has 84 "Interested Persons"

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)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: MARIO DEL VALLE, ENRIQUE FALLA, AND ANGELO POU, AS INDIVIDUALS AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiffs — Appellants, V. EXPEDIA GROUP, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, ORBITZ, LLC, BOOKING.COM B.V., BOOKING HOLDINGS INC., Defendants — Appellees.  On Appeal from a Final Order of Dismissal by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 19-cv-22619-RNS APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF AND RESPONSE TO CRUISE LINES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION’S AMICUS CURIAE 

LINK To Filing (6 January 2021) 

Excerpts: 

Appellees’ briefs could not and did not blink away the Order’s erroneous misapplication of Florida’s long-arm statute, or its manifest abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Appellees fail to note that the complaint contained legally sufficient, unrebutted (and unrebuttable) factual allegations making out a prima facie case for specific jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause. 

Moreover, although the Order did not address standing, appellees’ and the Amicus briefs grossly mischaracterize appellants’ claims as if they were based on the Cuban government’s confiscation of their properties, and not appellees’ trafficking, which is plainly and expressly what the Act targets. 

The complaint adequately alleged that appellees do business in Florida to which this action relates, under Fla. Stat § 48.193(1)(a)(1). That is all the Florida long-arm statute requires to trigger a minimum contacts analysis, unless a defendant can rebut the “doing business” allegations. Appellees never could have done so, and didn’t even try.  

Instead appellees argued below, and here, that merely maintaining a website accessible in Florida is insufficient. So what? This misdirection play relies on cases where defendants’ “passive” websites provided only information, and no sales were made on those websites. That is plainly not what was alleged below, nor what actually is going on. Appellees’ entire business is based on their sale of hotel reservations on their websites. If it weren’t for sales on their websites, appellees would have no businesses at all

To exclude property that ever was used for residential purposes prior to confiscation would be inconsistent with the Act’s language and history and would undermine congressional intent to deter trafficking in confiscated property. Thus, even if 22 U.S.C. § 6023(12) did not unambiguously carve out only property currently used for residential purposes, Title III’s findings and stated purpose would require it to be so construed. 

Conclusion: The order on appeal erroneously dismissed without leave to amend on the first motion to dismiss submitted for decision below. The unrebutted allegations in the complaint demonstrated that the exercise of “doing business in Florida” and “tort in Florida” personal jurisdiction over appellees was (and is) proper.  The complaint also adequately alleged a legally sufficient Title III claim for appellees’ unlawful trafficking of the Properties in Florida through the solicitation and sale of reservations at the Resorts to Floridians in Florida.  Even if the order on appeal had not erroneously denied personal jurisdiction, it would have been (and was) an abuse of discretion to deny appellants answers to their pending discovery requests before ruling, and to preemptively bar a motion for leave to amend. 

16 December 2020
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
CRUISE LINES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AND URGING AFFIRMANCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT’S FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LINK To Filing (16 December 2020) 

Excerpts: 

In the instant case, plaintiffs are individuals who claim interests in parcels of real property in Cuba, which they allege were confiscated by the Fidel Castro regime in the early 1960s, after the Cuban Revolution. They are suing two travel booking companies, Expedia and Booking.com, for three times the value of the real property itself, plus interest over decades, based on the allegation that these companies made reservations available on the Internet to stay at structures subsequently built on the properties. 

Nowhere in the complaint is there any allegation that defendants’ actions caused any concrete harm to plaintiffs, that defendants owe any funds to plaintiffs, or that defendants’ actions decreased any property values. The only concrete harm alleged in the complaint is that of the Cuban government in the 1960s, not defendants. Thus, plaintiffs lack Article III standing as against these defendants. 

Plaintiffs’ sole cause of action is based on a highly unusual and internationally controversial statute, Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act, Pub. L. No. 104-114, 110 Stat. 785 (codified at 22 U.S.C. §§6021-91) (the “Helms-Burton Act”), passed in 1996 but only allowed to become effective twenty-three years later, in 2019. The heart of the statute is its allowance, with certain enumerated exceptions, of a claim against “any person” who “traffics” in property confiscated by the Castro regime—a term which is defined to include, for instance, “using or otherwise benefitting from” the property, with no requirement that any plaintiff be injured. 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A) (emphasis added). 

Rather than a determination by Congress that plaintiffs under the statute would suffer a “concrete, particularized” injury “caused by the defendant” in a Title III claim (Thole, 140 S.Ct. at 1618), the statute and its findings instead offer the converse of a well-known rule of Constitutional standing. Citizens or taxpayers generally have no standing to challenge government actions or expenditures if their interest is “shared with millions of taxpayers” or “comparatively minute and indeterminable.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 343–44, 126 S. Ct. 1854, 1862, 164 L. Ed. 2d 589 (2006). With Helms-Burton, however, Congress has seemingly made the opposite determination: having found the Cuba embargo represents sound U.S. policy, it decided that individual defendants can, in fact, be drafted into paying penalties to individual plaintiffs who do not claim to have been harmed in a way that is discernible, concrete, or individualized—or even recognized by a prior law adjudicated in our nation’s Article III courts. Tellingly, Congress did not even attempt to explain how a Title III private cause of action satisfied Article III’s standing requirements. So, while Congress’ judgment should be considered, its statements weigh against plaintiffs’ assertions of standing. 

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

Appellants Mario Del Valle, Enrique Falla, and Angelo Pou, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Eleventh Circuit Rules 26.1-1, 26.1-2, and 26.1-3, certify that the following persons and entities may have an interest in the outcome of this case:

1. AAE Travel Pte. Ltd. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
2. Agoda.com (Subsidiary of Appellee)
3. Aguila, M. Paula, Esq. (counsel for Appellants)
4. Akerman LLP (counsel for Appellees)
5. Analytical Systems Pty Ltd. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
6. Baker McKenzie (counsel for Appellees)
7. Booking Holdings Treasury Company (Subsidiary of Appellee)
8. Booking Holdings, Inc. (Appellee) [BKNG]
9. Booking.com B.V. (Appellee)
10. Booking.com Holding B.V. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
11. Booking.com Holdings B.V. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
12. Booking.com Ltd. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
13. BookingSuite (USA) Inc. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
14. Classic Vacations, LLC (Subsidiary of Appellee)
15. Coronado Pte Ltd. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
16. Cruise, LLC (Subsidiary of Appellee)
17. Del Valle, Mario (Appellant)
18. Dohop Ltd. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
19. Duffy, Michael A., Esq. (counsel for Appellees)
20. EAN.com, LP (Subsidiary of Appellee)
21. Ebookers Limited (Subsidiary of Appellee)
22. Egencia France SAS (Subsidiary of Appellee)
23. Egencia LLP (Subsidiary of Appellee)
24. Egencia UK Ltd. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
25. EXP Global Holdings, Inc. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
26. EXP Holdings Luxembourg S.A. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
27. Expedia Asia Holdings Mauritius (Subsidiary of Appellee)
28. Expedia do Barsil Agencia de Viagens e Turismo Ltda. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
29. Expedia Group, Inc. (Appellee) [EXPE]
30. Expedia Lodging Partner Services Sárl (Subsidiary of Appellee)
31. Expedia Southeast Asia Pte. Ltd. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
32. Expedia.com Limited (Subsidiary of Appellee)
33. Falla, Enrique (Appellant)
34. FareHarbor Holdings, Inc. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
35. Home Away Spain SL (Subsidiary of Appellee)
36. HomeAway Holding, Inc., (Subsidiary of Appellee)
37. HomeAway Netherlands Holdings B.V. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
38. HomeAway Sarl (Subsidiary of Appellee)
39. HomeAway UK Ltd. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
40. HomeAway.com, Inc. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
41. HotelClub Pty Ltd. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
42. Hotels.com GP (Appellee)
43. Hotels.com L.P. (Appellee)
44. Hotwire, Inc. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
45. HRN 99 Holdings, LLC (Subsidiary of Appellee)
46. Interactive Affiliate Network, LLC (Subsidiary of Appellee)
47. Kayak (Subsidiary of Appellee)
48. Law Office of Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (co-counsel for Appellants)
49. Lowestfare.com LLC (Subsidiary of Appellee)
50. Malave, Ana C. (counsel for Appellants)
51. Mathy, Patricia, Esq. (counsel for Appellees)
52. McCutcheon, Michael C., Esq. (counsel for Appellees)
53. Mestre, Jorge, Esq. (counsel for Appellants)
54. Olson, Kyle R. (counsel for Appellees)
55. OpenTable (Subsidiary of Appellee)
56. Orbitz Travel Insurance Services, LLC (Subsidiary of Appellee)
57. Orbitz Worldwide (UK) Limited (Subsidiary of Appellee)
58. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., (Subsidiary of Appellee)
59. Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (Subsidiary of Appellee)
60. Orbitz, Inc. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
61. Orbitz, LLC (Appellee)
62. Pou, Angelo (Appellant)
63. Priceline.com (Subsidiary of Appellee)
64. Priceline.com Europe Holdco Inc. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
65. Priceline.com Europe Holdings N.V. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
66. Priceline.com Mauritius Co. Ltd. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
67. Priceline.com Agoda Holdco LLC (Subsidiary of Appellee)
68. Riccio, Andrew S., Esq. (counsel for Appellees)
69. Rivero Mestre LLP (counsel for Appellants)
70. Rivero, Andres, Esq. (counsel for Appellants)
71. Scola, Hon. Robert N., Jr. (United States District Court Judge)
72. Rocket Travel, Inc. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
73. Rolnick, Alan H., Esq., (counsel for Appellants)
74. Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP (counsel for Appellees)
75. Shank, David, Esq. (counsel for Appellees)
76. SilverRail Technologies, Inc. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
77. Travelscape, LLC (Subsidiary of Appellee)
78. Travelweb LLC (Subsidiary of Appellee)
79. Trip Network, Inc. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
80. Trivago N.V. (Subsidiary of Appellee) [TRVG]
81. Vazquez, Manuel, Esq. (counsel for Appellants)
82. Venga, Inc. (Subsidiary of Appellee)
83. Webre, Jane, Esq. (counsel for Appellees)
84. WWTE Travel S.á.r.l. (Subsidiary of Appellee)

clia16-9.jpg
Screenshot_2021-01-08 Cruise Lines.png

Might Caterpillar/RIMCO Be Next Defendants In Title III Lawsuit? Cuba Distributor In Area As Crowley And Seaboard?

Might Caterpillar/RIMCO Be Next Defendant In Title III Lawsuit?
Cuba Distributor Located In Same Area As Defendants Crowley And Seaboard
Is what Crowley, Seaboard and Caterpillar doing “lawful” as defined by Libertad Act?

On 1 November 2017, during the 35th Havana International Fair (FIHAV), Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar Inc. (2019 revenues approximately US$53.8 billion) through privately-held San Juan, Puerto Rico-based RIMCO, its distributor for Caribbean Sea-area countries, announced a distribution center would be located within the Special Development Zone of Mariel (ZEDM).  The Republic of Cuba is not referenced in the 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 annual reports or 2020 Form 10-K filed by Caterpillar.   

RIMCO reported the company did not require a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury, but did obtain a license from the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce and authorization from the United States Department of State.  According to the ZEDM Internet site, RIMCO provides sales, service and rental of brands including Caterpillar and Duluth, Georgia-based AGCO Corporation (2019 revenues approximately US$9.3 billion). 

Since December 2018, RIMCO has delivered, not necessarily sold, to the Republic of Cuba more than US$4 million in excavators, backhoes, graders, scrapers, bulldozers, railway fixtures, and signaling equipment.  There are no United States government prohibitions upon Caterpillar or RIMCO from providing, directly or indirectly, payment terms and/or financing for equipment exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba. 

On 2 November 2017, Moline, Illinois-based John Deere (2019 revenues approximately US$39.2 billion) reported the company would establish a distribution center in the Republic of Cuba, but not located in the ZEDM.  The Republic of Cuba is not referenced in the 2016, 2017, 2018 or 2019 annual reports filed by John Deere.  In November 2017, and continuing through 2019, John Deere delivered, not necessarily sold, more than $800,000.00 in agricultural equipment to the Republic of Cuba.  Antioch, Tennessee-based Wirtgen America, Inc., a subsidiary of Windhagen, Germany-based Wirtgen Group (2019 revenues approximately US$3 billion), a construction equipment machinery subsidiary (acquired in 2017) of Deere & Company has also delivered products to the Republic of Cuba.  John Deere reported that the company would provide financing for equipment purchases by authorized Republic of Cuba entities.   

The Trump Administration issued a 9 November 2017 deadline for United States companies to execute agreements with Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) of the Republic of Cuba-controlled Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), which has interests in the tourism, financial investment, import/export, and remittance sectors.  ZEDM is managed by Republic of Cuba government-operated Almacenes Universales S.A., a subsidiary of GAESA.  Almacenes Universales S.A. focuses upon “professional, technical and skilled workers linked to logistics activities, warehousing, transportation and port activities.”  Agreements executed by 9 November 2017 would be permitted to remain in force.  

GAESA is on the State Department’s List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba (“Cuba Restricted List” or “CRL”).  The CRL is a list of entities and subentities “under the control of, or acting for or on behalf of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel with which direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba.” 

GAESA is on the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons by the OFAC pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), 31 C.F.R. part 515. 

Since 2013, vessels from the United States and other countries have been calling at the port of Mariel, located approximately forty (road) miles from Havana.  The port of Mariel is managed by Singapore-based PSA International.  The container terminal at the port of Mariel sits within the 180-square-mile ZEDM.  The facility has 2,300 feet of jetty and four quay cranes which can accommodate 13,000 TEU Neo-Panamax vessels.   

Salvador, Brazil-based Odebrecht (2016 revenues approximately US$30 billion) was the primary contractor for the port of Mariel and ZEDM.  Approximately US$683 million in primary financing was provided by the National Bank of Economic and Social Development (BNDES) of Brazil.  Institutions in China and Venezuela also provided financing.   

Title III Lawsuits Against Crowley Maritime And Seaboard Marine 

On 2 May 2019, the Trump Administration made operational Title III 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 or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset.  Thus far, thirty-two Title III lawsuits have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States.   

Libertad Act Title III exceptions to the definition of “trafficking” include “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 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.”  There is no visible exception for non-travel-related activity. 

The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000 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 Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992.  For the period December 2001, the first exports using the TSREEA, through October 2020 (latest data), total exports using the TSREEA exceed US$6,270,742,423.00.  In twelve of nineteen years, poultry (transported in containers) was the largest U.S. Dollar value export.  

Currently, United States TSREEA exporters receive control of payment from the Republic of Cuba prior to product departing United States ports.  Previously, United States exporters received control of payment when the vessel arrived to the Republic of Cuba, but had not yet been unloaded. 

From the two recent (31st and 32nd) lawsuit filings: “The fact of the confiscation of the Blanco Rosell Siblings’ property in Cuba was so well known that, on April 18, 2019, the day after the Trump Administration announced that it would allow Helms-Burton Act lawsuits under Title III to go forward, stories published on both Radio Marti and TV Marti identified Plaintiff’s claims to the Mariel Special Development Zone as one of the top 10 potential Helms-Burton Claims: The Mariel Special Development Zone, the star Cuban project to attract investment, was built on nationalized land where the Carranza-Bernal, Carbonell-González and Blanco-Rosell families owned sugar and hemp processing plants.” 

For plaintiffs, there are three focuses:  Do they have standing to file a lawsuit.  Does the court have jurisdiction over the lawsuit.  Does the defendant have assets accessible using a court judgement.  

ODETTE BLANCO DE FERNANDEZ née BLANCO ROSELL, Plaintiff, v. CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION, Defendant. [3:20-cv-01426]; Middle District Florida  

Murphy & Anderson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP (plaintiff)
Fields PLLC (plaintiff)
Law Offices of John S. Gaebe P.A. (plaintiff)  

LINK To Complaint (12/20/20)
LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics
LINK To Mariel Special Economic Zone

Jacksonville, Florida-based Crowley Maritime Corporation (2019 revenues approximately US$2.5 billion).  “Crowley, founded in 1892, is a privately-held, U.S.-owned and operated logistics, government, marine and energy solutions company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. Services are provided worldwide by four primary business units – Crowley Logistics, Crowley (Government) Solutions, Crowley Shipping and Crowley Fuels.” 

ODETTE BLANCO DE FERNANDEZ née BLANCO ROSELL, Plaintiff, v. SEABOARD   MARINE, LTD., Defendant. [1:20-cv-25176; Southern Florida District]  

Horr, Novak & Skipp, P.A. (plaintiff)
Law Offices of John S. Gaebe (plaintiff)
Berliner Corcoran & Rowe (plaintiff)
Fields (plaintiff) 

LINK To Complaint (12/20/20)
LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics
LINK To Mariel Special Economic Zone

Miami, Florida-based Seaboard Marine is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merriam, Kansas-based Seaboard Corporation (2019 revenues of US$6.8 billion). Butterball Turkey is a subsidiary of Seaboard Corporation. Seaboard Corporation 2019 Annual Report: "At Seaboard Marine, our container line operating throughout the Americas surpassed $1 billion in revenues despite fierce competition for market share by both regional and global carriers. We run multiple routes from six U.S. ports to 26 countries in the Caribbean, Central and South America."   

Background

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 10, 2016
Caterpillar Names Rimco Official Dealer for Cuba

PEORIA, Ill. – Caterpillar Inc. (NYSE: CAT) today announced that it has selected Rimco, a privately owned Puerto Rico-based company, to be the Cat dealer for Cuba. Currently, Rimco serves as the Cat dealer for Puerto Rico and the Eastern Caribbean. Upon easing of trade restrictions, customers in Cuba will be able to purchase Cat products through Rimco in accordance with U.S. and Cuba regulations. 

“We’re pleased to take this important step with our longtime partner, Rimco,” said Philip Kelliher, vice president with responsibility for the Americas & Europe Distribution Services Division. “Cuba needs access to the types of products that Caterpillar makes and, upon easing of trade restrictions, we look forward to providing the equipment needed to contribute to the building of Cuba’s infrastructure. This momentous announcement is part of our preparations in anticipation of the United States lifting its 55-year-old trade embargo on Cuba.” 

Caterpillar, an advocate for change in policy toward Cuba for nearly two decades, will continue its work with the Administration and Congress to end the embargo.  “We’re exceptionally proud of our 34-year relationship with Caterpillar,” said Richard F. McConnie, President of Rimco. “There is great affinity between Cuba and Puerto Rico as a result of our shared language, culture and traditions. Rimco will be honored to serve the Cuba market once the United States and Cuba re-establish commercial relations.”  On December 17, 2014, President Obama announced that the United States would move to normalize relations with Cuba. Since that historic day, embassies have opened in each nation and there have been gradual steps to open diplomatic and economic ties between the two countries.  While steps remain until relations are fully normalized, including lifting the embargo, Rimco and Caterpillar will continue preparations to best serve the Cuban marketplace with construction and mining equipment, power systems, marine and industrial engines. 

About Caterpillar 

For 90 years, Caterpillar Inc. has been making sustainable progress possible and driving positive change on every continent.  Customers turn to Caterpillar to help them develop infrastructure, energy and natural resource assets.  With 2015 sales and revenues of $47.011 billion, Caterpillar is the world’s leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, industrial gas turbines and diesel-electric locomotives.  The company principally operates through its three product segments - Construction Industries, Resource Industries and Energy & Transportation - and also provides financing and related services through its Financial Products segment.  For more information, visit caterpillar.com.  To connect with us on social media, visit caterpillar.com/social-media. 

About Rimco 

Rimco is the Caterpillar dealer for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean Islands. It is a privately-held Puerto Rico company founded by the McConnie family in 1981. The company has built a strong reputation in the industry with its superior sales, rental and product support capabilities. Rimco sells construction equipment, power systems and engines to its customers in the construction, quarry & aggregates, waste, industrial, commercial and marine segments. Rimco also has a complete fleet of equipment and power systems available for rental through its 5 Cat Rental Stores located in Puerto Rico and Barbados. Additional information about the Rimco organization, its products and services can be found at www.rimcocat.com.   

Thomson Reuters
London, United Kingdom
1 November 2017

Caterpillar dealer to open shop in Cuba special development zone

“HAVANA (Reuters) - Rimco, Caterpillar Inc’s dealer for Cuba, said on Wednesday it would open a distribution center for the U.S. heavy equipment maker at Havana’s Mariel special development zone, making it the first U.S. company to open up shop there. 

The deal, signed this week, came as worsening U.S.-Cuban political relations are curbing U.S. business interest in the Communist-run island of 11 million inhabitants in the wake of the historic 2014 detente.  The United States has said it would vote against a U.N. General Assembly resolution on Wednesday calling for the lifting of the decades-old U.S. economic embargo against Cuba, reversing an abstention by Washington last year. 

“We are going to set up a warehouse and distribution center at Mariel and we will be distributing Caterpillar equipment,” Rimco Vice President Caroline McConnie said in a news conference at Cuba’s annual trade fair. “We have a license from the commerce department and other agencies.”

A license from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which handles economic and trade sanctions, was not necessary, she said. 

Mariel Director Ana Teresa Igarza said at the news conference that Rimco hoped to open shop in 2018, and the deal was one of 30 projects, including 11 Mariel had signed off on this year.  Cuba created the zone three years ago to attract foreign capital with tax and customs breaks to boost its anemic economy.  It is controlled by Almacenes Universales, a company belonging to the Armed Forces Business Enterprises Group (GAESA), which could prove problematic for U.S. companies. U.S. President Donald Trump in June ordered a ban on business dealings with the military as part of a tightening of trade and travel restrictions.  The new regulations, including that ban, have yet to be unveiled. The Trump administration has said that any deals signed before then would be grandfathered in.”

COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT

Will Israel Shipping Company About To IPO In U.S. Become 33rd Libertad Act Lawsuit? Project For Jared Kushner?

Will Israel Shipping Company About To IPO In U.S. Become 33rd Libertad Act Lawsuit?
Will Trump Administration Intervene?
Jared Kushner’s Possible Final Project

Haifa, Israel-based ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (2019 revenues US$3.3 billion) which owns one vessel and charters sixty-nine vessels, provides services from the United States to the Republic of Cuba including to Terminal de Contanedores de Mariel SA (TC Mariel).   

On 30 December 2020, ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a registration statement on Form F-1 for an Initial Public Offering (IPO) in the United States.  The company expects to raise US$300 million to US$500 million providing the company with a market capitalization of US$1.5 billion.   

New York, New York-based Citigroup Inc., New York, New York-based Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC., and London, United Kingdom-based Barclays plc are global coordinators and New York, New York-based Jefferies Group LLC and Oslo, Norway-based Clarksons Platou Securities AS act as joint bookrunners for the proposed offering.  

Mr. Eyal Ofer, a member of the family that controls ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd., has since 1995 served as a Director of Miami, Florida-based Royal Caribbean Group (2019 revenues US$10.9 billion).  Ofer family members have been major shareholders of Royal Caribbean Group.  From the 2019 Form 10-K filing: “On August 27, 2019, two lawsuits were filed against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known as the Helms-Burton Act.”

On 20 December 2020, Jacksonville, Florida-based Crowley Maritime Corporation (2019 revenues approximately US$2.5 billion) and Miami, Florida-based Seaboard Marine, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merriam, Kansas-based Seaboard Corporation (2019 revenues of US$6.8 billion) were named as defendants in separate lawsuits filed using Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”).  Both companies provide services to the Republic of Cuba including to TC Mariel.   

Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset.  Thus far, thirty-two Title III lawsuits have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States. 

The Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) of the Republic of Cuba-controls Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), which has interests in the tourism, financial investment, import/export, and remittance sectors.  The Special Development Zone of Mariel (ZEDM) is managed by Republic of Cuba government-operated Almacenes Universales S.A., a subsidiary of GAESA.  Almacenes Universales S.A. focuses upon “professional, technical and skilled workers linked to logistics activities, warehousing, transportation and port activities.”   

GAESA is on the State Department’s List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba (“Cuba Restricted List” or “CRL”).  The CRL is a list of entities and subentities “under the control of, or acting for or on behalf of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel with which direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba.” 

GAESA is on the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons by the OFAC pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), 31 C.F.R. part 515. 

Since 2013, vessels from the United States and other countries have been calling at TC Mariel, located approximately forty (road) miles from the city of Havana.  TC Mariel is managed by Singapore-based PSA International Pte Ltd (2019 revenues approximately US$4 billion).  The container terminal is within the 180-square-mile ZEDM.  The facility has 2,300 feet of jetty and four quay cranes which can accommodate 13,000 TEU Neo-Panamax vessels.   

Salvador, Brazil-based Odebrecht (2016 revenues approximately US$30 billion; now in bankruptcy) was the primary contractor for TC Mariel and ZEDM.  Approximately US$683 million in primary financing was provided by Brasilia, Brazil-based National Bank of Economic and Social Development (BNDES) of Brazil.  Institutions in China and Venezuela also provided financing.   

Companies servicing TC Mariel include: Brooklyn Park, Minnesota-based MM Shipping & Freight Forwarding LLC; Copenhagen, Denmark-based Maersk A/S; Geneva, Switzerland-based Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.; Haifa, Israel-based ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.; Hamburg Germany-based Hamburg Sud; Hamburg, Germany-based Hapag-Lloyd AG Jacksonville, Florida-based Crowley Maritime Corporation; Marseille, France-based CMA CGM S.A.; Rotterdam, The Netherlands-based W.E.C. Lines B.V.; Shanghai, China-based China Shipping (Group) Company; Shanghai, China-based COSCO Shipping Lines Co.’ Ltd. South Holland, Netherlands-based Nirint Shipping B.V.; and Taipei, Taiwan-based Evergreen Marine Corporation. 

Title III Lawsuits Against Crowley Maritime And Seaboard Marine 

On 2 May 2019, the Trump Administration made operational Title III 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 or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset.  Thus far, thirty-two Title III lawsuits have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States.   

Libertad Act Title III exceptions to the definition of “trafficking” include “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 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.”  There is no visible exception for non-travel-related activity.

The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000 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 Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992.  For the period December 2001, the first exports using the TSREEA, through October 2020 (latest data), total exports using the TSREEA exceed US$6,270,742,423.00.  In twelve of nineteen years, poultry (transported in containers) was the largest U.S. Dollar value export.  

Currently, United States TSREEA exporters receive control of payment from the Republic of Cuba prior to product departing United States ports.  Previously, United States exporters received control of payment when the vessel arrived to the Republic of Cuba, but had not yet been unloaded. 

From the two recent (31st and 32nd) lawsuit filings: “The fact of the confiscation of the Blanco Rosell Siblings’ property in Cuba was so well known that, on April 18, 2019, the day after the Trump Administration announced that it would allow Helms-Burton Act lawsuits under Title III to go forward, stories published on both Radio Marti and TV Marti identified Plaintiff’s claims to the Mariel Special Development Zone as one of the top 10 potential Helms-Burton Claims: The Mariel Special Development Zone, the star Cuban project to attract investment, was built on nationalized land where the Carranza-Bernal, Carbonell-González and Blanco-Rosell families owned sugar and hemp processing plants.” 

For plaintiffs, there are three focuses:  Do they have standing to file a lawsuit.  Does the court have jurisdiction over the lawsuit.  Does the defendant have assets accessible using a court judgement.   

ODETTE BLANCO DE FERNANDEZ née BLANCO ROSELL, Plaintiff, v. CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION, Defendant. [3:20-cv-01426]; Middle District Florida  

Murphy & Anderson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP (plaintiff)
Fields PLLC (plaintiff)
Law Offices of John S. Gaebe P.A. (plaintiff)

LINK To Complaint (12/20/20)
LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics
LINK To Mariel Special Economic Zone

Jacksonville, Florida-based Crowley Maritime Corporation (2019 revenues approximately US$2.5 billion).  “Crowley, founded in 1892, is a privately-held, U.S.-owned and operated logistics, government, marine and energy solutions company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. Services are provided worldwide by four primary business units – Crowley Logistics, Crowley (Government) Solutions, Crowley Shipping and Crowley Fuels.” 

ODETTE BLANCO DE FERNANDEZ née BLANCO ROSELL, Plaintiff, v. SEABOARD   MARINE, LTD., Defendant. [1:20-cv-25176; Southern Florida District]  

Horr, Novak & Skipp, P.A. (plaintiff)
Law Offices of John S. Gaebe (plaintiff)
Berliner Corcoran & Rowe (plaintiff)
Fields (plaintiff) 

LINK To Complaint (12/20/20)
LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics
LINK To Mariel Special Economic Zone

Miami, Florida-based Seaboard Marine is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merriam, Kansas-based Seaboard Corporation (2019 revenues of US$6.8 billion). Butterball Turkey is a subsidiary of Seaboard Corporation. Seaboard Corporation 2019 Annual Report: "At Seaboard Marine, our container line operating throughout the Americas surpassed $1 billion in revenues despite fierce competition for market share by both regional and global carriers. We run multiple routes from six U.S. ports to 26 countries in the Caribbean, Central and South America."   

ZIM ANNOUNCES FILING OF F-1 REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS ORDINARY SHARES 

31 December 2020: (Haifa, Israel) ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (the "Company"), announces that it filed on December 30, 2020, a registration statement on Form F-1 with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for an initial public offering of its ordinary shares.  

The amount of ordinary shares to be offered and the price per share has not yet been determined. Citigroup, Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC., and Barclays act as global coordinators and Jefferies and Clarksons Platou Securities act as joint bookrunners for the proposed offering.  

The proposed offering will be made only by means of a prospectus. Copies of the preliminary prospectus relating to the proposed offering, when available, may be obtained from: Citigroup Global Markets Inc., c/o Broadridge Financial Solutions, 1155Long Island Avenue, Edgewood, New York 11717, by telephone at 1-800-831-9146; Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Attention: Prospectus Department, 200 West Street, New York, NY 10282, by telephone at 1-866-471-2526 or by email at prospectus-ny@ny.email.gs.com; and Barclays Capital Inc., c/o Broadridge Financial Solutions, 1155 Long Island Avenue, Edgewood, NY 11717, by telephone at 1-888-603-5847 or by email at barclaysprospectus@broadridge.com. 

From The Company 

“ZIM was established in 1945 by the Jewish Agency, Histadrut labor federation, and the Israel Maritime League. The company's first ship, the Kedmah, was purchased in 1947. The early fleet included ships that were refitted to carry immigrants from Europe and to bring much-needed supplies during the 1948 War of Independence, and the difficult early years of statehood. 

In 1969, approximately 50% of ZIM was acquired by the Israel Corporation. By ZIM’s 25th anniversary in 1970, the company owned 77 ships, chartered 70 ships, and operated 19 major cargo lines, carrying 4.3 million tons of cargo annually.  Next, ZIM made the bold move into container shipping. ZIM was a pioneer in this area, one of the first carriers in the world to adopt the technology that was new at the time, yet destined to dominate the shipping industry in the decades to come. To this end, the company acquired six specialized container ships, in addition to containers and shore equipment 

In 1972, ZIM introduced the innovative ZCS. The “ZIM Container Service” was a three-continent line, with a scheduled 100-day journey that originated in Israel and included ports of call in the Far East, Asia, America and Europe. During this period, ZIM also deployed tankers to carry crude oil from Iran to Israel, and finished goods from Israel to Europe.  During the late 1980s, ZIM embarked on a massive fleet renovation and expansion project. From 1990 to 1997, ZIM built 15 modern ships, enabling the company to offer a weekly fixed-day sailing schedule, positioning ZIM among the world’s top-ranking shipping companies. 

In response to the global shipping crisis in 1997, a result of the financial crisis in Asia, ZIM launched a new effort to optimize the company’s operations through increased efficiency and focused expansion. The company added 13 new 5,000 TEU container ships to its fleet, increasing ZIM’s cargo capacity by a remarkable 50% within two years. 

In 1999, the Ofer Brothers Group became the controlling shareholder of the Israel Corporation. In 2004, the Israel Corporation acquired the remaining ZIM shares held by the government, completing ZIM's privatization process. The current ownership structure was established following a large-scale financial restructuring in 2014.  ZIM's shareholders include Kenon Holdings Ltd. (32%) as well as a number of financial institutions and ship owners (68%).  This stable backing constitutes a solid foundation from which to expand ZIM's activities, along with the strong support needed in order to take ZIM to new heights, as we continue to provide outstanding shipping services and solutions to diverse clients worldwide.

Facts & Figures
Annual turnover 2019: US$3,299.8 million
TEU's Carried in 2019: 2,821,000
Total TEU Capacity (owned and chartered vessels): about 384,000 TEU's
Containers: about 630,000 TEUs of various types
About 81 operated vessels
Ports of Call: 310 throughout the world, with 10 strategically located hubs
Services: Over 100 lines and services, mostly on a weekly, fixed-day basis, covering major trade routes with regional connections
Employees: ~3,800
Agents: ZIM has more than 200 offices and representatives in over 100 countries throughout the world
China: Strong presence in China with 20 offices and branches and hundreds of employees”

Maritime Executive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
2 January 2021
Zim Files for Initial Stock Offering on the NYSE

Zim filed a preliminary prospectus with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission on December 31, 2020, for its long-anticipated initial public offering. The container and logistics company plans to trade its shares on the New York Stock Exchange becoming only the second container line after Matson to be listed on the Big Board. 

Terms of the offering are not included in a preliminary filing, which is submitted to the SEC for review and approval, but the Israeli news outlet Globes reports that Zim is targeting raising between $300 and $500 million in the offering, which would give the company a market value of $1.5 billion. The offering, which is being led globally by Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup, would provide Zim with funds to support long-term growth initiatives. The prospectus highlights that they do not have specific plans for the proceeds, but that its uses would include investing in vessels, containers, and other digital initiatives, strengthening the capital structure, fostering financial flexibility, or possibly to service or repay certain outstanding debt. 

Zim has been openly discussing its goal of running an IPO for months. The company had taken several steps to improve its financials, including the early repayment of $55 million in debt in September. The timing of the offer, which is expected to be completed by late January, is seen as a move to leverage the strength of the global container and logistics markets.  

Zim's most recent financial results show a strong performance with revenues up more than six percent in the first nine months of 2020 to over $2.6 billion. The adjusted net profit for the first nine months of the year was nearly $176 million versus a $10 million loss in 2019. 

The draft prospectus lays out the investment case for Zim highlighting what they call their “asset-light model,” along with a flexible structure focused on niche routes and markets. The global network includes 66 weekly lines calling at 310 ports in more than 80 countries.  

Zim highlights that it currently only owns one vessel while it charters 69 vessels, which they compare to competitors which they report own 44 percent of their fleets. Zim says that nearly 99 percent of its TEU capacity, which is approximately 359,00 TEU, is chartered. The majority of the vessels they operate are mid-sized with a capacity of between 3,000 and 10,000 TEUs, giving it the ability to service niche routes not fully serviced by competitors. In 2019, Zim reports it carried a total of 2.8 million TEU. 

By operating with a charter fleet, Zim contends that it can quickly adjust capacity in anticipation or in response to changing market conditions. Currently, nearly 80 percent of the fleet is under leases having a remaining charter duration of one year or less.  

Found in 1945, Zim says that it currently services five trade zones. The Transpacific is the largest, accounting for 39 percent of the TEUs carried, followed by the Atlantic, Cross Suez, Intra-Asia, and Latin America. Examples of the niche routes they highlight are the US East Coast and Gulf to the Mediterranean, the eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea to the Far East, and the Far East to the US East Coast. They also highlight their new premium high-speed services which move freight from China to Los Angeles and Australia. Focused on time-sensitive cargo, they believe these services provide an alternative to airfreight. 

One area of growth that Zim highlights is on its Transpacific routes. The company says it is currently exploring long-term lease arrangements for vessels that could reach 15,000 TEU. They would replace smaller vessels on the route, expanding the capacity as well as being among the largest ships in Zim’s fleet.

LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format

U.S. Secretary Of State Pompeo Again Telegraphs Returning Cuba To List Of State Sponsors Of Terrorism

United States Department of State
Washington DC
5 January 2021

Secretary Michael R. Pompeo With David Rubenstein of Bloomberg News

Excerpts:

QUESTION: Okay. Let’s talk about some other things that have been in the news recently in your area of domain. It is said that you are considering labeling Cuba a terrorist nation on our State Department watchlist, I guess it is. Is that something you can comment on? Is that likely to happen?

SECRETARY POMPEO: We don’t get out in front of decisions that will be made on designations, but the world knows Cuba’s evil hand in so many places. I’ll give you the perfect example. We’ve been working to create democracy for the people of Venezuela for our entire four years, and it is Cuban efforts, Cuban security operations, Cubans controlling the security apparatus inside of Venezuela that has inflicted massive pain on the Venezuelan people. It is completely appropriate for us to consider whether Cuba is in fact sponsoring terrorism. And if so, just like any other nation that is providing material support to terrorists, they too should be designated such and treated in a way that’s consistent with that behavior that they’re undertaking.

QUESTION: I have been always wondering how Venezuela survives given the fact that its oil production is way down. It doesn’t seem to have an economy that’s – that’s very productive right now. How do you think Venezuela and the government in power there has been able to survive over all these years since Chavez died?

SECRETARY POMPEO: David, you’ve seen this – rogue regimes who inflict massive pain on their people can often survive well past their sell-by date. They do it by stealing. They do it by oppression. They do it by having control of the military or the capacity to inflict kinetic harm on people. They put their people in information fear as well – that is, they have the apparatus that can communicate to their people and impose real emotional burdens on them. They threaten them. Regimes often can survive far longer than the people who are being harmed by them would prefer.

And we’ve done everything we can to deliver for the Venezuelan people a better outcome. It’s tragic that Maduro continues to hang on and inflict so much harm. I think – I think now, David, we’re up to 12 to 15 percent of the Venezuelan people have fled their country. That’s a very telling statistic when that many people decide they just can’t hang in there. They can’t stay where they want to be; they can’t be home. We are very hopeful that the Venezuelan people under President – acting President – excuse me – President Guaido will see the light of day, and we hope that day comes soon.

morse_telegraph_key.jpg

On New Years Day, Anniversary Of Defeat Of Batista, Trump Administration Sanctions Another Military-Controlled Bank In Cuba. More To Come?

United States Department of State
Washington DC

Removing the Cuban Military’s Grip from Cuba’s Banking Sector
01/01/2021 09:40 AM EST

Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State 

“Today, the Department of State is announcing the addition of Banco Financiero International S.A. (BFI) to the Cuba Restricted List, effective upon publication in early January. BFI is a Cuban military-controlled commercial bank that benefits directly from financial transactions at the expense of the Cuban people. The Cuban military uses BFI’s key role in foreign exchange to give military and state companies preferential access, secure advantageous exchange rates, and finance government-controlled projects that enrich the regime. The profits earned from these operations disproportionately benefit the Cuban military rather than independent Cuban entrepreneurs, furthering repression of the Cuban people and funding Cuba’s interference in Venezuela. President Trump has made it clear that he stands with the Cuban people in their longstanding struggle for freedom and against the communist regime in Havana. Adding BFI to the Cuba Restricted List furthers the Administration’s goal of preventing the Cuban military from controlling and benefiting from financial transactions that should instead benefit the Cuban people.” 

Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA) is a Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) of the Republic of Cuba-controlled umbrella enterprise with interests in the tourism, financial investment, import/export, and remittance sectors. GAESA’s portfolio includes businesses incorporated in Panama. 

Financiera Cimex S.A. (FINCIMEX) is a financial investment and remittance company owned by GAESA and incorporated in Panama.  FINCIMEX is authorized by the Central Bank of Cuba to finance export operations, conduct financial leasing operations, and handle commercial distribution of remittance cards.  FINCIMEX was the distribution partner in the Republic of Cuba for Denver, Colorado-based Western Union Company (2020 revenues approximately US$5.5 billion) which electronically delivered annually transfers of reportedly valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars from the United States to the Republic of Cuba.   

GAESA and FINCIMEX are already listed on the State Department’s List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba (“Cuba Restricted List” or “CRL”).  The CRL is a list of entities and subentities “under the control of, or acting for or on behalf of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel with which direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba.” 

GAESA and FINCIMEX are already on the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons by Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), 31 C.F.R. part 515. 

Credit Card Usage  

Purchase, New York-based Mastercard Incorporated removed its restriction for the Republic of Cuba on 1 March 2015.  Financial institutions which authorized their Mastercard products (credit card and debit card) for use in the Republic of Cuba: Pompano Beach, Florida-based Stonegate Bank (2017 assets approximately US$2.9 billion); San Juan, Puerto Rico-based Banco Popular of Puerto Rico; and Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based Natbank.  Unknown is how usage of Mastercard products within the Republic of Cuba have are impacted by United States government decisions relating to FINCIMEX and BFI. 

Cuba Government Decisions 

The Republic of Cuba will need to continue to evaluate options relating to FINCIMEX and now BFI, including the sale or transfer of the subsidiary to a non-FAR-controlled Republic of Cuba government-operated entity, such as a financial institution (Banco de Crédito y Comercio S.A. (BANDEC), Banco Popular de Ahorro S.A. (BPA), Banco Internacional de Comercio S.A. (BICSA), and Banco Metropolitano S.A.(BM)) each of which could seamlessly absorb and maintain Fincimex operations.    

There is history for one Republic of Cuba government-operated financial institution transferring operations to another Republic of Cuba government-operated financial institution. 

From Banco Metropolitano S.A.: “(“BM”) is a Cuban commercial bank that has presence only in Havana.  Its corporate object is the pursuit of banking businesses, including but not limited to financial intermediation activities.  BM started its operations in 1996 with a Havana branch office specialized in the provision of banking services solely to the diplomatic community, as well as the foreign natural and legal persons who were residents in Cuba.  By resolution of Banco Central de Cuba (the Cuban Central Bank of “BCC,” for its Spanish acronym), BM’s corporate object, customer base, product portfolio and services were expanded effectively 2004 when BM acquired 30 offices hitherto held by Banco de Crédito y Comercio (“BANDEC,” for its Spanish acronym) and more than 50 offices hitherto held by Banco Popular de Ahorro (“BPA,” for its Spanish acronym), all located in Havana.  As a result, BM established a representative presence in every municipality of the province of Havana.”  

In 2015, BICSA, a member of Republic of Cuba government-operated Grupo Nuevo Banca SA, created by Corporate Charter No. 49 on 29 October 1993 and commenced operation on 3 January 1994, was vetted by the OFAC and approved for a correspondent banking relationship with Conway, Arkansas-based Home BancShares (2020 assets approximately US$14 billion) through its subsidiary Centennial Bank which in 2017 purchased Pompano Beach, Florida-based Stonegate Bank.   

Stonegate Bank  

In 2015, the OFAC authorized Pompano Beach, Florida-based Stonegate Bank (2017 assets approximately US$2.9 billion) to have an account with BICSA.  In 2017, Home BancShares through its Centennial Bank subsidiary purchased Pompano Beach, Florida-based Stonegate Bank.  

However, because the Obama Administration would not authorize BICSA under a license from the OFAC to have an account with Stonegate Bank, United States export-related funds were sent and received through Panama City, Panama-based Multibank, which had, but no longer has extensive dealings with the Republic of Cuba.    

From Bogota, Colombia-based Grupo Aval on 16 June 2020: “On May 25th, Banco de Bogotá, through its subsidiary Leasing Bogotá S.A. Panamá, acquired 96.6% of the ordinary shares of Multi Financial Group. As part of the acquisition process, MFG’s operation in Cuba was closed and as part of the transaction. Grupo Aval complies with OFAC regulations and doesn't have transactional relationships with Cuba.”