Title III Operational At 12:01 Am On 2 May 2019- First Lawsuit Expected Thursday
/Title III Operative At 12:01 Am- First Lawsuit Expected Today
What Might Plaintiffs Want?
Get Out
Give Us A Fee
Give Us A Percentage
Make Us Your Partner
At 12:01 am on 2 May 2019, the Trump Administration made operational Title III and further implemented Title IV of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”).
Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim 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.
Title IV restricts entry into the United States by individuals who have connectivity to unresolved certified claims or non-certified claims. One Canada-based company is currently subject to this provision based upon a certified claim.
What Plaintiffs May Seek From Courts
1) Ask Circuit Court to reduce court filing fee for Title III on the basis that it is unconstitutionally high- an unreasonable and arbitrary barrier to file a lawsuit.
“For filing an action brought under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, P.L. 104-114, 110 Stat. § 785 (1996), $6,548. (This fee is in addition to the filing fee prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) for instituting any civil action other than a writ of habeas corpus.). Related: 28 U.S. Code § 1914 - District court; filing and miscellaneous fees; rules of court (a) The clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350, except that on application for a writ of habeas corpus the filing fee shall be $5.”
2) Ask Circuit Court to rule that travel-related decisions by the Obama Administration (20 January 2009 to 20 January 2017) violated a provision of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000 which prohibits individuals subject to United States law from visiting the Republic of Cuba for the purpose of tourism. If successful, a Circuit Court ruling could provide a foundation for lawsuits against United States-based companies engaged in the provision of travel-related services (airlines, cruise lines, hotel management).
The statute within the TSREEA: “(b) Prohibition on travel relating to tourist activities (1) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, the Secretary of the Treasury, or any other Federal official, may not authorize the travel-related transactions listed in subsection (c) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, either by a general license or on a case-by-case basis by a specific license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for tourist activities. (2) Definition. In this subsection, the term ‘‘tourist activities’’ means any activity with respect to travel to, from, or within Cuba that is not expressly authorized in subsection (a) of this section, in any of paragraphs (1) through (12) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, or in any section referred to in any of such paragraphs (1) through (12) (as such sections were in effect on June 1, 2000). (Pub. L. 106–387, § 1(a) [title IX, § 910], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–71.)”
There are twelve (12) categories of travel authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury; the categories were codified into law by the TSREEA: 1) family visits 2) official business of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations 3) journalistic activity 4) professional research and professional meetings 5) educational activities 6) religious activities 7) public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions 8) support for the Cuban people 9) humanitarian projects 10) activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes 11) exportation, importation, or transmission of information or information materials and 12) certain authorized export transactions.
Travel to the Republic of Cuba for the purpose of tourism by individuals subject to United States law is prohibited by United States law- not by regulation and not by policy.
What Plaintiffs May Seek From Defendants (“Traffickers”)
1) Defendant to cease operation(s) in the Republic of Cuba;
2) Defendant to purchase asset(s) from Plaintiff;
3) Defendant pay to Plaintiff a percentage of all funds Defendant pays to Republic of Cuba government-operated entities. For example, rent, utilities, taxes, duties, product payments, etc.
For Travel-Related Defendants
A 2,000-passenger cruise ship docks at the Port of Havana or Port of Santiago de Cuba and pays US$70,000.00 in port fees. A Plaintiff wants 100% of the port fee or a percentage of the port fee.
The 2,000-passenger cruise ship has passengers paying US$2,000 per person; gross revenues exceeds US$4 million when adding food and beverage. A Plaintiff wants a percentage of the total revenue from each vessel that docks at the port.
A 200-passenger commercial aircraft lands at Jose Marti International Airport in Havana and pays US$500.00. A Plaintiff wants 100% of the landing fee or a percentage of the landing fee. The 200-passenger aircraft has passengers paying US$200.00 per person; gross revenues US$40,000.00. A Plaintiff wants a percentage of the total revenue from each flight that lands at the airport.
A 200-room hotel is located on land for which there is a certified claim or non-certified claim. The Plaintiff wants a percentage of all payments by management contract holder to Republic of Cuba government-operated entities. The gross annual revenues of the hotel are US$7 million. A Plaintiff wants a percentage of the gross revenues. A Plaintiff wants an equity share of the management contract.
For Real Estate Defendants
Defendant pay to Plaintiff a percentage of rent Plaintiff pays to Republic of Cuba government-operated entity for use of a structure/building/hotel/airline ticket office, etc.
For Exporters Of Products
Defendant pays to Plaintiff a percentage of the value of product exported from the Republic of Cuba.
Certified Claims Background
There are 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the USFCSC and have not been resolved for nearing sixty years. The USFCSC permitted interest to be accrued in the amount of 6% per annum; with the current value of the 5,913 certified claims approximately US$8,521,866,156.95.
The first asset to be expropriated by the Republic of Cuba was an oil refinery in 1960 owned by White Plains, New York-based Texaco, Inc., now a subsidiary of San Ramon, California-based Chevron Corporation (USFCSC: CU-1331/CU-1332/CU-1333 valued at US$56,196,422.73).
The largest certified claim (Cuban Electric Company) valued at US$267,568,413.62 is controlled by Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot, Inc. The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International. The smallest certified claim is by Sara W. Fishman in the amount of US$1.00 with reference to the Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust.
The two (2) largest certified claims total US$449,377,207.76, representing 24% of the total value of the certified claims. Thirty (30) certified claimants hold 56% of the total value of the certified claims. This concentration of value creates an efficient pathway towards a settlement.
Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 requires that an asset had a value of US$50,000.00 when expropriated by the Republic of Cuba without compensation to the original owner. Of the 5,913 certified claims, 913, or 15%, are valued at US$50,000.00 or more. Adjusted for inflation, US$50,000.00 (3.70% per annum) in 1960 has a 2019 value of approximately US$427,267.01. The USFCSC authorized 6% per annum, meaning the 2019 value of US$50,000.00 is approximately US$1,649,384.54.
The ITT Corporation Agreement
In July 1997, then-New York City, New York-based ITT Corporation and then-Amsterdam, the Netherlands-based STET International Netherlands N.V. signed an agreement whereby STET International Netherlands N.V. would pay approximately US$25 million to ITT Corporation for a ten-year right (after which the agreement could be renewed and was renewed) to use assets (telephone facilities and telephone equipment) within the Republic of Cuba upon which ITT Corporation has a certified claim valued at approximately US$130.8 million. ETECSA, which is now wholly-owned by the government of the Republic of Cuba, was a joint venture controlled by the Ministry of Information and Communications of the Republic of Cuba within which Amsterdam, the Netherlands-based Telecom Italia International N.V. (formerly Stet International Netherlands N.V.), a subsidiary of Rome, Italy-based Telecom Italia S.p.A. was a shareholder. Telecom Italia S.p.A., was at one time a subsidiary of Ivrea, Italy-based Olivetti S.p.A. The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International.
TITLE III--SEC. 302. LIABILITY FOR TRAFFICKING IN CONFISCATED PROPERTY CLAIMED BY UNITED STATES NATIONALS.
(a) Civil Remedy.-- (1) Liability for trafficking.--(A) Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person that, after the end of the 3-month period beginning on the effective date of this title, traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property for money damages in an amount equal to the sum of-- (i) the amount which is the greater of-- (I) the amount, if any, certified to the claimant by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, plus interest; (II) the amount determined under section 303(a)(2), plus interest; or (III) the fair market value of that property, calculated as being either the current value of the property, or the value of the property when confiscated plus interest, whichever is greater; and (ii) court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. (B) Interest under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be at the rate set forth in section 1961 of title 28, United States Code, computed by the court from the date of confiscation of the property involved to the date on which the action is brought under this subsection.
(2) Presumption in favor of the certified claims.--There shall be a presumption that the amount for which a person is liable under clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A) is the amount that is certified as described in subclause (I) of that clause. The presumption shall be rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence that the amount described in subclause (II) or (III) of that clause is the appropriate amount of liability under that clause.
(3) Increased liability.--(A) Any person that traffics in confiscated property for which liability is incurred under paragraph (1) shall, if a United States national owns a claim with respect to that property which was certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, be liable for damages computed in accordance with subparagraph (C).
(B) If the claimant in an action under this subsection (other than a United States national to whom subparagraph (A) applies) provides, after the end of the 3-month period described in paragraph (1) notice to-- (i) a person against whom the action is to be initiated, or (ii) a person who is to be joined as a defendant in the action, at least 30 days before initiating the action or joining such person as a defendant, as the case may be, and that person, after the end of the 30- day period beginning on the date the notice is provided, traffics in the confiscated property that is the subject of the action, then that person shall be liable to that claimant for damages computed in accordance with subparagraph (C).
(C) Damages for which a person is liable under subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B) are money damages in an amount equal to the sum of-- (i) the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A)(ii), and (ii) 3 times the amount determined applicable under paragraph (1)(A)(i). (D) Notice to a person under subparagraph (B)-- (i) shall be in writing; (ii) shall be posted by certified mail or personally delivered to the person; and (iii) shall contain-- (I) a statement of intention to commence the action under this section or to join the person as a defendant (as the case may be), together with the reasons therefor; (II) a demand that the unlawful trafficking in the claimant's property cease immediately; and (III) a copy of the summary statement published under paragraph (8). (4) Applicability.--(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, actions may be brought under paragraph (1) with respect to property confiscated before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) In the case of property confiscated before the date of the enactment of this Act, a United States national may not bring an action under this section on a claim to the confiscated property unless such national acquires ownership of the claim before such date of enactment. (C) In the case of property confiscated on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, a United States national who, after the property is confiscated, acquires ownership of a claim to the property by assignment for value, may not bring an action on the claim under this section.
(5) Treatment of certain actions.--(A) In the case of a United States national who was eligible to file a claim with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but did not so file the claim, that United States national may not bring an action on that claim under this section. (B) In the case of any action brought under this section by a United States national whose underlying claim in the action was timely filed with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but was denied by the Commission, the court shall accept the findings of the Commission on the claim as conclusive in the action under this section.
(C) A United States national, other than a United States national bringing an action under this section on a claim certified under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, may not bring an action on a claim under this section before the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(D) An interest in property for which a United States national has a claim certified under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 may not be the subject of a claim in an action under this section by any other person. Any person bringing an action under this section whose claim has not been so certified shall have the burden of establishing for the court that the interest in property that is the subject of the claim is not the subject of a claim so certified. (6) Inapplicability of act of state doctrine.--No court of the United States shall decline, based upon the act of state doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action brought under paragraph (1) .
(7) Licenses not required.--(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action under this section may be brought and may be settled, and a judgment rendered in such action may be enforced, without obtaining any license or other permission from any agency of the United States, except that this paragraph shall not apply to the execution of a judgment against, or the settlement of actions involving, property blocked under the authorities of section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act that were being exercised on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the President before such date, and are being exercised on the date of the enactment of this Act.
LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format
LINK To Potential Targets Of Title III
LINK To Potential Targets Of Title IV
Royal Caribbean Cruises Chairman Discusses Cuba
/Travel Weekly
Secaucus, New Jersey
1 May 2019
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. chairman Richard Fain told investors that the effect of an announced change in the U.S. policy toward Cuba was hard to determine. In a teleconference call on first-quarter earnings, Fain commented on two Cuba-related questions.
As far as the possible travel policy changes announced in a speech by national security advisor John Bolton in Miami on April 17, Fain said, "At this point, we don't know if there will be changes, what those changes will be or to what extent they would impact us." Fain pointed out that only 3% of RCCL itineraries currently go to Cuba.
Bolton's comments led some to believe that travel to Cuba will be further restricted, possibly including cruises, but until amendments to the rules are published by the U.S. Treasury, the travel rules remain as is.
Fain also commented on the administration's changed stance towards enforcement of the Helms-Burton law regarding pre-Castro era ownership of property in Cuba. Fain said the change is likely to prompt litigation with companies that do business in Cuba. "We believe we have solid defenses and are not expecting to change our itineraries as a result," he said.
4 June 2019
Bloomberg News reported: “Cruise lines were able to charge higher prices for trips to Cuba than to other destinations, increasing the island’s financial importance, according to Instinet analyst Harry Curtis. He said the country accounts for about 4% of Norwegian’s capacity, as much as 3% for Royal Caribbean and 1% for Carnival. That [ending cruise ship operations to the Republic of Cuba] could wipe out 15 cents a share from Norwegian’s profit, he estimates. Royal Caribbean would lose 10 cents a share, while Carnival’s earnings stand to decrease by as much as 5 cents a share, he said.”
OFAC Telegraphing Expansion Of Document Requirements For Travel, Remittances To Cuba; Impacting 5.75 Million
/The notification is required as anticipated changes will result in an increase record keeping requirements for entities/individuals engaged in remittance forwarding and the provision of travel-related services:
AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning OFAC's information collection requirements for persons using remittance forwarding, travel, or carrier service providers for remittances or travel to Cuba, which are contained within the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before July 1, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments. Refer to Docket Number OFAC-2019-0002 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers 1505-0167 and 1505-0168.
Fax: Attn: Request for Comments (Remittance Forwarding Services and Travel and Carrier Services to Cuba) 202-622-1759.
Mail: Attn: Request for Comments (Remittance Forwarding Services and Travel and Carrier Services to Cuba), Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220. Refer to Docket Number OFAC-2019-0002 and the OMB control numbers 1505-0167 and 1505-0168.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and the Federal Register Doc. number that appears at the end of this document. Comments received will be made available to the public via regulations.gov or upon request, without change and including any personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Remittance Forwarding Services and Travel and Carrier Services to Cuba.
OMB Number: 1505-0167 and 1505-0168.
Abstract: The information in 1505-0167 is a certification required pursuant to § 515.572(a)(4) of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515 (CACR) by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who make authorized remittances to persons in Cuba. OFAC will use the information to monitor compliance with regulations governing authorized family and inherited remittances, donative remittances, remittances to religious organizations, remittances to students in Cuba pursuant to an educational license, emigration remittances, and periodic remittances from blocked Start Printed Page 18342accounts as well as the provision of remittance forwarding services.
The information in 1505-0168 is a certification required pursuant to § 515.572(a)(4) of the CACR by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who engage in authorized travel to Cuba. OFAC will use the information to monitor compliance with regulations governing persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including travel agents, airlines and vessel operators, providing authorized travel and carrier services with respect to Cuba and persons who travel to Cuba.
The record keeping burden associated with these collections is addressed in 1505-0164.
The burden estimates herein reflect the current CACR. On April 17, 2019, National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton announced forthcoming regulatory changes that may impact these estimates. Because those regulatory changes have not yet been issued, however, it is not possible to reflect any potential changes to the relevant burden estimates. OFAC will update the relevant burden estimates as necessary and feasible.
Current Actions: OFAC requires that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction providing remittance forwarding services or travel or carrier services authorized pursuant to 31 CFR 515.572 retain for at least five years from the date of the transaction a certification from each customer indicating the section of 31 CFR part 515 or, if relevant, the number of the specific license, that authorizes the customer to send the remittance to Cuba or that authorizes the customer to travel to Cuba, respectively. In addition, the service provider must maintain on file the names and addresses of individual remitters or travelers, the number and amount of each remittance, and that name and address of each recipient, as applicable.
Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collections.
Affected Public: Individuals, households, businesses, non-governmental organizations, and banking institutions. The likely respondents and record-keepers affected by this collection of information are persons using U.S. remittance forwarding services and U.S. travel and carrier services.
For 1505-0167 (remittance forwarding services):
Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,000,000 respondents; 7,000,000 total filings.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 minute.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 116,667 hours.
For 1505-0168 (travel and carrier services):
Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,750,000.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 minute.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 29,167 hours.
Request for Comments
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Approved: April 24, 2019.
Andrea Gacki,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. 2019-08647 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
LINK To CFR Citation
Rep. Charlie Crist (D- 13th Florida) Visits Cuba- Why No Information On Congressional Internet Page?
/The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba has published taken on 26 April 2019 of Representative Charlie Crist (D- 13th Florida), a member of the United States House of Representatives, with H.E. Bruno Rodriguez, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba.
As of today (updated through 7:00 am on 29 April 2019), there is no information about the visit at the Internet site at the United States House of Representatives for Mr. Crist: https://crist.house.gov/
Questions: 1) Why was the visit secret? and 2) what was the source of the funding for the visit?
During the late evening of 28 April 2019, Republic of Cuba government-operated Granma reported that the visit was under the auspice of the Washington DC-based Center for Democracy in the Americas. (LINK to article).
LINK To List Of U.S. Government Officials & Members Of The United States Congress Having Visited Cuba
Advocacy Group Did Not Always Oppose Having Others Pay Certified Claimants; Removing Responsibility From Cuba
/On 17 April 2019, the Washington DC-based advocacy group issued a statement in opposition to the decision by the Trump Administration to implement on 2 May 2019 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 where the owner of the certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using the asset.
“This lets the Cuban government off the hook and shifts the burden to American, European and Canadian companies. American companies and our closest allies will now be paying instead of the Cuban government.”
However, the advocacy group has not always opposed shifting the burden of repayment of the certified claims from the Republic of Cuba to others...
In 2017, the advocacy group supported proposed language to legislation (H.R. 525) introduced by The Honorable Rick Crawford (R- 1st District, Arkansas) to impose a 2% tax upon United States exports of agricultural commodities and food products to the Republic of Cuba to compensate the 5,913 certified claimants.
As reported on 27 May 2017 in The Miami Herald: “Every transaction will have a two percent excise fee that would be collected and administered to certified claimants through the Treasury Department,” he said. “The 2% user fee functions like an excise tax on the total sale, and it is paid by the seller of the agricultural product,” added a staffer from Crawford’s office…. “an end thanks to an “elegant” solution that is part of proposed legislation: a 2 percent user fee on agricultural products sold to the island that would be used to compensate those who have certified claims of properties confiscated by the Cuban government.”
The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSREEA) authorized the export of agricultural commodities and food products from the United States to the Republic of Cuba on a cash-in-advance basis.
The following were the “elegant solution” calculations, then deemed rational, by Representative Crawford and the advocacy group:
In 2016, the value of TSREEA-related exports was US$232,064,645.00; and 2% was US$4,641,292.90. If the highest value TSREEA-related export year (2001 onward) is used, US$710,086,323.00 in 2008, which was not surpassed in 2016, 2017 or 2018 or thus far in 2019; then 2% was US$14,201,726.46.
At that rate, repayment of the original value of the certified claims, US$1,902,202,284.95, would take approximately 400 years based upon the 2016 value and approximately 133 years based upon the 2008 value.
If the US$8,521,866,236.58 approximate current value of the certified claims is used, the repayment schedule ranges from approximately 501 years (2008) to 1,836 years (2016).
There are credible individuals, organizations and other entities who estimate unfettered TSREEA-related (meaning no restrictions) exports to the Republic of Cuba could be US$2 billion annually.
Using that valuation, the 2% fee would be US$40 million; and certified claimants could be repaid in approximately 47 years to 200 years depending upon which certified claim total value is used in the calculation.
The proposed legislative wording by Representative Crawford and supported by the advocacy group and others was eventually withdrawn due to opposition by United States exporters. It should have never been introduced in the United States Congress- and should have never received support from advocacy groups.
Previously Published Analyses
2% Tax on US Exports To Cuba To Compensate Certified Claimants Is Foolish
5 May 2017
When A Politician Negotiates A Business Deal
Unintended (For One Side) Consequences To Find “A Proper Path Forward”
Not A Poison Pill- A Poison Fee
How To Define An “Elegant Solution”
133 Years to 1,723 Years For Repayment
The Hurry To Lose? Repeating The Mistake Of 6,000 Days Ago
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2017/5/29/0t6ts1bv3by20ot3mi9bydvdqv3e86?rq=crawford
A Cuban-American Republican Congressman Is Cuba’s New US$8 Billion Best Friend; President Trump Can't Get More Than 2 Cents On The Dollar?
4 June 2017
A Cuban-American Republican Congressman Is Cuba’s New US$8 Billion Best Friend
Cuba Pays Nothing & U.S. Pays Everything
President Trump Can’t Negotiate More Than US$.02 Cents On The Dollar? Really?
An Illegal Export Tax
Fifth Amendment Issues
Should Riceland Foods Pay Starwood Hotels
Should Cargill Pay Texaco
Should Grove Enterprises Pay InterContinental Hotels
Will Cuba Importers Have Access To US Government Financing Programs
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2017/6/4/xagpzv70sjpnask50nzx9tbfyn5pp0?rq=Crawford
Rep. Crawford Withdraws Legislation.... Good News For Certified Claimants
28 June 2017
Certified Claims Background
There are 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the USFCSC and have not been resolved for nearing sixty years. The USFCSC permitted interest to be accrued in the amount of 6% per annum; with the current value of the 5,913 certified claims approximately US$8,521,866,156.95.
The first asset to be expropriated by the Republic of Cuba was an oil refinery in 1960 owned by White Plains, New York-based Texaco, Inc., now a subsidiary of San Ramon, California-based Chevron Corporation (USFCSC: CU-1331/CU-1332/CU-1333 valued at US$56,196,422.73).
The largest certified claim (Cuban Electric Company) valued at US$267,568,413.62 is controlled by Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot, Inc. The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International. The smallest certified claim is by Sara W. Fishman in the amount of US$1.00 with reference to the Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust.
The two (2) largest certified claims total US$449,377,207.76, representing 24% of the total value of the certified claims. Thirty (30) certified claimants hold 56% of the total value of the certified claims. This concentration of value creates an efficient pathway towards a settlement.
Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 requires that an asset had a value of US$50,000.00 when expropriated by the Republic of Cuba without compensation to the original owner. Of the 5,913 certified claims, 913, or 15%, are valued at US$50,000.00 or more. Adjusted for inflation, US$50,000.00 (3.70% per annum) in 1960 has a 2019 value of approximately US$427,267.01. The USFCSC authorized 6% per annum, meaning the 2019 value of US$50,000.00 is approximately US$1,649,384.54.
The ITT Corporation Agreement
In July 1997, then-New York City, New York-based ITT Corporation and then-Amsterdam, the Netherlands-based STET International Netherlands N.V. signed an agreement whereby STET International Netherlands N.V. would pay approximately US$25 million to ITT Corporation for a ten-year right (after which the agreement could be renewed and was renewed) to use assets (telephone facilities and telephone equipment) within the Republic of Cuba upon which ITT Corporation has a certified claim valued at approximately US$130.8 million. ETECSA, which is now wholly-owned by the government of the Republic of Cuba, was a joint venture controlled by the Ministry of Information and Communications of the Republic of Cuba within which Amsterdam, the Netherlands-based Telecom Italia International N.V. (formerly Stet International Netherlands N.V.), a subsidiary of Rome, Italy-based Telecom Italia S.p.A. was a shareholder. Telecom Italia S.p.A., was at one time a subsidiary of Ivrea, Italy-based Olivetti S.p.A. The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International.
LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format
Have Cruise Lines Sunk Themselves With Itineraries- Defining "Meaningful" For Trump Administration?
/Have Cruise Lines Sunk Themselves?
Changing Cruise Line Itineraries May Influence Decision
What Defines “Meaningful Interaction”
Audit Could Require Millions Of Pieces Of Paper
Obama Administration Elasticity
Trump Administration Constraint
The Obama Administration was not intent upon enforcing who could not travel to the Republic of Cuba because it did not support the statute which prohibited travel for the purpose of tourism. The Obama Administration permitted an elasticizing of the twelve (12) statutorily-authorized definitions as to who could visit the Republic of Cuba.
The Trump Administration is nearing the end of an internal analysis: If two 3,000-passenger cruise ships arrive to the Port of Havana, how do 6,000 passengers have, as regulations for the statute require, “meaningful interaction between the traveler and individuals in Cuba” during a several hour visit? What does a Republic of Cuba national gain from the brief encounter other than money? Isn’t a cruise ship, by definition, a vehicle to transport and service tourists? Isn’t a cruise ship passenger, by definition, a tourist- regardless of whether they believe it so? Can “meaningful interaction” be reasonably defined? Is the definition a function of the individual rather than the government?
When Miami, Florida-based Carnival Corporation & plc, commenced cruises on 1 May 2016 to the Republic of Cuba, it used the 704-passenger Adonia and the itineraries were licensed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury and managed through its Fathom subsidiary which specialized in travel with a social impact. Importantly, the cruise itinerary only included the Republic of Cuba- it was not a component of a multi-country cruise which are designed for tourism. Given a lack of marketplace interest, soon the Fathom cruises to the Republic of Cuba ceased and the Republic of Cuba was increasingly included on regularly-scheduled mainline cruise ship itineraries, but with on-shore excursions within the Republic of Cuba that were marketed to be in compliance with OFAC regulations.
Since that 1 May 2016 inaugural cruise by the Adonia, there are few cruises by any company, including Miami, Florida-based Norwegian Cruise Line and Miami, Florida-based Royal Caribbean International, that only have the Republic of Cuba as the multi-day cruise destination.
According to the Republic of Cuba, in 2018 the three-largest United States-based cruise lines and smaller cruise lines delivered more than 800,000 passengers to the Republic of Cuba. The majority of passengers traveled on cruise itineraries that included multiple countries.
If cruise lines could not be profitable with Republic of Cuba-only cruises, then is the message to the OFAC that the passengers are not focusing upon the Republic of Cuba? If the Republic of Cuba is one of two or three or four countries on a cruise itinerary, what percentage of passengers would not participate on the cruise if the Republic of Cuba was excluded? That data will likely be important for the cruise lines to compile.
The OFAC authorized (specific licenses and general licenses) the cruises under the “educational travel” provision within the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000. The licensee is the cruise line rather than the passenger; the cruise line has potential liability as the passenger is reasonably relying upon the licensee to operate within the confines of United States laws, regulations and policies. To mitigate liability, cruise lines have been requiring passengers to self-certify that they adhere to the statutory and regulatory requirements of the TSREEA.
United States airlines are not considered licensees and passengers traveling from the United States to the Republic of Cuba are self-certifying that they adhere to one of the twelve authorized categories of travel to the Republic of Cuba. The third-party companies that are processing the self-certifications are also not licensees. The passenger is wholly-responsible for compliance with the OFAC regulations.
The OFAC can reach back five years to seek documentary evidence of compliance. Because the OFAC has not yet sought action against United States-based companies engaged in providing travel-related services does not exempt compliance. Individuals remain liable for their actions.
All general and specific licenses issued by the OFAC are subject to change or revocation at any time should the terms of the license no longer be deemed as consistent with United States policy.
The Trump Administration may require the airlines, cruise lines and tour operators to provide the documentation since 1 May 2016 from each passenger who has traveled to the Republic of Cuba under their license. That’s potentially millions of pieces of paper subject to audit by the OFAC… and how long would that take to complete? And, would the cruises be permitted to operate during the audit process?
12 Categories Of Permitted Travel
There are twelve (12) categories of travel authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury; the categories were codified into law by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSREEA).
The authorized categories are: 1) family visits 2) official business of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations 3) journalistic activity 4) professional research and professional meetings 5) educational activities 6) religious activities 7) public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions 8) support for the Cuban people 9) humanitarian projects 10) activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes 11) exportation, importation, or transmission of information or information materials and 12) certain authorized export transactions.
Travel to the Republic of Cuba for the purpose of tourism by individuals subject to United States law is prohibited by United States law- not by regulation and not by policy.
The statute within the TSREEA: “(b) Prohibition on travel relating to tourist activities (1) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, the Secretary of the Treasury, or any other Federal official, may not authorize the travel-related transactions listed in subsection (c) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, either by a general license or on a case-by-case basis by a specific license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for tourist activities. (2) Definition. In this subsection, the term ‘‘tourist activities’’ means any activity with respect to travel to, from, or within Cuba that is not expressly authorized in subsection (a) of this section, in any of paragraphs (1) through (12) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, or in any section referred to in any of such paragraphs (1) through (12) (as such sections were in effect on June 1, 2000). (Pub. L. 106–387, § 1(a) [title IX, § 910], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–71.)”
From The OFAC:
“What is individual people-to-people travel, and how does the President’s announcement impact this travel authorization?
Individual people-to-people travel is educational travel that: (i) does not involve academic study pursuant to a degree program; and (ii) does not take place under the auspices of an organization that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact. The President instructed Treasury to issue regulations that will end individual people-to-people travel. The announced changes do not take effect until the new regulations are issued.
Will group people-to-people travel still be authorized?
Yes. Group people-to-people travel is educational travel not involving academic study pursuant to a degree program that takes place under the auspices of an organization that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact. Travelers utilizing this travel authorization must: (i) maintain a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that are intended to enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities, and that will result in meaningful interaction between the traveler and individuals in Cuba; and (ii) be accompanied by an employee, consultant, or agent of the sponsoring organization, who will ensure that each traveler maintains a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities. In addition, the predominant portion of the activities engaged in by individual travelers must not be with prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba or prohibited members of the Cuban Communist Party (as defined in the regulations). Once OFAC issues the new regulations, new individual people-to-people travel will not be authorized.
Will organizations subject to U.S. jurisdiction that sponsor exchanges to promote people-to-people contact be required to apply to OFAC for a specific license?
No. To the extent that proposed travel falls within the scope of an existing general license, including group people-to-people educational travel, persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction may proceed with sponsoring such travel without applying to OFAC for a specific license. It is OFAC’s policy not to grant applications for a specific license authorizing transactions where a general license is applicable.”
20. What constitutes “support for the Cuban people” for generally authorized travel and other transactions? This general license authorizes, subject to conditions, travel-related transactions and other transactions that are intended to provide support for the Cuban people, which include activities of recognized human rights organizations; independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy; and individuals and non-governmental organizations that promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba. In accordance with the NSPM, OFAC is amending this general license to require that each traveler utilizing this authorization engage in a full-time schedule of activities that enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities and that result in meaningful interactions with individuals in Cuba. OFAC is also amending this general license to exclude from the authorization certain direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the State Department’s Cuba Restricted List. The traveler’s schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full-time schedule in Cuba. For a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 CFR §515.574
LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format
Could Trump Administration Change U.S. Travel Rules For Cuba By Accepting Cuba's Visa?
/Will Trump Administration Cite Cuba “Tourist Card” As Defense For Travel Changes?
Was Travel Lawful?
What Defines “Meaningful Interaction”
Obama Administration Elasticity
Trump Administration Constraint
Might the Trump Administration accept the “REPUBLIC DE CUBA VISA – TARJETA DEL TURISTA” (Tourist Card) as proof that individuals subject to United States jurisdiction are engaging in unlawful activities when visiting the Republic of Cuba? Or, is it only a trope?
If visas issued by the Republic of Cuba indicate individuals subject to United States jurisdiction arriving to the Republic of Cuba by regularly-scheduled airline flights from the United States and other countries and by cruise ships from the United States and other countries are “tourists,” then why should the United States government dispute that definition?
United States travelers who obtain “tourist” visas are acknowledging their status, so is it logical for the Trump Administration to accept that acknowledgement? Travelers would counter that regardless of how their travel is characterized by the Republic of Cuba, they would never accept that that constitutes an admission of unlawful activities.
Since travel to the Republic of Cuba for the purpose of tourism is illegal under provisions of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSREEA), the Trump Administration may argue it is enforcing the statute- and certain travelers subject to United States jurisdiction seeking and receiving visas from the Republic of Cuba which reflect a tourist status are in violation of United States law.
There would seem, then, to be a remedy- the Republic of Cuba creates a Visitor Card for use by individuals subject to United States law. The Visitor Card would include check-off options for one of the twelve (12) authorized categories of travel to the Republic of Cuba. Unknown whether the cruise lines and the airlines and the tour operators have sought a such a change.
For the Trump Administration: If an individual subject to United States law seeks a Tourist Card, makes payment for a Tourist Card, receives a Tourist Card, uses a Tourist Card for entry to the Republic of Cuba, is permitted to enter the Republic of Cuba using a Tourist Card, and departs the Republic of Cuba using a Tourist Card, then logic to believe that the individual subject to United States jurisdiction has engaged in unlawful activity.
A question to be resolved: What matters- how the Republic of Cuba designates a traveler or what the traveler does while in the Republic of Cuba?
The Trump Administration believes that group activity itineraries created by cruise lines and tour operators are not in compliance with the TSREEA and activity itineraries created by individuals are not in compliance with the TSREEA.
For the Trump Administration, both the designation by the Republic of Cuba and the activities by travelers while in the Republic of Cuba may be used to further restrict who can travel to the Republic of Cuba.
The Obama Administration was not intent upon enforcing who could not travel to the Republic of Cuba because it did not support the statute which prohibited travel relating to tourism. The Obama Administration permitted an elasticizing of the definitions as to who could visit the Republic of Cuba. The Trump Administration seeks to constrict travel to the Republic of Cuba.
Important for travelers to note that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury may reach back five years to seek documentary evidence of compliance.
12 Categories Of Permitted Travel
There are twelve (12) categories of travel authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury; the categories were codified into law by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSREEA).
The authorized categories are: 1) family visits 2) official business of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations 3) journalistic activity 4) professional research and professional meetings 5) educational activities 6) religious activities 7) public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions 8) support for the Cuban people 9) humanitarian projects 10) activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes 11) exportation, importation, or transmission of information or information materials and 12) certain authorized export transactions.
Travel to the Republic of Cuba for the purpose of tourism by individuals subject to United States law is prohibited by United States law- not by regulation and not by policy.
The statute within the TSREEA: “(b) Prohibition on travel relating to tourist activities (1) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, the Secretary of the Treasury, or any other Federal official, may not authorize the travel-related transactions listed in subsection (c) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, either by a general license or on a case-by-case basis by a specific license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for tourist activities. (2) Definition. In this subsection, the term ‘‘tourist activities’’ means any activity with respect to travel to, from, or within Cuba that is not expressly authorized in subsection (a) of this section, in any of paragraphs (1) through (12) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, or in any section referred to in any of such paragraphs (1) through (12) (as such sections were in effect on June 1, 2000). (Pub. L. 106–387, § 1(a) [title IX, § 910], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–71.)”
From The OFAC (2017):
“What is individual people-to-people travel, and how does the President’s announcement impact this travel authorization?
Individual people-to-people travel is educational travel that: (i) does not involve academic study pursuant to a degree program; and (ii) does not take place under the auspices of an organization that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact. The President instructed Treasury to issue regulations that will end individual people-to-people travel. The announced changes do not take effect until the new regulations are issued.
Will group people-to-people travel still be authorized?
Yes. Group people-to-people travel is educational travel not involving academic study pursuant to a degree program that takes place under the auspices of an organization that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact. Travelers utilizing this travel authorization must: (i) maintain a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that are intended to enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities, and that will result in meaningful interaction between the traveler and individuals in Cuba; and (ii) be accompanied by an employee, consultant, or agent of the sponsoring organization, who will ensure that each traveler maintains a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities. In addition, the predominant portion of the activities engaged in by individual travelers must not be with prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba or prohibited members of the Cuban Communist Party (as defined in the regulations). Once OFAC issues the new regulations, new individual people-to-people travel will not be authorized.
Will organizations subject to U.S. jurisdiction that sponsor exchanges to promote people-to-people contact be required to apply to OFAC for a specific license?
No. To the extent that proposed travel falls within the scope of an existing general license, including group people-to-people educational travel, persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction may proceed with sponsoring such travel without applying to OFAC for a specific license. It is OFAC’s policy not to grant applications for a specific license authorizing transactions where a general license is applicable.”
20. What constitutes “support for the Cuban people” for generally authorized travel and other transactions? This general license authorizes, subject to conditions, travel-related transactions and other transactions that are intended to provide support for the Cuban people, which include activities of recognized human rights organizations; independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy; and individuals and non-governmental organizations that promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba. In accordance with the NSPM, OFAC is amending this general license to require that each traveler utilizing this authorization engage in a full-time schedule of activities that enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities and that result in meaningful interactions with individuals in Cuba. OFAC is also amending this general license to exclude from the authorization certain direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the State Department’s Cuba Restricted List. The traveler’s schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full-time schedule in Cuba. For a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 CFR §515.574
LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format
U.S. Department Of State Updates Cuba Restricted List
/“The Department of State is publishing an update to its List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba (Cuba Restricted List) with which direct financial transactions are generally prohibited under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR). This Cuba Restricted List is also considered during review of license applications submitted to the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).“
The United States Department of State has updated the Cuba Restricted List and published the information in the Federal Register.
The United States Department of State Internet site:
U.S. Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Increase 3.5% In February; Total Up 13.6% Compared To 2018
/ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
April 2019
February 2019 Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Increase 3.5%- 1
Food/Ag Exports Up 13.6% Compared To 2018- 1
Cuba Ranked 52nd of 229 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
February 2019 Healthcare Product Exports US$6,888.00- 2
February 2019 Humanitarian Donations US$581,585.00- 3
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue To Increase- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 16
FEBRUARY 2019 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA INCREASE 3.5%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in February 2019 were US$27,048,523.00 compared to US$26,122,933.00 in February 2018 and US$18,145,564.00 in February 2017.
United States exports from January 2019 through February 2019 were US$50,933,209.00 compared to US$44,803,278.00 from January 2018 through February 2019, representing an increase of 13.6%.
The export of artwork (paintings, drawings, engravings, sculptures, etc.) from the Republic of Cuba to the United States in February 2018 was US$503,387.00.
The 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
Karadeniz Of Turkey Delivering Floating Power Plant To Cuba For 51-Month Contract
/From The Republic of Cuba:
Ankara, Apr 10 (Prensa Latina) The agreement between Cuba and the Turkish company Karadeniz Holding put a floating power plant on the way to the port of Mariel, diplomatic sources informed Prensa Latina this Wednesday.
In the ceremony of departure of the ship, named Karadeniz Baris Bey, were present the technical director of the Electrical Union of Cuba (UNE), Lázaro Guerra; and the ambassador of Cuba in the country, Luis Amorós Núñez; and the president and vice-president of the owner company, Osman and Orhan Karadeniz.
In this way, Cuba becomes part of the group of 9 countries that have floating facilities for the production of electricity, built by the Turkish group, and will be the first in Latin America to be able to participate in this innovative experience.
The ship departed from the port of Yalova, in the sea of Marmara, in western Turkey, where it was built in the Karmarine shipyards, and upon its arrival on the island the power plant will be connected to the grid to supply the National Electric System of Cuba for a period of 4 years.
From The EEOC On 31 March 2019:
The February 2019 issue of The Turkish Perspective, distributed to passengers traveling on Istanbul, Turkey-based Turkish Airlines, included an article on page 20 about Istanbul, Turkey-based Karadeniz Holding and its “Karpowership” project in the Republic of Cuba.
The title of the article was “The Floating Energy Hub Of The ‘One World’” Karadeniz Holding is taking Turkey’s technology to other countries with it’s global brand Karpowership. As of 2018, it has become the company with the world’s largest floating power plant fleet with 15 energy ships with an installed capacity of 2,800 MW.”
“Lastly, in October 2018, Karpowership expanded to South America and signed a contract with Energoimport, part of the Ministry of Energy of Cuba [Republic of Cuba government-operated Union Electrica], to provide electricity of 160 MW for 51-months. This is a crucial step in the Power of Friendship project, as Karpowership continues to spread ability to access economical electricity around the world.”
Unknowns: Is Energoimport paying the full cost of the service? Why is the service contract for 51-months? Why is the service contract for 160 MW? Where will the vessel be docked in the Republic of Cuba?
Response from Karadeniz Holding: “The details of our project are not fixed, still in the works, we will reach back out to you once our full project parameters are finalized.” Karadeniz Holding had sought an employee to manage its operations in the Republic of Cuba.
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/3/31/rbvjp97hn81sa5mgnqmg3m9t8yq75p
Four Years Later, What Did NY Governor Cuomo's 27-Hour Visit To Cuba Accomplish?
/Four Years Later…. What Did New York State Companies Get For Governor Cuomo’s Estimated US$150,000.00+ 27-Hour Visit To Cuba?
Was a US$10,000.000 “Advance” Trip Necessary If A Consultant Was Paid US$25,000.00?
What’s Happened- Where’s The Yogurt And Milk And Healthcare Products?
Why No Representatives From PANYNJ, NYSDAM?
Governor Staff To Company Ratio Was More Than 2:1
Why Has He Ignored Financial Institutions?
Four years (1,461 days) ago, The Honorable Andrew Cuomo (D), Governor of the State of New York, embarked on a twenty-seven (27) hour quixotic journey to the Republic of Cuba with a foundation anchored far more upon his focus to be the “first” governor to visit the archipelago since the 17 December 2014 statements by President Barack Obama and President Raul Castro than by his role as the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) of the State of New York.
To date, there have been no published reports of exports of products to the Republic of Cuba from the seven (7) companies participating in the 20 April 2015 to 21 April 2015 visit.
The Governor and his staff have embraced the “planting seeds” analogy… There are few seeds that do not create something within four years.
The planning process and follow-up to the April 2015 visit was the third-least transparent of the twenty-one (21) governors who visited the Republic of Cuba since 1999. The visits by West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin and Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant were the least transparent.
State Department Background Briefing For Foreign Press
/Senior State Department Official
U.S. Policy Towards Cuba
Background
Press Briefing
April 17, 2019
Moderator: Good morning, and greetings to everyone from the U.S. Department of State Media Hub of the Americas in Miami, Florida. I am Lydia Barraza, the Director of the Miami Media Hub and the Spanish-language spokesperson. I would like to welcome all of our callers who have dialed in from the United States, Latin America, and Europe.
Today we are joined by a Senior State Department Official who is speaking to us from Washington, DC to talk about U.S. policy towards Cuba. We have received questions in advance from some participants and we’ll be asking those along with the live questions. This call will be on background. That means that any statement needs to be attributed to a Senior State Department Official.
With that, I will turn it over to our speaker.
Senior State Department Official: Thanks very much, Lydia, and thanks to everyone for joining us. I know I’ve had the opportunity to speak with some of you before, and I’m pleased to have the opportunity to do so again.
As you likely know, Secretary Pompeo just announced his historic decision not to suspend Title III of the LIBERTAD Act. This decision will become effective on May 2nd. So first I’ll outline briefly what it means not to suspend Title III and the rationale behind the decision, and then I’m happy to take any questions.
Some quick background, under Title III, Congress gave U.S. nationals with a claim to confiscated property in Cuba the right to file a lawsuit against the people or companies who were trafficking in that property. But for more than 22 years, U.S. Presidents or Secretaries of State have suspended American’s rights under Title III which Congress authorized when both necessary to U.S. national interests and necessary to expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba.
Now our decision on Title III is fundamentally related to the actions of the Cuban regime. After suspending Title III for more than 22 years in a row we still have not seen Cuba transition to democracy. In fact the opposite is true. Cuba shows no sign that it will achieve democracy in the near future as the repressive political situation in Cuba has persisted. And even under a new leader in Cuba, nothing has fundamentally changed. The recent illegitimate constitutional referendum on February 24th simply entrenched the one-party rule in Cuba, and of course the human rights situation in Cuba remains abysmal.
But not only has the situation in Cuba worsened, Cuba also actively undermines democracy in the region as a whole. We’ve seen it export dictatorship, export torture, export arbitrary detentions, and export the harassment and intimidation of dissidents and opposition factors. And in all of these actions Cuba continues to prop up the former Maduro regime which denies Venezuelans their right to self-determination.
So under the Trump administration U.S. policy towards Cuba will reflect reality. Twenty-two years of suspending Title III has failed to advance the goal set forth by the legislation in the first place. Secretary Pompeo’s decision today recognizes the truth of that failure and enacts Congress’ common sense policy to starve the Cuban regime of the wealth it needs to hold onto power while simultaneously supporting the people of Cuba.
So ending the suspension of Title III sends a strong signal against trafficking in these confiscated properties as well as opens a path for U.S. claimants whose property was confiscated by the Cuban regime to seek compensation.
I’d just close by saying that starting with NSPM5, this administration has made clear its intent on holding the Cuban regime accountable for repression on the island and maligned activity overseas, while at the same time supporting the Cuban people. And this administration will not allow those trafficking in confiscated property off the hook for their complicity in the regime’s malign behavior.
With that, I am happy to take any questions that you may have.
Moderator: Thank you, Senior State Department Official. We will now begin the question and answer portion of today’s call.
The first question will go to the line of Lucia Leal from Efe News.
Question: Hi. Good morning. Thanks for doing this.
You said in your earlier press conference that the vast majority of European companies investing in Cuba shouldn’t worry about this, but some experts say that 90 percent of the property that was nationalized in Cuba after the Revolution actually belongs to Cubans who left for the United States. So if that’s true, this could potentially affect investment in the entire island. Do you have any reason to believe that’s not true? And if so, what guarantees do European companies have? Thank you.
Senior State Department Official: Thanks very much for the question.
The purpose of the legislation as it was originally passed was to ensure that there was justice for those who had their property illegally confiscated by the Cuban regime. So of course any European company, any American company, any company around the world that traffics in property that was confiscated by the regime does have the possibility of being hit by this legislation.
So I wouldn’t be comfortable giving an assessment on how many companies that applies to, but the LIBERTAD Act also does include certain conditions and requirements to bring an action under Title III. So in that instance we advise potential plaintiffs to consult with legal counsel.
Moderator: The next question was received in advance from Isabel Espronceda from the Office of Cuban Broadcasting in Miami. The question is:
Question: European Union officials have warned Secretary of State Pompeo that they are planning to start a case against the U.S. at the World Trade Organization over this issue. How is the United States preparing to respond?
Senior State Department Official: Thanks for that question as well.
I would just start by stressing that our relationship with our partners in Europe is very critical to this administration. We’ve consulted with them numerous times. We’ve taken into account their considerations and their concerns. I think its fair to say, and we’ve said this earlier, that we all agree on the broader strategy to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba. There is some disagreement on the tactics to get there.
And in terms of the next steps and whether the Europeans would be taking this to the World Trade Organization, I would just defer to them on their response and what their actions will be, and just simply reiterate that we here are implementing the laws passed by Congress.
Moderator: The following question comes from the question queue and the line of Andrei Sitov from TASS News Agency.
Question: -- you are working for the Cuban crisis, and [inaudible] what is your message to Moscow at this point?
Senior State Department Official: Sorry, what is the message to whom?
Question: What is the message to Russia, to Moscow? Because as you know, Moscow has longstanding relationship, partnership with Cuba.
Senior State Department Official: Thank you for that question.
With this legislation, with the implementation of this legislation we are not targeting any specific countries or specific companies. The Secretary has made very clear that this is a decision not to waive, that has no exceptions. So there is no direct targeting reflected here.
And in terms of the broader message that we’re trying to communicate writ large, it is the administration’s continued focus on holding the Cuban regime accountable for human rights abuses, and again, simultaneously supporting the people of Cuba in their fight for democracy.
Moderator: The following question was submitted in advance from Norah Gamez from the Miami Herald and [Inaudible] Herald. The question is:
Question: American companies on the island have been operating under a Treasury license. Is that enough to protect them from lawsuits under Title III?
Senior State Department Official: Once again, there are no exceptions to the implementation of Title III.
Moderator: The next question comes from the line of Danieo Benites from Channel 41, America TV.
Question: Good morning, thanks for the opportunity.
A few minutes ago the Secretary said Cuba is still [inaudible] . At this point the administration are considering putting back the [inaudible]. Is the [inaudible] a sponsor of [inaudible]?
Senior State Department Official: As was stated in today’s remarks earlier, this administration is very committed and clear-eyed in its focus on bringing human rights to Cuba. This decision is part of a long trajectory that started with NSPM5 and continues with the Cuba restricted list with this decision. I think you will continue to see decisions and announcements from this administration up to and until a moment when we have democracy in Cuba.
Moderator: The following question was submitted in advance from Mario Vallejo from Univision Miami.
Question: What is the position of the government of the United States on the threats that the European Union is going to take action if the Helms-Burton Law is activated? Similarly, we have another question received from Rocio Martinez Posada from Europa Press. Are you going to activate the Helms-Burton Act with complete effects? The European Union is considering legal action with the WTO. Are you prepared for that? How would you answer that? So further questions on this issue with the relationship with the EU.
Senior State Department Official: Thanks very much for that. I think we’ve covered most of those questions. The decision today is with respect to Title III of the Helms-Burton Act. And in terms of the World Trade Organization, once again, we defer to the Europeans as to what their next steps will be.
Moderator: The following question comes from the question queue. Nicolas Gutierrez, and Nicolas, could you also clarify the name of your outlet when you ask your question.
Question: Yes. Thank you.
The guidelines require a notice to be formally sent to the trafficker, and if the trafficker does not respond within 30 days then the damages to be sought under the Title III action becomes [inaudible] damages. I just want to confirm that that is still the structure envisioned with this full implementation of Title III, with no exceptions, which we thank the administration for today.
Senior State Department Official: We would defer any specific questions like that to any legal counsel.
Question: Thank you.
Moderator: The next question comes from the question queue from the line of Anna Vargas from W Radio Colombia.
Question: Hi, thank you so much for your time.
How far is the U.S. willing to go after implementing this Title III, but how far is it willing to go to pressure Cuba into limiting the island support towards the regime in Venezuela?
Senior State Department Official: Thank you for that question.
We have already begun to undertake a number of actions when it comes to Cuba’s role in Venezuela. As mentioned, this is based off of the Cuban regime’s activities, both inside Cuba as well as its actions inside Venezuela.
So we have been very clear on our intent to ratchet up that pressure. We’ve also been clear that we’re monitoring the impact, the recent suspensions had on bringing about meaningful reform in Cuba. And we have seen none of those things.
In addition, I would just say that this administration has already come out with a number of sanctions and designations specifically related to Cuba’s, the relationship between Cuba and Venezuela, so that again is an indication that we are willing to ratchet up the pressure with respect to Cuba’s foreign intervention in that country.
Moderator: The following question was submitted in advance from [Inaudible].
Question: Internationally there is a lot spoken about a hypothetical military intervention in Venezuela, but there is already Russian military personnel, Iranian support, and they say thousands of Cuban agents. Is the military intervention already done? How can it be possible to break the Cuban support to the Maduro regime? Are there any extra steps against Cuba based on their support for the Maduro regime?
Senior State Department Official: Thank you for that question. We would agree, there definitely is military intervention in Venezuela. It’s not on the part of President Juan Guaido or the United States. It is uniquely on the part of former regime leader Nicolas Maduro, the Cubans, the Russians, and the Iranians. It is something that we do not accept. The Lima Group recently announced that they do not accept this intervention. It is against all of the principles of non-intervention that are held so dear to the people of the Western Hemisphere. So we absolutely agree with that assertion.
With respect to what can be done about it, this is something that the U.S. administration is fully committed to. We have no tolerance or patience for the recent landing of Russian military personnel inside Venezuela. We have no tolerance or patience for the way the Cuban regime treats the people of Venezuela, how it props up the Maduro regime, how it provides repression training and tactics to Sabine and others. So accordingly we are and will continue to take action.
We know that there are Cuban military and intelligence services present in Venezuela. It is widely known both inside and outside of Venezuela that these officers are deeply entrenched in the Venezuela state. They are the ones providing physical protection and other support directly to Maduro and to the inner circle. And Maduro himself has made no secret of his partnership with the Cuban armed forces.
In October 2018 Maduro celebrated the deployment of Cuban Special Forces units which were called the Black Wasps, to the Venezuelan-Colombia border for provocative military exercises, and we’ve seen publicly the provocative actions undertaken by the Russians in recent weeks as well.
In terms of the next steps that we can do, as I’ve alluded to, on April 12th the United States sanctioned four companies for operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy and identified nine vessels as blocked properties pursuant to an Executive Order. Those actions were themselves a follow-on to previous designations and identifications announced earlier in the month which targeted entities and vessels known to be involved in the transportation of crude oil from Venezuela to Cuba.
Again, all of these actions are aligned with our broader Venezuela strategy which seeks to hinder the former Maduro regime’s ability to line its pockets with the profits from natural resources that properly belong to the people of Venezuela but that Maduro himself steals. And it’s also very consistent with our policy approach when it comes to Cuba, which is making sure that we are again holding the regime accountable for its abuses, both inside the country as well as its abuses outside the country.
Moderator: The next question comes from the line of Mercedes Gallego from El Correo.
Question: Good morning, thank you very much for this call.
I have a couple of questions. First, surely the State Department must have an estimate of the number of companies and countries that could be affected by this decision. If so, I would like to hear it.
And the second question is regarding the speech that Mr. John Bolton is having today in Miami. I was wondering if there is any message he is going to convey that hasn’t been treated in this conference call.
Finally, tomorrow it the anniversary of the protests in Nicaragua. What is the position of the U.S. regarding Nicaragua since there has been a lot of actions regarding Venezuela and Cuba but not much except speeches regarding Nicaragua. Is there anything in terms of sanctions or actions that we should expect?
Thank you very much.
Senior State Department Official: Thank you for those questions.
I’ll start with the first with respect to estimations. What we do have is that the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission has certified nearly $2 billion worth of claims. That doesn’t include possible interests. The United States did an assessment, this was back in 1996, where we saw that there were over 6,000 certified claims. However, this determination is not specifically focused only on certified claims, so we’ve assessed that there could be as many as 200,000 certified claims, or uncertified claims. That’s why we can’t give a concrete assessment of exactly how many companies or how much money this would entail. However it’s possible that it could be in the tens of billions of dollars.
With respect to your second and third questions about Nicaragua and Ambassador Bolton’s upcoming speech, I can’t preview much that’s going to be coming up in the speech, but what I can say is that you can certainly anticipate additional actions taken against both the regimes in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Moderator: The next question comes from the line of Alejandra Molina from Telemundo 51.
Question: Good morning.
My question is in regards to Title IV of the legislation. Is it still suspended beyond May 2nd?
Senior State Department Official: Thank you for that question.
Title IV was never suspended, and what I can say is that we are going to be ramping up investigations in that space as well.
Moderator: The next question comes from Tomas Regalado from Marti.
Question: Good morning to Lydia, good morning to the Senior Administration Official, and Alejandra Molina queued it up for me.
Regarding Title III and its actions since the announcement that was done by the Secretary of State as well as the State Department this morning, and the Title IV part of it would say that whatever company is doing business with confiscated properties on the island would signify that those company heads or people that worked for those companies would not be allowed inside, into the United States and could also serve some penalties. Is this part of this whole announcement this morning? Or is this something to come in the next coming days, as you just said maybe with the ramp up of Title IV as well?
Senior State Department Official: Thanks for that question.
So I mentioned, we are continuing to make investigations into Title IV. There is no real change there. That’s something that’s been consistently true. Title III is, of course, a historic change as its the first time that we will no longer suspend.
Moderator: The following question is from Isabel Espronceda from the Office of Cuban Broadcasting in Miami. The question is:
Question: Absent the crisis in Venezuela, would the administration have implemented completely Title III of the Helms-Burton today?
Senior State Department Official: Thanks for that question.
I would just say that once again this decision was predicated off of the Cuban regime’s actions. That includes the Cuban regime’s actions in Cuba. Of course the Cuban regime’s actions in Venezuela are also a part of that. We can’t speculate as to if the facts on the ground were different what the Secretary’s determination may or may not be.
Moderator: The final question comes from Eva Gonzalez from ITS.
Question: What would be the impact of these new measures for the first American groups that were registered and included in the negotiations between Cuba and the United States about compensation during the Obama government?
Senior State Department Official: This would be open to them because that includes certified claims. But once again, we are not making any exceptions.
Moderator: Okay. We have completed the question and answer portion of this call. Thank you very much to our Senior State Department Official.
Do you have any final remarks for the journalists on the line?
Senior State Department Official: I would just reiterate our point that suspending Title III for over 22 years has failed to yield any real results, and so Secretary Pompeo’s decision today recognizes the truth of those failures which to us is a fundamental and historic change.
Moderator: Thank you Senior State Department Official. We thank all of our journalists from across the United States, from Latin America and from Europe for joining this call. This concludes the call.
Statement From The White House- Cuba, Nicaragua & Venezuela Decisions
/Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 17, 2019
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP IS TAKING A STAND FOR DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
“When Venezuela is free, and Cuba is free, and Nicaragua is free, this will become the first free hemisphere in all of human history” – President Donald J. Trump
HOLDING THE CUBAN DICTATORSHIP ACCOUNTABLE: President Donald J. Trump is holding the Cuban regime accountable for its repression of the Cuban people.
President Trump is enabling Americans to file lawsuits against persons and entities that traffic in property confiscated by the Cuban regime.
This marks the first time that these kind of claims have been available for Americans under the Helms-Burton Act.
Pursuant to Helms-Burton, the Administration is ensuring that anyone who has trafficked in property confiscated by Cuba from an American is not issued a visa to the United States.
The Administration is adding five entities owned by the Cuban military to its restricted list, which now has over 215 entities, prohibiting Americans from transacting with them.
The Administration will be placing a cap on remittances to Cuba, prohibiting dollar transactions through third-party financial institutions, and restricting non-family travel.
President Trump is continuing his efforts to hold the Cuban regime accountable for its abuses and to reverse previous policies that enriched the regime.
The President announced a policy in 2017 aimed at diverting economic activity away from the Cuban military, enhancing travel restrictions, and reaffirming the embargo.
STANDING WITH THE PEOPLE OF VENEZUELA: President Trump is standing with the Venezuelan people and has imposed tough sanctions targeting the corrupt, former regime.
President Trump has issued multiple executive orders imposing sanctions to pressure the illegitimate former dictator Nicolas Maduro to accept a peaceful democratic transition.
These actions have targeted Maduro and his corrupt cronies for undermining Venezuela’s democracy and looting Venezuela’s resources.
The United States has designated over 150 individuals and entities connected to Venezuela for sanctions, cutting off a significant stream of resources to the Maduro regime
Among these entities are the state oil company PdVSA and the Central Bank.
President Trump was the first head of state to officially recognize Juan Guaido as the Interim
President of Venezuela. Leaders from over 50 nations have since joined him.
The United States has provided hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid for the Venezuelan people, who have suffered horribly under Maduro.
PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN NICARAGUA: President Trump is committed to restoring liberty, democracy, and the rule of law in Nicaragua.
President Trump has targeted the Ortega regime and its supporters in Nicaragua who have engaged in corruption, human rights abuses, and the dismantling of democratic institutions.
President Trump has sanctioned the Ortega regime’s financial resources, including BANCORP which acts as a slush fund for the Ortega regime.
The Administration imposed sanctions on Laureano Ortega, the son of President Ortega, who has used the investment promotion agency ProNicaragua to corruptly enrich the regime.
The President signed the Nicaragua Human Rights and Anticorruption Act in December 2018, targeting Nicaraguan officials associated with human rights violations.
President Trump has called for early, free and fair elections for the Nicaraguan people.
OFAC Yet To Eliminate U-Turn Transactions For Cuba
/Although the Trump Administration has indicated that U-Turn financial transactions would be eliminated, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury has yet to implement changes.
What Is A U-Turn Transaction?
“31 CFR § 515.584(d), commonly known as the “U-turn” general license, authorizes U.S. banking institutions to process transactions originating and terminating outside the United States provided that neither the originator nor the beneficiary is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This means that transactions related to third-country commerce involving Cuba or Cuban nationals may be processed in U.S. dollars through the U.S. financial system via financial institutions located in the United States that serve as intermediary banks.
Additional FAQs below clarify that foreign branches or subsidiaries of U.S. banking institutions may act as the originating or beneficiary banks for such transactions.
The examples below illustrate some of the transactions and parties that may use the U-turn general license:
UPDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2017”
Briefing With Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Kimberly Breier
/Special Briefing
Office of the Spokesperson
Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Kimberly Breier
Washington, DC
April 17, 2019
MS ORTAGUS: Good morning, everybody.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: Good morning, everyone.
MS ORTAGUS: Let’s start with Matt.
QUESTION: Thank you. Ms. Secretary, I – even before the announcement just now, the Canadians, the Europeans, and – have come out against this and vowed to protect their companies – European, Canadian companies that could be sued under – with this decision. And I’m just wondering how much of a concern that is for the administration and whether there will be any exemptions at all. As you know, it’s not just Europe and Canada that have companies there. There’s some significant Israeli investment in Cuba. So I’m just wondering how you’re going to respond to their unhappiness, to put it mildly. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: Thank you. Thanks for the question, and good morning, everybody. I think the first thing to highlight is that obviously we’ve been in very deep and close contact with our allies in Europe and Canada and around the world as we consulted on this decision over the past several months as the Secretary had been shortening the period of suspension with his previous decisions. I think it’s clear if you look in the macro sense we have broad agreement with our allies in Europe and Canada and around the world on the policy objective, which is to promote democracy in Cuba and to free the Cuban people from the tyranny that they live under.
We are in broad agreement on this. Where we sometimes disagree is on the best way to achieve that. And I think at the end of the day, you’ll need to speak to the European Union and to our allies as to what response they will have, but I would like to emphasize that European companies that are operating in Cuba will have nothing to worry about if they are not operating on property that was stolen from Americans post-revolution. So I think the vast number of European companies will not have any concerns operating in Cuba.
MS ORTAGUS: Lesley.
QUESTION: Yep, good morning. How does – so how are you going to deal with the unhappy Europeans? They have now threatened to take you to the WTO. And so how are you going to deal with that? And to what extent do you put – how does this in any way tie to cutting off any funds to Maduro, or how does this enhance the anti-Maduro campaign?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: Thanks for the question. First, I would defer you to the Europeans for their response. They certainly – we took a decision today based on our laws and our sovereign concerns for the property of American citizens and Europeans will respond as they see fit, and we will continue to work closely with them on this policy and on the policy in Venezuela.
I think it’s important to note that the decision today is part of the trajectory that started with the Trump Administration’s NSPM-5, which was announced in June of 2017. The objective of that was of course to support the Cuban people and to deny resources to the regime, and in particular to the security services in Cuba. So this is part of a trajectory. We have since published a Cuba restricted list. We have since amended the restricted list several times, and this is part of the trajectory of the administration trying to ensure that we support the people of Cuba and not the regime of Cuba.
And going forward, I would say the decision – the Secretary’s decision was about the actions of the Cuban regime; certainly, the actions of the Cuban regime in Venezuela are part of the context of the moment in which we are living. And we are very clear, and I think our allies – and this is something very important – the Lima Group, which is a group of 12 countries in the Western Hemisphere, for the very first time this week announced its concern over Cuba’s role in Caracas and made public its concern, and called on the Cuban regime to support the transition in Caracas. So I think it’s a very important moment in our relations in the hemisphere as well.
MS ORTAGUS: Rich.
QUESTION: How much – thank you. How much further is the administration considering going on its Cuba policy, whether there’s deliberations about the terrorism list or – I mean, is this a trajectory that you see continuing?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: I think that’s – it’s a great question. I do put it in context of we’ve been over the past two years building off of NSPM-5 and looking at the various tools that we have to implement the President’s vision for how we would conduct this policy. I think you’re going to be seeing quite a bit more from us, and that this is the beginning of a new process on this that recognizes the reality on the ground in Cuba, which is in the past 20-plus years the underlying reality in Cuba has not changed for the average Cuban.
MS ORTAGUS: Nick.
QUESTION: Assistant Secretary, can you talk – just to follow up on Matt’s question on the issue of exemptions, are there any exemptions under the decision announced today specifically with any U.S. company that is doing business in Cuba?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: There will not be any exemptions.
MS ORTAGUS: Great. Kim, do you have time for one more?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: Sure.
MS ORTAGUS: Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: How much property are you talking about in terms of value, money and number of properties?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: Let me flip to – so this is actually one of these questions where I can tell you what I know, and then what I don’t know is actually a larger – what we understand, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission has – it’s an independent agency within the Department of Justice – has certified nearly 6,000 claims for property confiscated in Cuba with a total value of approximately 2 billion. With interest, we believe that value is somewhere in the $8 billion range. The most recent estimate we have from 1996, at the time that the law was enacted, that there could be up to 200,000 uncertified claims that were not certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, and that value could very easily be in the tens of billions of dollars. But it will depend on, of course, whether claimants decide to pursue legal cases or not.
QUESTION: Could I just ask you to clarify what you said? What was the 8 billion from --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: The 8 billion is with interest.
QUESTION: With interest.
QUESTION: So 2 billion of the actual property or what it was worth when it was taken.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: At the time it was – when it was confiscated, correct.
QUESTION: And then with interest that amounts to 8 billion.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: Correct.
QUESTION: So the total then would be 8 billion.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: Eight billion of certified claims, yes.
QUESTION: And then on the 200,000 uncertified claims, they haven’t been rejected, right? They
could still be certified?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: They could still be if the window were open.
QUESTION: And that would be hundreds of billions.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: That could be.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Tens.
QUESTION: Oh, tens.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: Tens of billions. Yeah, sorry.
MS ORTAGUS: Thanks, Matt.
QUESTION: Thank you.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BREIER: Thank you so much. Thanks, everybody.
Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo Announces Implementation Of Title III Of Libertad Act
/Remarks
Michael R. Pompeo
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
April 17, 2019
SECRETARY POMPEO: Good morning, everyone. Welcome. I’m here to announce an important decision regarding the United States policy towards Cuba.
In 1996, Congress passed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known as Libertad. Until Title III of that act, United States citizens who had their property confiscated by the Castro regime were given the right to file suit against those who traffic in such properties.
But those citizens’ opportunities for justice have been put out of reach for more than two decades. For now more than 22 years, every president, every secretary of state has suspended Title III in the hope that doing so would put more pressure on the Cuban regime to transition to democracy.
But just as we did in regard to moving our embassy to Jerusalem, the true capital of Israel, or designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for what it is, a terrorist organization, the Trump administration recognizes reality. We see clearly that the regime’s repression of its own people and its unrepentant exportation of tyranny in the region has only gotten worse because dictators perceive appeasement as weakness, not strength.
President Obama’s administration’s game of footsy with the Castros’ junta did not deter the regime from continuing to harass and oppress the heroic Ladies in White, a group of women dedicated to peacefully protesting the regime’s human rights abuses.
More broadly, the regime continues to deprive its own people of the fundamental freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association. Indeed, according to NGO reports, Cuban thugs made more than 2,800 arbitrary arrests in 2018 alone. In the run-up to the country’s recent sham constitutional referendum, one that enshrined the Communist Party as the only legal political party in Cuba, the regime harassed, beat, and detained leaders and – opposition leaders and activists. Three hundred and ten people were arbitrarily detained according to the Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation.
Cuba’s behavior in the Western Hemisphere undermines the security and stability of countries throughout the region, which directly threatens United States national security interests. The Cuban regime has for years exported its tactics of intimidation, repression, and violence. They’ve exported this to Venezuela in direct support of the former Maduro regime. Cuban military intelligence and state security services today keep Maduro in power.
Sadly, Cuba’s most prominent export these days is not cigars or rum; it’s oppression. Detente with the regime has failed. Cozying up to Cuban dictators will always be a black mark on this great nation’s long record of defending human rights.
For these reasons, I’m announcing that the Trump administration will no longer suspend Title III. Effective May 2nd, the right thing to bring – the right to bring an action under Title III of the Libertad Act will be implemented in full. I have already informed Congress of my decision.
Implementing Title III in full means a chance at justice for Cuban Americans who have long sought relief for Fidel Castro and his lackeys seizing property without compensation. For the first time, claimants will be able to bring lawsuits against persons trafficking in property that was confiscated by the Cuban regime. Any person or company doing business in Cuba should heed this announcement.
In addition to being newly vulnerable to lawsuits, they could be abetting the Cuban regime’s abuses of its own people. Those doing business in Cuba should fully investigate whether they are connected to property stolen in service of a failed communist experiment. I encourage our friends and allies alike to likewise follow our lead and stand with the Cuban people.
As I said throughout my trip to South America this last week, the Trump administration is committed to helping grow the wave of democracy, good governments, and openness, which is steadily building throughout the entire Western Hemisphere. On my trip last week, I saw these positive changes firsthand, and told our friends and allies that we’re with them. We’re on the side of what’s right and what is just.
Today we are holding the Cuban Government accountable for seizing American assets. We are helping those whom the regime has robbed get compensation for their rightful property. And we’re advancing human rights and democracy on behalf of the Cuban people.
Now I will turn it over to Western Hemisphere Assistant Secretary Kim Breier to take some of your questions this morning. Thank you all.
Trump Administration Expected To Permit Third Claims Program- Harmful To Current Certified Claimants
/Trump Administration Expected To Permit Third Claims Program
The Trump Administration is likely to authorize a Third Program by the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (USFCSC) within the United States Department of Justice in an effort to increase the number of certified claims, thus reducing the expectation that the current 5,913 certified claimants will receive any compensation from the Republic of Cuba. According to the United States Department of State, there may be approximately 200,000 potential plaintiffs whose claims are not certified. The majority of the potential plaintiffs reside in the state of Florida and state of New Jersey.
There are 8,821 claims of which 5,913 awards valued at US$1,902,202,284.95 were certified by the USFCSC and have not been resolved for nearing sixty years. The USFCSC permitted interest to be accrued in the amount of 6% per annum; with the current value of the 5,913 certified claims approximately US$8,521,866,156.95.
The Republic of Cuba has acknowledged legitimacy of the 5,913 certified claims as they were for assets owned by individuals subject to United States jurisdiction. Accepted international legal precedence dictate that citizens of a country whose assets were expropriated without compensation need seek restitution directly from their government; that is the avenue for non-certified claimants who were Republic of Cuba nationals at the time of expropriation.
Adding to the number of certified claims would expectantly render any current or future government of the Republic of Cuba unable to provide the value of court judgements, which would in many instances include treble damages.
For the 5,913 certified claimants, the currently-implemented strategy by the Trump Administration is not viewed as viable or efficient or serious because there is no focus- no analysis of whether announcements lessen the distance between the issue of the certified claims and a settlement of the certified claimants.
Why is this a rational view for the certified claimants? Because neither The White House (including the National Security Council) nor the United States Department of State have held a formal briefing, let alone briefings, for the two largest certified claimants (who represent 24% of the total value of the certified claims) or the thirty (30) largest certified claimants (who represent 56% of the total value of the certified claims).
If the Trump Administration wants to assist the certified claimants, wouldn’t sound decision-making processes require formal input from the injured parties? Yes, it would. Why hasn’t there been a formal outreach to the largest certified claimants? Because the Trump Administration does not want to resolve the issue of the certified claims; formal briefings would hold them accountable for action or inaction; no formal briefings, no formal accountability for what is done or left dangling for future presidents.
The Trump Administration has thus far in its first twenty-seven (27) months focused upon commerce- the terms of trade for exports and imports. Consistent with that theme would be for a singular focus upon negotiating compensation for the 5,913 certified claimants who have been awaiting fifty-eight (58) years for an occupant of the Oval Office to surgically engage in a bilateral negotiation with the Republic of Cuba.
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Programs
“First Program - Title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended (the Act) authorized the Commission to consider claims of nationals of the United States against the Government of Cuba, based upon: (1) losses resulting from the nationalization, expropriation, intervention, or other taking of, or special measures directed against, property by that government; and (2) the disability or death of nationals of the United States resulting from actions taken by or under the authority of that government. The program covered claims for losses which occurred on or after January 1, 1959, when the Castro regime took power. Ordinarily, the Commission would have held that its jurisdiction extended only to claims arising before October 16, 1964, the date the program was authorized. In this case, however, the Commission reasoned that, because the statute was remedial, and because it had as one of its main purposes the collection, examination and preparation of evidence and information relating to the claims while it was still fresh and available, it would adjudicate any otherwise valid claim even if it arose after the filing deadline of January 1, 1967.
When the program was authorized, there were no funds available with which to make payment on the claims, and the statute precluded Congress’ appropriation of funds for such payments. As was the case with the First China Program, the statute provided only for the determination of the validity and amounts of such claims, and for the certification of the Commission’s findings to the Secretary of State for use in the future negotiation of a claims settlement agreement with the Government of Cuba. The Cuban Claims Program was completed on July 6, 1972. The Commission adjudicated a total of 8,816 claims in the program, of which it found 5,911 to be compensable. The adjudicated total principal value of those claims was $1,851,057,358.00.
Second Program - By letter dated July 15, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requested that the Commission conduct a Second Cuban Claims Program. As specified in the Secretary’s letter, the purpose of the program was to effect the adjudication and certification by the Commission of claims for uncompensated taking of United States nationals’ property by the Cuban government that arose after May 1, 1967, and were not adjudicated in the Commission’s original Cuban Claims Program, described above. The Commission published notice of the commencement of the claims program in the Federal Register on August 11, 2005 (70 F.R. 46890), in accordance with its usual procedures, and set a filing period of six months and a program length of twelve months, as specified in the Secretary’s letter. The notice announced that the filing deadline was February 13, 2006, and that the program would end on August 11, 2006.
During the six-month filing period, the Commission received a total of five claims, and denied three of them because they failed to meet the criteria set out in the Secretary of State’s referral letter. The other two claims did meet those criteria, and after careful review the Commission issued Proposed Decisions certifying the two claims as valid in the total principal amounts of $51,128,926.95 and $16,000.00, respectively. Neither of the claimants objected to these Proposed Decisions, and they were accordingly entered as final. After the program’s end in August 2006, the Commission certified these two claims to the Secretary of State, for eventual use in negotiation of a lump-sum claims settlement agreement with the Cuban government.”
https://www.justice.gov/fcsc/claims-against-cuba
Certified Claims Background
The first asset to be expropriated by the Republic of Cuba was an oil refinery in 1960 owned by White Plains, New York-based Texaco, Inc., now a subsidiary of San Ramon, California-based Chevron Corporation (USFCSC: CU-1331/CU-1332/CU-1333 valued at US$56,196,422.73).
The largest certified claim (Cuban Electric Company) valued at US$267,568,413.62 is controlled by Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot, Inc. The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International. The smallest certified claim is by Sara W. Fishman in the amount of US$1.00 with reference to the Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust.
The two (2) largest certified claims total US$449,377,207.76, representing 24% of the total value of the certified claims. Thirty (30) certified claimants hold 56% of the total value of the certified claims. This concentration of value creates an efficient pathway towards a settlement.
Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 requires that an asset had a value of US$50,000.00 when expropriated by the Republic of Cuba without compensation to the original owner. Of the 5,913 certified claims, 913, or 15%, are valued at US$50,000.00 or more. Adjusted for inflation, US$50,000.00 (3.70% per annum) in 1960 has a 2019 value of approximately US$427,267.01. The USFCSC authorized 6% per annum, meaning the 2019 value of US$50,000.00 is approximately US$1,649,384.54.
The ITT Corporation Agreement
In July 1997, then-New York City, New York-based ITT Corporation and then-Amsterdam, the Netherlands-based STET International Netherlands N.V. signed an agreement whereby STET International Netherlands N.V. would pay approximately US$25 million to ITT Corporation for a ten-year right (after which the agreement could be renewed and was renewed) to use assets (telephone facilities and telephone equipment) within the Republic of Cuba upon which ITT Corporation has a certified claim valued at approximately US$130.8 million. ETECSA, which is now wholly-owned by the government of the Republic of Cuba, was a joint venture controlled by the Ministry of Information and Communications of the Republic of Cuba within which Amsterdam, the Netherlands-based Telecom Italia International N.V. (formerly Stet International Netherlands N.V.), a subsidiary of Rome, Italy-based Telecom Italia S.p.A. was a shareholder.
Telecom Italia S.p.A., was at one time a subsidiary of Ivrea, Italy-based Olivetti S.p.A. The second-largest certified claim (International Telephone and Telegraph Co, ITT as Trustee, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) valued at US$181,808,794.14 is controlled by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International.
TITLE III--SEC. 302. LIABILITY FOR TRAFFICKING IN CONFISCATED PROPERTY CLAIMED BY UNITED STATES NATIONALS.
(a) Civil Remedy.-- (1) Liability for trafficking.--(A) Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person that, after the end of the 3-month period beginning on the effective date of this title, traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property for money damages in an amount equal to the sum of-- (i) the amount which is the greater of-- (I) the amount, if any, certified to the claimant by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, plus interest; (II) the amount determined under section 303(a)(2), plus interest; or (III) the fair market value of that property, calculated as being either the current value of the property, or the value of the property when confiscated plus interest, whichever is greater; and (ii) court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. (B) Interest under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be at the rate set forth in section 1961 of title 28, United States Code, computed by the court from the date of confiscation of the property involved to the date on which the action is brought under this subsection.
(2) Presumption in favor of the certified claims.--There shall be a presumption that the amount for which a person is liable under clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A) is the amount that is certified as described in subclause (I) of that clause. The presumption shall be rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence that the amount described in subclause (II) or (III) of that clause is the appropriate amount of liability under that clause.
(3) Increased liability.--(A) Any person that traffics in confiscated property for which liability is incurred under paragraph (1) shall, if a United States national owns a claim with respect to that property which was certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, be liable for damages computed in accordance with subparagraph (C).
(B) If the claimant in an action under this subsection (other than a United States national to whom subparagraph (A) applies) provides, after the end of the 3-month period described in paragraph (1) notice to-- (i) a person against whom the action is to be initiated, or (ii) a person who is to be joined as a defendant in the action, at least 30 days before initiating the action or joining such person as a defendant, as the case may be, and that person, after the end of the 30- day period beginning on the date the notice is provided, traffics in the confiscated property that is the subject of the action, then that person shall be liable to that claimant for damages computed in accordance with subparagraph (C).
(C) Damages for which a person is liable under subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B) are money damages in an amount equal to the sum of-- (i) the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A)(ii), and (ii) 3 times the amount determined applicable under paragraph (1)(A)(i). (D) Notice to a person under subparagraph (B)-- (i) shall be in writing; (ii) shall be posted by certified mail or personally delivered to the person; and (iii) shall contain-- (I) a statement of intention to commence the action under this section or to join the person as a defendant (as the case may be), together with the reasons therefor; (II) a demand that the unlawful trafficking in the claimant's property cease immediately; and (III) a copy of the summary statement published under paragraph (8). (4) Applicability.--(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, actions may be brought under paragraph (1) with respect to property confiscated before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) In the case of property confiscated before the date of the enactment of this Act, a United States national may not bring an action under this section on a claim to the confiscated property unless such national acquires ownership of the claim before such date of enactment. (C) In the case of property confiscated on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, a United States national who, after the property is confiscated, acquires ownership of a claim to the property by assignment for value, may not bring an action on the claim under this section.
(5) Treatment of certain actions.--(A) In the case of a United States national who was eligible to file a claim with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but did not so file the claim, that United States national may not bring an action on that claim under this section. (B) In the case of any action brought under this section by a United States national whose underlying claim in the action was timely filed with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but was denied by the Commission, the court shall accept the findings of the Commission on the claim as conclusive in the action under this section.
(C) A United States national, other than a United States national bringing an action under this section on a claim certified under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, may not bring an action on a claim under this section before the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(D) An interest in property for which a United States national has a claim certified under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 may not be the subject of a claim in an action under this section by any other person. Any person bringing an action under this section whose claim has not been so certified shall have the burden of establishing for the court that the interest in property that is the subject of the claim is not the subject of a claim so certified. (6) Inapplicability of act of state doctrine.--No court of the United States shall decline, based upon the act of state doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action brought under paragraph (1) .
(7) Licenses not required.--(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action under this section may be brought and may be settled, and a judgment rendered in such action may be enforced, without obtaining any license or other permission from any agency of the United States, except that this paragraph shall not apply to the execution of a judgment against, or the settlement of actions involving, property blocked under the authorities of section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act that were being exercised on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the President before such date, and are being exercised on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Text of Letter From European Union To United States In Response To Implementation Of Provisions Of Libertad Act
/10 April 2019 text of letter from The Honorable Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy since November 2014, to The Honorable Mike Pompeo, United States Secretary of State, relating to the implementation of provisions of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act of 1996.
