Norwegian Cruise Line And MSC Cruises Submit Motions To Dismiss In Libertad Act Lawsuits
/UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:19-cv-23588-BLOOM/Louis
HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. and MSC CRUISES SA CO., Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
LINK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 19-23591-CIV-BLOOM/LOUIS
HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS LTD., Defendant.
NORWEGIAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS
LINK
U.S. Department of Justice Updating Claims Filing System- Does This Foretell Increasing Activity?
/AGENCY: Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of a new system of records.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (Commission), Department of Justice, proposes to establish a new system of records to enable the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibility to receive, examine, adjudicate and render final decisions with respect to claims for compensation of individuals. The system will include documentation provided by the claimants as well as background material that will assist the Commission in the processing of their claims. The system will also include the final decision of the Commission regarding each claim.
DATES: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this system of records notice is effective upon publication, with the exception of the routine uses that are subject to a 30-day period in which to comment, described below. Therefore, please submit any comments by November 18, 2019.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (Commission) is authorized, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 1621 et. seq., 50 U.S.C. 1701 note and 50 U.S.C. App. 2004 and 2005, to adjudicate claims to determine the eligibility of individuals for and the appropriate amount of compensation. The system of records covered by this notice is necessary for the Commission's adjudication of claims pursuant to its authority under the aforementioned statutes. These records shall form the basis upon which the Commission will determine an individual's eligibility for and amount of compensation. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Commission has provided a report to OMB and the Congress on the new system of records.
Dated: October 10, 2019.
Jeremy R. LaFrancois, Chief Administrative Counsel
PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM: This system shall consolidate the following Systems of Records: FCSC-1 Indexes of Claimants (Alphabetical); FCSC-3 Certifications of Awards; FCSC-4 China, Claims Against; FCSC-5 Civilian Internees (Vietnam); FCSC-8 Cuba, Claims Against; FCSC-17 Prisoners of War (Vietnam); FCSC-19 Soviet Union, Claims Against; FCSC-25 Egypt, Claims Against; FCSC-26 Albania, Claims Against; FCSC-27 Germany, Holocaust Survivors' Claims Against; FCSC-28 Iraq, Registration of Potential Claims Against; FCSC-29 Libya, Claims Against; FCSC-29 Claims of less than $250,000 Against Iran; FCSC-30 Iraq, Claims Against; FCSC-31 Claims Referred by the Department of State; FCSC-32 Claims Arising under the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. This system will enable the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibility to determine the validity and amount of claims authorized to be adjudicated pursuant to pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 1621 et. seq., 50 U.S.C. 1701 note and 50 U.S.C. App. 2004 and 2005.
CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Individuals who file claims pursuant to a duly authorized Commission claims program.
CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Claim information, including name and address of claimant and representative, if any; date and place of birth or naturalization; nature of claim; description of loss or injury including medical records; and other evidence establishing entitlement to compensation.
RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: The primary document source is the claimant upon whom the record is maintained. The collection may also include documents obtained from legal databases (e.g., Westlaw and/or Lexis), Congressional records, and the records of other Federal agencies (e.g., the Social Security Agency, Department of State, etc.)
ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records contained in this system of records may be disclosed as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) under the circumstances or for the purposes described below, to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected.
a. Upon the issuance of a final decision awarding compensation, the Commission will certify its decision and other necessary personal information to the Department of the Treasury in order to process payment of the claim.Start Printed Page 55588
b. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the federal government, when necessary to accomplish a Commission function related to this system of records;
c. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record;
d. Where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature—the relevant records may be referred to the appropriate federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law;
e. In an appropriate proceeding before the Commission, or before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the Department of Justice and/or the Commission determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding;
f. To a former employee of the Commission for purposes of: Responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Commission regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Commission requires information and/or consultation from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility;
g. To the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906;
h. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to the individuals, the Commission (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm;
i. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach;
j. To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by federal statute or treaty.
LINK To Notification: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/17/2019-22496/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records?utm_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list
LINK To Federal Register Notification In PDF Format.
About The FCSC From The United States Department of Justice:
“The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States is a quasi-judicial, independent agency within the Department of Justice which adjudicates claims of U.S. nationals against foreign governments, either under specific jurisdiction conferred by Congress or pursuant to international claims settlement agreements. The decisions of the Commission are final and are not reviewable under any standard by any court or other authority. Funds for payment of the Commission's awards are derived from congressional appropriations, international claims settlements, or the liquidation of foreign assets in the United States by the Departments of Justice and the Treasury.
The Commission also has authority to receive, determine the validity and amount, and provide for the payment of claims by members of the U.S. armed services and civilians held as prisoners of war or interned by a hostile force in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam conflict, or by the survivors of such service members and civilians.
The Commission is also responsible for maintaining records and responding to inquiries related to the various claims programs it has conducted against the Governments of Albania, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Panama, Poland, Romania, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia, as well as those authorized under the War Claims Act of 1948 and other statutes.”
Agency URL: http://www.justice.gov/fcsc/
Parent Agency; Justice Department
Libertad Act Lawsuit Statistics Update: 25 Law Firms, 88 Attorneys, US$1.1 Million Billable Hours, 72 Plaintiffs, 67 Defendants, 20 Lawsuits
/As of 31 October 2019, which is 182-days since the Trump Administration made operational Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”):
Twenty (20) lawsuits filed
Court Filing Fees US$130,960.00
Twenty-Five (25) Law Firms
Eighty-Eight (88) Attorneys
US$1.1 Million In Law Firm Billable Hours
One Hundred-And-Three (103) companies/individuals, excluding attorneys, are lawsuit parties
Seventy-Two (72) plaintiffs
Four (4) Class Action status requests
Sixty-seven (67) defendants
Five (5) companies notified as will be added as defendants unless prompt settlement
Lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Courts in Southern Florida (16), Washington DC (1), Washington State (1), Nevada (1) and Delaware (1).
Law firms retained by plaintiffs/defendants: Akerman; Arent Fox; Baker & McKenzie; Boies Schiller Flexner; Coffey Burlington; Colson Hicks Eidson; Cueto Law Group; Ewusiak Law; Hogan Lovells; Holland & Knight; Jones Walker; Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton; Law Offices Of Paul Sack; Manuel Vazquez PA; Margol & Margol; Mayer Brown; Pacifica Law Group; Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman; Reed Smith; Reid Collins & Tsai; Rice Reuther Sullivan & Carroll; Rivero Mestre; Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess; Steptoe & Johnson; Venable.
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.
LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format
Could Accor S.A. Of France Be Subject To Libertad Act Lawsuits?
/On 24 June 2019, four (4) plaintiffs filed a lawsuit [1:19-cv-22620] seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against seven (7) defendants.
The lawsuit is using Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”). Title III authorizes lawsuits in United States District Courts against companies and individuals who are using a certified claim or non-certified claim where the owner of the certified claim or non-certified claim has not received compensation from the Republic of Cuba or from a third-party who is using (“trafficking”) the asset.
At the bottom of page two of the twenty-page lawsuit, note 2 contains the following: “In accordance with 22 U.S.C. $ 6082(a)(3), the Angulo Cuevas Heirs have given notice to Accor S.A. ("Accor") of their intent to add Accor as a defendant to this lawsuit if they do not promptly compensate the Angulo Cuevas Heirs and the class for the unlawful trafficking of their property.” LINK To Lawsuit.
The notification process includes a letter and the target of the letter has thirty (30) days by which to respond. To date, neither the plaintiffs nor their attorneys and Accor S.A. have publicly confirmed that compensation has been received by the plaintiffs.
Issy-les-Moulineaux, France-based Accor S.A. (2018 revenues exceeded US$4 billion) manages two properties in the Republic of Cuba.
The company had managed two additional properties: 385-room Mercure Playa de Oro in Varadero from 2012 to 2017 and the 178-room Hotel Mercure Sevilla Havane in the city of Havana from 1995 to 2018.
The Playa de Oro Varadero is owned by Republic of Cuba government-operated Gran Caribe. Disagreement as to responsibility for financing for renovations resulted Accor S.A. returning the property to Gran Caribe. Accor S.A. had reported that the Hotel Mercure Sevilla Havane was to undergo a US$20 million renovation to become an MGallery by Sofitel property. Disagreement as to responsibility for financing resulted in Accor S.A. returning the property to its owner, Republic of Cuba government-operated Gran Caribe.
Pullman Cayo Coco Hotel (518 rooms)
The property of owned by Gran Caribe. Accor S.A. has managed the property since December 2015. From Accor S.A.:
“Hotels combining lifestyle and design, for business and leisure. All-inclusive 5-star resort facing the Caribbean Sea and ideally located in the hearth of the ecological park of the island of Cayo Coco. The resort has 2 sections: main hotel featuring 522 deluxe rooms and The Collection by Pullman adult only section offering junior suites, full suites and private Golden Villa. Our property offers a choice of 8 restaurants, 10 bars, 7 pools, 600-meter long private white sand beach, state of the art spa, Kids Club, banquet facilities and much more. Located off the Northern Cost of Cuba, on the Atlantic Ocean side, and part of the Jardines Del Rey archipelago that counts over 2,500 islands and cays widely renowned for its white sand beaches, calm and crystal-clear waters and natural surroundings.”
SO/Paseo Del Prado La Habana (250 rooms)
The property is owned by Gaviota. Accor S.A. reports the property will open in November 2019. From Accor S.A.:
“You already dreamed about it! In 2020, SO/ Hotels & Resorts will open a new address in America! Where? In the heart of one of Cuba's most emblematic districts: Havana. Discover now the SO/Havana Paseo del Prado. Charm, history, design, a vibrant atmosphere... The brand has it all! Take the Malecon boardwalk and join the El Vedado district of Havana City where its wide avenues and villas will take you on a 1950s American series. Not to miss: the alleys of Habana Vieja with its ancient monuments like forts, churches, palaces... The Cuban capital captivates the imagination like no other city on earth! And this is precisely the new destination of the SO/ brand.
With 10 floors above street level, SO/Havana Paseo del Prado feature 250 guest rooms, including 36 suites. Ranging in size from 34 to 64 square meters, guest rooms will consist of stylish contemporary furnishings, neutral palettes, innovative technology and thoughtful designer amenities. Interior meeting rooms, SPA with 6 treatment rooms, fitness center and swimming pool with adjacent bar will be at the disposal of our travelers. The hotel will also feature additional signature elements of the SO/ lifestyle such as the Just Say SO service and SO Parties, featuring the hottest DJs and artists.
SO/ hotels are vibrant and highly sought-after destinations for trendy and discerning travelers. The brand is already present in Thailand, Mauritius, Singapore, Berlin, Vienna and St. Petersburg. The brand will soon reveal its future addresses in Auckland (November 2018), Kuala Lumpur (2020), Samui and Jakarta (2021).”
LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format
EU Supportive Of Cuba, But Why EIB Has No "Mandate" To Finance Investments In Cuba?
/“To date, EIB has not received such a mandate to finance investments in Cuba; there is no visibility on whether EIB will receive the mentioned mandate.”
From A Representative Of The Kirchberg, Luxembourg-based European Investment Bank (EIB):
“The European Investment Bank is the long-term lending institution of the European Union and is owned by the EU Member States. It makes long-term finance available for sound investment in order to contribute towards EU policy goals both in Europe and beyond.
The EIB is active in around 160 countries. With USD 100bn of climate-related investment committed in the 5 years up to 2020 in support of the Paris Agreement, the EU Bank is among the world’s largest financiers of climate action and the environment. EIB support has involved mitigation and adaptation projects in the Caribbean, Pacific, Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean. Projects include an airport in the Cook Islands, roads in La Reunion, a wind farm in Cape Verde, solar micro grids in the Maldives, upgraded water systems in the Seychelles and a hydro project in the Solomon Islands.
The EIB is the largest multilateral public bank in the world and roughly 10% of its lending targets investments outside of the European Union.
The EIB is the world’s largest international public bank and has supported development and economic activity in the Caribbean with loans and equity investment worth EUR 1.8 billion since its first operation in the region. EIB lending outside Europe require a lending mandate approved by EU authorities.
To date, EIB has not received such a mandate to finance investments in Cuba; there is no visibility on whether EIB will receive the mentioned mandate.”
Representatives of the EIB have visited the Republic of Cuba.
Why Is USDA Stonewalling Response To Follow-Up About FMD/MAP Funding For Which It Previously Provided Answers?
/Why Is The USDA Stonewalling A Response To A Follow-Up Question About FMD/MAP Funding For Which It Previously Provided Answers?
Since 7 August 2019, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has refused to respond to a question relating to Foreign Market Development (FMD) and Market Access Program (MAP) funding available for use in the Republic of Cuba.
The five-year Agriculture Improvement Act, known as the “Farm Bill” signed into law on 20 December 2018 by The Honorable Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, authorized FMD and MAP program funding to be used in the Republic of Cuba.
Why won’t the USDA answer as to what, if any, requests for using FMD and MAP funding have been made to the USDA since 9 May 2019? The answer was not a secret in April 2019 and not a secret in May 2019. Since August 2019, the USDA seems to have deemed the answer to be classified.
Texts Of Two Emails To USDA:
9 September 2019
I am writing to follow-up my request of 7 August 2019 relating to FMD/MAP funding for the Republic of Cuba included in the 2018 Farm Bill. There is a concern as to why the USDA, which is normally prompt with its responses to questions submitted by media, has chose not to respond to a request of more than one month ago. My question: Since your most recent response to me on 9 May 2019, has the USDA "received any requests, to authorize the redirection of already allocated funds to Cuba this fiscal year."?
7 August 2019
I am writing to follow-up your response to me of 9 May 2019 relating to FMD/MAP funding for the Republic of Cuba included in the 2018 Farm Bill. My question: Since your response to me on 9 May 2019, has the USDA "received any requests, to authorize the redirection of already allocated funds to Cuba this fiscal year."?
Text Of Email From USDA:
11 October 2019
"Thank you for your inquiry. We apologize for the delayed response. As of the conclusion of the 2019 federal fiscal year, the Foreign Agricultural Service can report that:
The 2018 Farm Bill, which authorized the expenditure of USDA market development funds in Cuba, was passed in December 2018. At that point, USDA had already allocated FY 2019 funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development (FMD). USDA did not subsequently receive any requests to authorize the redirection of already allocated funds to Cuba.
FY 2020 applications for MAP and FMD were due to USDA by June 28, 2019. USDA is currently reviewing the applications and expects to announce FY 2020 funding allocations later this fall.
Best regards, FAS Press Team"
The following are posts by the Economic Eye On Cuba relating to the MAP/FMD funding available for the Republic of Cuba:
Post From 12 May 2019:
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/5/12/2abai1pugt44khnn3wps4pt0f0wvcl?rq=FMD
Post From 8 April 2019:
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/4/7/7cb0as049n0xbcz6emunepm577w2zj?rq=FMD
Carnival Corporation Looses Another Motion In Libertad Act Case... Discovery Continues
/8 October 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 19-cv-21724-BLOOM/McAliley
HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs,
v.
CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant.
“THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Carnival Corporation’s Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal, ECF No. [49] (“Motion”). The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.”
Excerpt…
“The Court finds that Carnival has not overcome the strong presumption against interlocutory appeals and that no exceptional circumstances exist that would warrant § 1292(b) certification. The issue raised by the Defendant also does not merit deviation from the general principle that appeals be conducted after final judgment.”
LINK To 6-Page Court Document In PDF Format
Cuba Government Files 308-Page Motion To Dismiss Libertad Act Case Brought By Exxon Mobil Corporation
/United States District Court For the District Of Colombia
Oral Hearing Requested
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
CORPORACIÓN CIMEX, S.A.,
Edificio Sierra Maestra
Calle Primera Esquina
Miramar, Playa, La Habana, Cuba,
AND
UNIÓN CUBA-PETRÓLEO
Avenida Salvador Allende No. 666
Entre Soledad y Oquendo
Municipio Centro Habana, La Habana
Cuba,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS CORPORACIÓN CIMEX, S.A. AND UNIÓN CUBA-PETRÓELO’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE AND FOR A PARTIAL STAY
For the reasons presented in their supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Defendants Corporación CIMEX, S.A. and Unión Cuba-Petróleo, by their undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully move the Court for an Order to dismiss this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (2), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for lack of personal jurisdiction.
In addition, Defendants move the Court to stay further proceedings on the issue of personal jurisdiction until final determination of subject-matter jurisdiction, including appellate decision on an interlocutory appeal taken of right by Defendants from any adverse ruling on their contention that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330(a), 1602 et seq., requires dismissal of the action.
LINK To Today’s Primary Court Filing In PDF Format- Part A
LINK To Today’s Primary Court Filing In PDF Format- Part B
LINK To Today’s Primary Court Filing In Word Format
LINK To All Case Filings
Carnival Corporation's 12-Page Response To Libertad Lawsuit? Who Are You & We Don't Believe You.
/UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.: 19-cv-21725-King
JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA, Plaintiff,
vs.
CARNIVAL CORPORATION, d/b/a Carnival Cruise Lines, a foreign corporation, Defendant.
CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A), Defendant Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”) answers Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Javier Garcia-Bengochea, is a U. S. Citizen and a resident of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida.
RESPONSE: Carnival lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in paragraph 1, and accordingly, denies same
LINK To 12-Page Court Document In PDF Format
2nd Consecutive Month Of 100%+ Increase In Ag/Food Exports To Cuba; Up 18.6% Year-To-Year
/ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
October 2019
August 2019 Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Increase 107%- 1
Cuba Ranked In August 45th of 229 U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
Cuba Year-To-Year Exports Increase 18.6%- 2
August 2019 Healthcare Product Exports US$339,437.00.00- 2
August 2019 Humanitarian Donations US$555,103.00- 3
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue To Increase- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 16
AUGUST 2019 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA INCREASE 107%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in August 2019 were US$31,724,133.00 compared to US$15,322,008.00 in August 2018 and US$28,627,776.00 in August 2017.
United States exports from January 2019 through August 2019 were US$217,838,612.00 compared to US$184,513,128.00 from January 2018 through August 2018, representing an increase of 18.6%.
The total value of agricultural commodity and food product exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba since December 2001 is US$6,093,051,830.00.
The data represents the U.S. Dollar value of product exported from the United States to the Republic of Cuba under the TSREEA. The data does not include transportation charges, bank charges, or other costs associated with exports; the government of the Republic of Cuba reports unverifiable data that includes transportation charges, bank charges, and other costs.
The data contains information on exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba- products within the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA) of 2000, Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992, and regulations implemented (1992 to present) for other products by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury and Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the United States Department of Commerce.
The TSREEA re-authorized the direct commercial (on a cash basis) export of food products (including branded food products) and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba, irrespective of purpose. The TSREEA does not include healthcare products, which remain authorized and regulated by the CDA.
LINK To Complete Report In PDF Format
Don’t Know This EU Man- And You Follow Cuba-Related Issues? Learn About Him; Advocate For Another Rolled-Up Sleeves Dinner
/On 5 October 2019, The Financial Times (owned by Tokyo, Japan-based Nikkei, Inc.), published an article on page two about him. The sub-headline- “Sondland’s role shows how president relies on contacts rather than formal diplomacy.”
The most instructive European Union (EU)-related portion of the article: “Mr. Sondland flaunts his role as trusted consigliere to the president and his inner circle. At an embassy function in Brussels on Monday, he recalled a ‘family dinner’ with incoming top EU officials at the New York home of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. ‘We sat in the kitchen together, rolled up our sleeves and had a great discussion about our relationship, the areas where we agree, and the areas where we disagree,’ Mr. Sondland said of the occasion attended by Charles Michel, European Council president-elect, and Josep Borrell, the nominee for EU foreign policy chief.” The article continued, “To critics of the administration, Mr. Sondland’s role shows Mr. Trump’s disdain for formal diplomatic process and over-reliance on personal contacts.”
The article is also instructive by connecting Ambassador Sondland with Mr. Kushner, Senior Advisor to the President & Director- Office of American Innovation.
Perhaps, Ambassador Sondland could replace the recently-departed Mr. Jason Greenblatt, Assistant to the President and Special Representative for International Negotiations, as a member of a proposed troika that would shepherd an agreement for a settlement to the certified claims against the Republic of Cuba, absent which is materially and increasingly impacting companies located within the member countries of the EU.
Given that the process to settle the certified claims has similar context to a real estate negotiation, the backgrounds of Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Kushner would suggest an ideal partnership. And, a partnership that could bring to fruition an agreement by 3 November 2020.
Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Kushner have already shared a dinner in New York City with H.E. Josep Borrell, current Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation of Spain, and incoming High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; and Spain-based companies are most impacted by twenty (20) lawsuits filed thus far in the United States using Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”). Due to his connectivity with Spain, Minister Borrell could well be the linkage that has been missing to the government of the Republic of Cuba.
There is already a commonality of interests among Messrs. Sondland, Kushner and Borrell- rolling-up sleeves to settle disputes.
Troika To Negotiate Settlement Of Certified Claims Against Cuba? Kushner, Greenblatt & Feinberg
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2018/11/18/lojx6s6oe5epgonh6mub855d5ak143?rq=Jared%20Kushner
Jared Kushner's Importance Reinforced By How President Trump (And Others) Recognize Him
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2018/11/30/yr7hp1sxibnu85bzl173l7djgg3f39?rq=Jared%20Kushner
From Wikipedia: “Gordon D. Sondland (born 1957) is the United States Ambassador to the European Union. He is also the founder and chairman of Provenance Hotels, co-founder of the merchant bank Aspen Capital. He was a major donor to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Provenance Hotels
Sondland’s company Provenance Hotels owns and manages hotels throughout the U.S. including the Hotel Max, and Hotel Theodore in Seattle, Washington; Hotel Murano in Tacoma, Washington; Hotel deLuxe, Hotel Lucia, Sentinel, Dossier, and Heathman Hotel in Portland, Oregon; The Hotel Preston in Nashville, Tennessee; and Old No. 77 Hotel and Chandlery in New Orleans, Louisiana.
In 1998, Sondland purchased and redeveloped four hotels in Seattle, Portland, and Denver including Seattle's Alexis Hotel in partnership with Bill Kimpton. Sondland also is a principal in Seattle's Paramount Hotel. Through Provenance Hotels, Sondland is developing hotel projects throughout the US, including in Seattle, Hermosa Beach, CA and Los Angeles, CA. Provenance Hotels specializes in adaptations of old buildings such as with the Hotel Murano in Tacoma, WA, which used to be a conference Sheraton, but now includes glass art by 46 artists including Seattle's Dale Chihuly. Provenance is also known for designing or remodeling each hotel around themes that contain elements that relate to a location’s history, art, culture, and local businesses.
In 2013, Sondland and Provenance completed a renovation of Portland’s historic Governor Hotel, renaming it Sentinel. In December 2015, Sondland and Provenance announced the establishment of the company's first real estate investment fund, Provenance Hotel Partners Fund I. The $525 million fund was created specifically for hotel real estate investment and, at the time of its announcement, was the fourth largest fund ever launched in the state of Oregon. In 2017, Provenance Hotels expanded its practice of revitalizing and rebranding hotels with locally-inspired art and design as a service to other hoteliers.
United States Ambassador to the European Union
Sondland donated $1 million to the inaugural committee of Donald Trump. On March 12, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump selected Sondland to be the next United States Ambassador to the European Union. On May 10, 2018, the White House announced that Sondland’s nomination had been sent to the U.S. Senate. He was confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 2018. On July 9, 2018, Sondland presented his credentials at the European Commission and to President of the European Council Donald Tusk.
Sondland's nomination received bipartisan support during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 21, 2018. Both Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) testified in support of Sondland. Sen. Wyden suggested that Sondland’s "family history is both fascinating and instructive as to why he has the experience and understanding to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U.," noting how his Jewish parents fled Nazi Germany before coming to the United States.
As Ambassador, Sondland has made strengthening US-EU trade relations a top priority. He has supported using a strong US-EU economic partnership to counter what Sondland has called “economic aggression and unfair trade practices” from China. In pursuit of this end, Sondland has promoted the idea of giving European governments access to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to allow them to better screen investors.
Sondland has also pledged to work with the EU to address global security threats. He has been the Trump Administration's lead in talks with EU member countries on the U.S.'s decertification and withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal. Sondland has repeatedly criticized EU member countries' creation of a "special purpose vehicle" (SVP) to bypass reimposed U.S. sanctions on Iran, calling the SPV a "paper tiger." Sondland has also been a vocal opponent of the construction of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would transport gas across the Baltic Sea to the EU.[26] He has argued that the pipeline would leave the EU dependent upon Russia for its energy needs and increase Russia’s leverage on key U.S. allies in NATO. Sondland argued that "Putin uses energy as a political weapon. The EU should not rely on a bare-chested version of the Harry Potter villain Lord Voldemort as a supplier, even if his gas is a bit cheaper." Sondland has also worked on data protection rules regarding U.S. compliance with the EU-US privacy shield.
Political involvement
Sondland was a member of the transition team for Governor Ted Kulongoski's administration and was appointed by Kulongoski to serve on the board of the Governor's Office of Film & Television. He was appointed the commission’s chair in 2002 and has served in that capacity until 2015. During his tenure on the film board, Sondland was instrumental in bringing the production of such television series as Leverage, The Librarians and Grimm to Oregon and presided over the state securing the production of feature-length films such as Wild starring Reese Witherspoon, Thumbsucker starring Tilda Swinton and The Ring Two starring Naomi Watts. At the 2015 Oregon Film Annual Governor’s Awards, Sondland received the "Achievement in Film Service Award" for his role in growing Oregon’s film industry.
Sondland also served as Oregon liaison to the White House. As an advisor to Kulongoski, Sondland suggested appointing Ted Wheeler as state treasurer, which Kulongoski did in 2010. In 2007 President George W. Bush appointed Sondland as a member of the Commission on White House Fellows. Sondland collaborates with President Bush and Jay Leno on an annual charitable auction of an autographed vehicle, with proceeds benefiting the Fisher House Foundation and the George W. Bush Foundation’s Military Service Initiative. He was a blunder for Mitt Romney's 2012 Presidential campaign, and in 2012, Sondland was selected to serve as a member of Mitt Romney's presidential transition team.
During the 2016 United States presidential election, Sondland initially supported Donald Trump, but cancelled a fundraiser and repudiated Trump for his attacks on Khizr and Ghazala Khan. In April 2017, it was revealed that 4 companies registered to Sondland donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee. As a result of his political involvement, Sondland and his businesses have been the subject of increased press coverage, especially among local media outlets. However, recent attempts to criticize his business practices in publications like Willamette Week and Eater Portland were later corrected.
Philanthropy
Sondland serves on the board of trustees at the Oregon Health & Science University foundation and the board of visitors of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Sondland joined the board of trustees at the Portland Art Museum - one of the oldest and largest art museums in the U.S. - in 1996 and was elected chair of the executive committee in 2009. The Trustee Room, a Contemporary Gallery, and the Grand Staircase at the Portland Art Museum are also named after Sondland and his wife Katherine Durant.
Sondland founded the Gordon Sondland and Katherine J. Durant Foundation in 1999, which was established to "help families and boost communities". The Foundation has given millions of dollars to various non-profits including $1,000,000 to the Portland Art Museum to endow permanent access for children under the age of eighteen. The Foundation helped establish a Distinguished Chair in Spine for pediatric orthopedic spine research at the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children in 2012. In 2012, the Foundation used the proceeds from the auction of a 2009 Ford F-150 that was previously owned by former President George W. Bush for a donation to the Fisher House Foundation. Sondland is also a National Finance Co-Chairman of the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas.
Sondland and the Foundation partnered with the River Club in 2013 to provide breakfast for the foreseeable future for students of the Simonga Basic School in Zambia. In 2014, the Foundation gave a $1,000,000 endowment to Oregon Health & Science University to establish the Sondland-Durant Distinguished Research Conference, a cancer research summit to begin in 2016. In 2017, the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Duke University was created with the support of the Foundation.
Sondland is married to Katherine Durant, who is the founder and managing partner of Atlas/RTG, a holding company with a portfolio of shopping centers throughout Oregon. Until 2016, Durant was the Chairperson of the Oregon Investment Council, the body that oversees the over $85 billion Public Employees Retirement System Fund. They have two children. In January 2018, Sondland and Durant were featured as the "January Power Couple" in Oregon Business.”
LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format
Libertad Act Lawsuit Statistics Updates: 20 Lawsuits, At Least 24 Law Firms & 73 Attorneys... So Far.
/As of 8 October 2019, which is 159-days since the Trump Administration made operational Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”):
Twenty (20) lawsuits filed
Court Filing Fees US$130,960.00
Twenty-Four (24) Law Firms
Seventy-Three (73) (68) Attorneys
One Hundred-And-Three (103) companies/individuals, excluding attorneys, are lawsuit parties
Seventy-Two (72) plaintiffs
Four (4) Class Action status requests
Sixty-seven (67) defendants
Five (5) companies notified as will be added as defendants unless prompt settlement
Lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Courts in Southern Florida (16), Washington DC (1), Washington State (1), Nevada (1) and Delaware (1)
Law firms retained by plaintiffs/defendants: Akerman; Arent Fox; Baker & McKenzie; Boies Schiller Flexner; Coffey Burlington; Colson Hicks Eidson; Cueto Law Group; Ewusiak Law; Hogan Lovells; Holland & Knight; Jones Walker; Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton; Law Offices Of Paul Sack; Manuel Vazquez PA; Margol & Margol; Mayer Brown; Pacifica Law Group; Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman; Reid Collins & Tsai; Rice Reuther Sullivan & Carroll; Rivero Mestre; Rosenthal, Monhait & Goodess; Steptoe & Johnson; Venable
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.
LINK To Updated Report
Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal Of Lawsuit In Spain Against Melia Hotels; Plaintiffs Sue In U.S.; Why Did Melia Hotels Offer US$5 Million Then US$3,197.75?
/Dismissal Of Case In Spain Against Melia Hotels International Is Appealed
Class Action Status Request For Case In U.S. Against Melia Hotels International Is Pending
Within Two Weeks, US$5 million Became US$3,197.75
How Did 100% Become .06%?
Could An Offer From 2002 Become Evidence In 2019?
On 29 May 2019, descendants of Mr. Rafael Lucas Sanchez Hill, acting as Central Santa Lucia S.A., filed a lawsuit in Spain seeking US$10 million from Palma de Mallorca, Spain-based Meliá Hotels International seeking damages for the use of land upon which a hotel is located in the Republic of Cuba. The lawsuit is not using provisions of Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as "Libertad Act").
On 3 September 2019, the court in Spain dismissed the lawsuit on grounds of jurisdiction. On 30 September 2019, the plaintiffs filed an appeal.
LINK To Spain Court Appeal
LINK To All Spain Court Filings
On 12 March 2002, Meliá Hotels International reportedly offered US$5 million to the descendants of Mr. Rafael Lucas Sanchez Hill as payment for "trafficking" relating to the Sol Rio de Oro Hotel in response to enactment in 1996 of the Libertad Act.
Title III of the Libertad Act 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 of the Libertad Act restricts entry into the United States by individuals who have connectivity to unresolved certified claims or non-certified claims. Employees of one Canada-based company is currently known to be subject to this provision based upon a certified claim.
On 26 March 2002, Sol Melia International, reportedly believing the [George W. Bush Administration; 20 January 2001 to 20 January 2009] United States Department of State would neither implement Title III nor Title IV of the Libertad Act, Melia Hotels International withdrew the offer of US$5 million and proposed US$3,197.75 representing a value (.06%) based upon the twenty-nine (29) acres of land occupied by the Sol Rio de Oro Hotel of the approximately 120,000 acres of land claimed by the descendants of the owners of the property. The US$3,197.75 was determined by Melia Hotels International as the corresponding percentage of the US$5 million tax loss carry-forward amount with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the 1960's.
If admitted as evidence by the United States District Court Southern District of Florida where a lawsuit with forty (40) plaintiffs seeking class action status using Title III of the Libertad Act was filed on 11 September 2019 that includes Melia Hotels International S.A. and Melia Hotels USA, LLC. as defendants, the offer in 2002 of US$5 million by Melia Hotels International could be construed as an acknowledgement of culpability.
Other hotel management companies operating in the Republic of Cuba- those already listed as defendants in lawsuits and those notified by plaintiff attorneys as potential defendants in lawsuits could be impacted by the offer in 2002 by Melia Hotels International S.A., particularly as the company has the largest number of properties under management in the Republic of Cuba, and recently inaugurated a new property. LINK To 40-Plaintiff Case.
LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format
LINK To EEOC Posts:
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2019/9/4/2sv7ypsuz6wyb8aykm25cseuvcpacu?rq=Sanchez%20Hill
If NH Hotel Group Of Spain Is Sued Using Libertad Act, One Defendant Would Be Former U.S. Citizen Who Now Controls Company
/Madrid, Spain-based NH Hotel Group (2018 revenues approximately US$1.8 billion) is 94.13% owned by Bangkok, Thailand-based Minor International Public Company Limited (2018 revenues approximately US$2 billion). LINK: https://www.minor.com/en
NH Hotel Group manages two properties in the Republic of Cuba: 220-room NH Capri La Habana and 31-room NH Collection Victoria La Habana and one property in the United States: 288-room NH Collection New York Madison Avenue.
“William Heinecke is the chairman and CEO of hospitality group Minor International, the company he founded as a cleaning business when he was 17 — still a minor — four years after relocating to Bangkok with his family. Throughout his 20s and 30s, it evolved into one of Thailand’s leading hospitality chains, and Heinecke said he felt he owed it to the country that “adopted” him to show his dedication to doing business there. Eight years after becoming a naturalized Thai citizen in 1991, William Heinecke was 42 when he did something drastic: He walked into the U.S. embassy in Bangkok, handed over his passport and renounced his citizenship.”
“He holds an Honorary Doctorate of Business Administration in Management from Yonok University, Lampang. He also completed the Director Certification Program (DCP) from the Thai Institute of Directors Association (IOD). Mr. Heinecke is the founder of Minor International Pcl. (MINT) and currently holds the position of Chief Executive Officer of Minor International PLC and is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Over the five decades of the Minor group’s existence, Mr. Heinecke has led the company and expanded its portfolio of restaurants, hotel businesses and lifestyle brand distribution. It currently has more than 2,100 restaurants, 160 hotels and 400 lifestyle outlets in 40 countries (excluding the NH Hotel Group portfolio). MINT is listed on the Thailand Stock Exchange, with revenues of more than 1.5 billion euros and a market capitalisation of 4 billion euros. Mr. Heinecke is the author of the book “The Entrepreneur – 25 Golden Rules for Global Business Manager””
From Forbes Magazine October 2019: “William E. Heinecke came to the Kingdom of Thailand in 1963 and founded the Minor Group in 1968. Almost five decades later the group has grown substantially into a large company with revenue of USD2.5 bn and market cap of over USD5.5bn. Listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand in 1988, Minor International Public Company Limited (MINT) is now a global company focused on three primary businesses: restaurants, hospitality and lifestyle brands distribution, all of which are now under one umbrella. The group currently employs more than 85,000 employees.
MINT is one of Asia’s largest restaurant companies with over 2,200 outlets operating system wide in 27 countries under The Pizza Company, Swensen’s, Sizzler, Dairy Queen, Burger King, Thai Express, The Coffee Club, Riverside and Benihana brands. In addition, it operates several food manufacturing facilities. MINT is also a hotel owner, operator and investor with a portfolio of over 75,000 rooms across more than 510 hotels, resorts and serviced suites under the Anantara, AVANI, Oaks, Tivoli, Elewana, NH Collection, NH Hotel, nhow, JW Marriott, Four Seasons, St. Regis, Radisson Blu and Minor International brands. Today, Minor Hotels' hotel and spa portfolio spans across 53 countries in Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Ocean, Europe and the Americas. Furthermore, MINT operates mixed-use businesses which are complementary to the hotel business. This includes real estate, retail and commercial development, comprising sale of luxury residences and the Anantara Vacation Club, MSpa and entertainment. MINT is one of Thailand’s largest distributors of lifestyle brands focusing primarily on fashion and cosmetics. Its brands include Brooks Brothers, Esprit, Bossini, Etam, OVS, Radley, Anello, Charles & Keith, Zwilling J.A. Henckels, Joseph Joseph, Bodum, Save My Bag, Scomadi and Minor Smart Kids. MINT is also a contract manufacturer of household products, with its own manufacturing plant. Now 69, Mr. Heinecke currently serves as a Chairman on the Board of Directors of MINT. The author of 'The Entrepreneur - 25 Golden Rules for Global Business Manager’, Mr. Heinecke also serves as a Director of Indorama Ventures PCL, the largest PET company in the world. Mr. Heinecke became a naturalized Thai citizen in 1991.”
Economic Eye On Cuba
July 2018
Obama’s Commerce Secretary’s Family Could Have Largest U.S. Footprint In Cuba
Hotels & Cruises
Acquisition Of Hotel Company In Spain
U.S. Department Of State Reports One Hotel Is A Site Of Health Issues
One Hotel Has Chicago Mafia & Hollywood Roots
Will OFAC Approve?
Irony: Secretary Pritzker’s Self-Imposed Selective Restraint To Help U.S. Companies
Illinois 1st Among States With Companies Having A Physical Presence In Cuba
The Honorable Penny Pritzker (net worth approximately US$2.8 billion according to Forbes Magazine) served as United States Secretary of Commerce from 2013 to 2017 during the Obama Administration.
Her brother, Mr. J.B. Pritzker, is the 2018 nominee for governor of the Democrat Party; and was national co-chairman of the 2008 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. [NOTE: He won the election.]
Her cousin, Mr. Thomas J. Pritzker, is the Executive Chairman of Chicago, Illinois-based Hyatt Hotels Corporation (2017 revenues approximately US$4.6 billion) which is controlled by the Chicago, Illinois-based Pritzker Family (net worth approximately US$29 billion according to Forbes Magazine). Mr. Pritzker is on the board of directors and has a substantial shareholding in Miami, Florida-based Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (RCCL; 2017 revenues approximately US$6.3 billion).
Hyatt Hotels Corporation, with approximately 700 properties located in fifty countries made an offer, since amended, to acquire Madrid, Spain-based NH Hotel Group (2017 revenues approximately US$1.3 billion) with approximately 382 properties located in thirty countries. https://newsroom.hyatt.com/nhhotelsstatement
Hyatt Hotels Corporation has previously sought hotel management opportunities within the Republic of Cuba: https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2017/2/11/hyatt-hotels?rq=Hyatt
NH Hotel Group manages two properties in the Republic of Cuba each of which is owned by Republic of Cuba government-operated Gran Caribe: 31-room NH Collection Victoria La Habana (a favorite for business representatives and journalists for twenty-five years: https://www.nh-collection.com/hotel/nh-collection-victoria-la-habana and the 220-room NH Capri La Habana: https://www.nh-hotels.com/corporate/press-room/news/nh-hotel-group-brings-back-emblematic-hotel-capri-collaboration-gran-caribe-hotel. Reservations for NH Capri La Habana may be obtained through www.booking.com. Gran Caribe is not listed by the United States Department of State as a prohibited entity from engagement with United States companies.
The NH Capri La Habana was identified by the United States Department of State as one of two hotels within which employees of the United States Government reported experiencing issues that impacted their health. The Hotel Nacional de Cuba, also owned by Gran Caribe, is the other hotel.
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2017/10/1/travelers-need-to-know-when-us-department-of-state-will-publish-addresses-of-implicated-locations-in-cuba?rq=Hotel%20Capri
If Hyatt Hotels Corporation acquires NH Hotel Group, likely will be required a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury in Washington DC., as the ownership would not be in compliance with at least one opinion by the OFAC: A U.S. company or individual may make a secondary market investment in a third-country business which has commercial dealings within the Republic of Cuba provided that the investment does not result in control-in-fact of the third-country business by the U.S. investor and the third-country company does not derive a majority of its revenues from business activity within the Republic of Cuba. Secondary market investment that falls short of a controlling interest in such a business is not prohibited.
July 30, 2018
Hyatt backs off Spain's NH Hotels bid in face of Minor stake
By Sonya Dowsett
MADRID (Reuters) - Hyatt Hotels (H.N) has backed away from launching a takeover of NH Hotels (NHH.MC), days after a rival bidder Minor (MINT.BK) revealed it controlled 44 percent of the Spanish group.
In a letter from Hyatt released to the Spanish stock exchange by NH, the U.S. hospitality company, which on Friday said it may launch a cash bid for 100 percent of NH, said it saw pursuing an offer as extremely challenging.
“Based on the information we now have, we believe that the path to a successful tender offer by Hyatt under the terms expressed in our letter has narrowed to a point of being impractical,” Hyatt’s President and Chief Executive Officer Mark Hoplamazian said in the letter released on Monday.
Thailand-based Minor International made an offer in June which valued NH at up to 2.5 billion euros ($2.9 billion). Minor already owns 29.8 percent with agreements in place to buy Chinese conglomerate HNA’s 8.4 percent holding and Oceanwood Capital Management’s 5.7 percent stakes. It said late on Friday it had control over 44 percent of NH’s share capital. Shares in NH dropped 6.4 percent on Monday to 6.3 euros per share, slightly below Minor’s offer price.
NH, with over 370 hotels in 30 countries, in January turned down a takeover offer from Spanish peer Barcelo which valued the company at 2.48 billion euros.
Minor had agreed to pay HNA 622 million euros for a 26.5 percent stake in the hotel group, taking its stake to around 38 percent after the conversion of some bonds to shares. It would then offer 6.4 euros for each remaining share, it said.
Hotels Magazine
Chicago, Illinois
Hyatt makes move for NH Hotels; Minor adds shares
By Jeff Weinstein on 7/27/2018
Hyatt Hotels Corp. has sent a non-binding letter to NH Hotel Group stating its interest in acquiring the Madrid-based hotel operator and challenging the June tender from Thailand’s Minor International, who later on Friday announced an additional investment, cumulatively totaling up to a 44% share in NH.
Minor’s June offer for NH, valued at €1.64 billion, is conditional on a scheduled August 9 approval from shareholders. On Friday, it announced a deal with Oceanwood Capital Management to purchase 22,496,064 shares in NH, representing a 5.7% shareholding, again subject to the approval at the August 9 meeting. It also has a pending deal to acquire from Tangla Spain SLU 32,937,996 NH shares representing an 8.4% share. It is already NH’s biggest shareholder with a 35.55% stake after acquiring HNA Group Co.’s stake in June.
Hyatt President and CEO Mark Hoplamazian said in a statement, “Hyatt has a demonstrated track record of making strategic investments to extend the reach of our brands and create value for our stakeholders. In keeping with our growth strategy, we submitted a letter expressing our interest in pursuing a potential acquisition of NH Hotel Group.
“We believe that marrying NH Hotel Group’s strong footprint in Europe and select other markets with Hyatt’s global presence would yield a powerful portfolio of brands and network of hotels delivering compelling benefits for guests, owners and shareholders of both companies.
“Consistent with our strategy of pivoting to an asset-lighter business model, we see significant value creation for shareholders through a separation of NH Hotel Group’s real-estate assets from its hotel management platform. As a next step, we are seeking to conduct additional due diligence to further inform valuation and determine the optimal approach to a potential offer.”
HOTELS asked Minor International to comment and only said, “this is a non-binding letter and Minor Hotels has no comment about it.”
Hotels Magazine
Chicago, Illinois
With new $724M stake, Minor to launch NH takeover bid
By Barbara Bohn on 6/6/2018
Minor International has set the stage to acquire Spain’s NH Hotel Group after reaching an agreement with HNA Group to increase its equity stake in the company by 25.2% on a fully diluted basis.
The new stake, which knocks Spain’s Grupo Barcelo out of the running for NH, is valued at €619 million (US$724.0 million). That brings Minor’s total proposed stake to 38%, which triggers Spanish regulations to launch a full takeover bid.
“Today we are embarking on a new era, driving investment strategy to further cement our footprint in the European hospitality industry,” said Dillip Rajakarier, CEO of Minor Hotels, according to a statement. “We will be able to create a network of over 540 hotels with a reach across Asia, Oceania, the Middle East, Africa and Europe, all of which are important hospitality regions around the world. The business network will allow the two companies to capitalize on our leadership positions in key growth areas, highly complementary asset and brand portfolio, technology platform and talented employees.”
Minor’s bid values the Spanish hotel group at up to €2.50 billion (US$2.90 billion); it said in a filing with the Spanish market regulator that it will offer €6.40 (US$7.49) for each remaining share in the company.
HNA’s sale, prompted by a restructuring to sell assets to raise cash, will take place in two stages: a 17.6% stake is expected to close on June 15, and when that is completed, it would sell a further 8.8%.
The deal is expected to close in September and would close a bumpy chapter for the Chinese company, which came under scrutiny by its government and has been, along with other Chinese hotel investors, squeezed to sell off its holdings in foreign companies. And NH knocked HNA’s representatives off its board after asserting that HNA’s 2016 purchase of Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group was a conflict of interest.
Minor said it intends to keep NH Hotel Group, which has 382 hotels in 30 markets in Europe, the Americas and Africa, as a publicly listed company on the Madrid Stock Exchange.
LINK To Complete Analysis In PDF Format
Who Filed 4 Libertad Act Lawsuits In 4 States Against 12 Companies? He’s From Texas. A Win Could Make Him The Giant Killer.
/Mr. Robert M. Glen of Plano, Texas, is using Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”) to file four (4) lawsuits to sue twelve (12) companies:
TripAdvisor LLC; TripAdvisor, Inc.; Orbitz, LLC; Trip Network, Inc. d/b/a CheapTickets; Kayak Software Corporation; Booking Holdings, Inc.; Travelscape LLC d/b/a Travelocity; Expedia, Inc.; Expedia Group, Inc.; Hotels.com, L.P.; Hotels.com GP, LLC; and American Airlines, Inc.
The four lawsuits were filed in United States District Courts in Washington (Seattle), Southern Florida, Delaware, and Nevada.
Glen v. American Airlines (1:19-cv-23994-CMA)
Glen v. Expedia Inc. et al (2:19-cv-01538-MLP)
Glen v. TripAdvisor LLC et al. (1:19-cv-01809-UNA)
Glen v. Travelscape LLC d/b/a/ Travelocity (2:19-cv-01683-GMN-NJK)
Mr. Glen has indicated that the companies managing/owning the hotels located on the claimed property may also be named as defendants. According to one of the lawsuits: “Cotepen is the site of three resorts. The first is currently known as Meliá Las Antillas (the “Las Antillas”), operated by Spanish hotel chain Meliá Hotels International, on the site of a former Beaches-brand resort. Las Antillas is a four-star, adults-only, all-inclusive resort featuring 350 guestrooms. The second is known as the Blau Varadero (the “Blau”). The Blau is an adults-only, all-inclusive resort featuring 395 guestrooms. The third is known as the Starfish Varadero (the “Starfish”). The Starfish is a family friendly, all-inclusive resort featuring 411 rooms. (Together, the Iberostar Tainos, Las Antillas, Blau, and Starfish are the “Subject Hotels”).”
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.
According to one of the lawsuit filings:
“Plaintiff Robert M. Glen is an individual residing in Plano, Texas. Glen is a naturalized United States citizen and a "United States national" pursuant to 22 U.S.C. §6023(15).
Glen holds a claim to two beachfront properties located in Varadero, Cuba, on the Hicacos Peninsula. Varadero is one of Cuba's most popular beach resort towns, featuring one of the Caribbean's best beaches and dozens of hotels and resorts that attract tourists and vacationers from around the world. Varadero is also the site of one of Cuba's busiest international airports.
Glen is the owner of property located in Varadero, Cuba that was originally owned by Glen's great-grandfather, Sergio de la Vega, who lived in Cardenas, across the bay from the Hicacos Peninsula. Glen's great-grandfather traveled by boat to the peninsula and built improvements upon it. Ownership of the property later passed to Glen's grandfather, Manuel de la Vega. When Manuel died in 1928, the properties passed to his wife, Ana Maria Martinez Andreu ("Martinez Andreu"), Glen's grandmother. Manuel and Martinez Andreu divided their property into two, contiguous plots.
The first was known as "Blancarena," and included 280 meters of ocean frontage. The second was known as "Cotepen" (short for "Co-Territorial Peninsula") and included 715 meters of ocean frontage. (Together, Blancarena and Cotepen are the "Glen Properties"). Glen's family built a small home on the Glen Properties. Cotepen is contiguous to Blancarena and sits directly to the east of Blancarena. Cotepen and Blancarena are of equal depth, each extending southward toward the present-day Autopista Sur, the main road that traverses the peninsula.
When Martinez Andreu died, Blancarena passed to Elvira de la Vega Martinez ("Elvira"), one of Martinez Andreu's two daughters, and Cotepen passed to Ana Maria de la Vega Martinez ("Ana Maria"), Martinez Andreu's other daughter. Elvira is Glen's mother. Ana Maria is Glen's aunt. Elvira and Ana Maria exercised ownership over Blancarena and Cotepen and worked to develop the land. In the late 1950s, Elvira considered selling a portion of Blancarena and subdividing it, but her plans were interrupted by the revolution.
Maps and surveys drawn in 1958, just prior to the Cuban revolution, reflect the location of the Glen Properties on the peninsula, including in connection with the construction of a canal (still in existence today) directly to the south of the properties. After January 1, 1959, and in connection with Cuban revolution, the communist Cuban government confiscated the Glen Properties.
Following the communist Cuban revolution, the properties were confiscated from Glen's family by the Cuban government. After the revolution, Glen's family fled Cuba, and Glen later became a naturalized U.S. citizen. When Ana Maria and Elvira died, ownership of Blancarena and Cotepen passed solely to Glen. Like Ana Mara and Elvira, Glen has continued to maintain a claim to the Glen Properties.”
Might Expedia Have Lessened Its Legal Exposure By Removing Hotel From Its Web Site? Might They Be First To Settle With Claimant?
/On 27 September 2019, the attorneys representing the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Bellevue, Washington-based Expedia, Inc. (2018 revenues approximately US$11.2 billion), amended the complaint to acknowledge Expedia’s Internet site had removed the listing for a hotel in Varadero, Matanzas, Republic of Cuba, managed by Palma, Spain-based Barcelo Hotel Group, which through four brands manages more than 250 hotels in twenty-two countries.
Barcelo Hotel Group manages three (3) properties in the Republic of Cuba: Barcelo Solymar, Occidental Arenas Blancas, and Allegro Palma Real.
According to the lawsuit: “…the Barceló Solymar (the “Resort”) was built. The Resort is operated by the Barceló Hotel Group (the Barceló Group”) in a joint venture with the Cuban government. Stays at the Resort are offered to travelers, including Florida and other U.S. residents, not only directly through the Barceló Group’s own website, but also—until very recently—through online booking providers like Expedia, Inc. (“Expedia”).”
27 September 2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 19-cv-22629-FAM
DIEGO TRINIDAD, v. EXPEDIA, INC., defendant.
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
“Between the date Trinidad gave Expedia notice of his intent to add Expedia to this action on August 8, 2019, and the filing of this Amended Complaint, it appears that Expedia, in recognition of its liability, has removed its listing for the Resort from its website. Expedia is nonetheless liable because it trafficked the Barcelo Solymar within the last two years. See 22 U.S.C. § 6084”
“It appears that the Resort was removed from the Expedia website between August 7, 2019, the date Expedia received notice of Trinidad’s intent to add Expedia to this action, and the filing of this Amended Complaint. Expedia’s removal of the Barcelo Solymar appears to be a subsequent remedial measure evidencing guilty knowledge.”
LINK To Court Filing
Expedia [Expedia, Inc., and Expedia Group, Inc.] is currently listed as a defendant in four (4) lawsuits filed using Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”). LINK To Lawsuit Statistics
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.
GE Fined US$2.7 Million For 2010-2014 Cuba Sanction Violations Through Canada; Company Remains Operational In Cuba
/Information concerning the civil penalties process can be found in the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) regulations governing each sanctions program; the Reporting, Procedures, and Penalties Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 501; and the Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 31 C.F.R. part 501, app. A. These references, as well as recent final civil penalties and enforcement information, can be found on OFAC’s website at www.treasury.gov/ofac/enforcement.
ENTITIES - 31 C.F.R. 501.805(d)(1)(i)
The General Electric Company Settles Potential Civil Liability for Alleged Violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations: The General Electric Company (“GE”) of Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of three current and former GE subsidiaries, Getsco Technical Services Inc., Bentley Nevada, and GE Betz (collectively, the “GE Companies”), has agreed to pay
$2,718,581 to settle its potential civil liability for 289 alleged violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 515 (CACR). Specifically, between December 2010 and February 2014, the GE Companies appear to have violated § 515.201(b) of the CACR on 289 occasions by accepting payment from The Cobalt Refinery Company (“Cobalt”) for goods and services provided to a Canadian customer of GE.
Since June 1995, Cobalt had been identified as a specially designated national (SDN) of Cuba and appeared on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the “SDN List”). Publicly available information also demonstrated that GE’s former Canadian customer is a corporation with strong historic and then-current economic ties to the Cuban mining industry through its business partnerships and joint ventures with the Cuban government. Cobalt is one of three entities owned by a public joint venture between GE’s Canadian customer and the Cuban government. From at least 1996 until the GE Companies terminated their relationship with their Canadian customer, the GE Companies maintained — and renewed on at least 18 occasions — this customer relationship despite the obvious sanctions risk posed by the relationship.
On February 24, 2014, GE Working Capital Solutions discovered that from at least 2010 to 2014, the GE Companies received numerous payments directly from Cobalt for invoices issued to GE’s Canadian customer. While the GE Companies negotiated and entered into contracts with GE’s Canadian customer, and sent all of their invoices to GE’s Canadian customer, Cobalt paid the GE Companies for its goods and services in more than 65 percent of the total transactions. The GE Companies approved Cobalt as a third-party payer and, over a four-year period, failed to appropriately recognize the significant and widely published relationship between Cobalt and their Canadian customer and did not undertake sufficient diligence into their customer's activities. The GE Companies deposited all checks received from Cobalt into GE’s bank account at a Canadian financial institution. The checks contained Cobalt’s full legal entity name as it appears on OFAC’s SDN List as well as an acronym for Cobalt (“Corefco”), but the GE Companies’ sanctions screening software, which screened only the abbreviation of the SDN’s name, never alerted on Cobalt’s name.
In total, the GE Companies received 289 checks directly from Cobalt from on or about December 9, 2010 to on or about February 28, 2014 totaling approximately $8,018,615. Additionally, goods and services the GE Companies provided to its Canadian customer were, in turn, used to supply utility services and other benefits to Cobalt, which is co-located with GE’s Canadian customer.
The statutory maximum civil monetary penalty applicable in this matter is $18,785,000. OFAC determined, however, that GE voluntarily self-disclosed the alleged violations, and that the alleged violations constitute a non-egregious case. Accordingly, under OFAC’s Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines (“Enforcement Guidelines”), the base civil monetary penalty amount applicable in this matter is $3,377,119.
The settlement amount of $2,718,581 also reflects OFAC’s consideration of the General Factors under the Enforcement Guidelines. Specifically, OFAC determined the following to be aggravating factors:
(1) The GE Companies failed to take proper or reasonable care with respect to their U.S. economic sanctions obligations — particularly given GE’s commercial sophistication. GE failed to identify that (i) for at least four years it was receiving payments that were on their face from a SDN of Cuba that has been on the SDN List since 1995, and (ii) it was providing goods and services to a customer that provides a direct and indirect benefit to a facility owned and operated by that designated Cuban company;
(2) The GE Companies’ actions caused substantial harm to the objectives of the Cuba sanctions program by conducting a large volume of high-value transactions directly with a Cuban company on the SDN List over a period of many years; and
(3) The substance of GE’s disclosures and other communications with OFAC leave substantial uncertainty about the totality of the benefits conferred to a Cuban company on the SDN List by the GE Companies through their Canadian customer, which had substantial and public ties to Cuba and the Cuban mining industry. While OFAC considered certain jurisdictional limitations on GE’s ability to provide a full picture of the scope of work performed at the request of its Canadian customer, at all relevant times, GE had reason to know of its customer’s specific and longstanding relationship with Cobalt. GE should have treated its Canadian customer as higher risk due to the customer’s publicly known joint venture with Cuba and substantial reliance on Cuban-origin ore. Finally, despite the provision to GE of OFAC’s Office of Enforcement Data Delivery Standards, GE did not provide its primary submissions to OFAC in a clear and organized manner and the submissions contained numerous inaccuracies, placing a substantial resource burden on OFAC during the course of its investigation.
OFAC determined the following to be mitigating factors:
(1) None of the GE Companies has received a penalty notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the five years preceding the date of the earliest transaction giving rise to the alleged violations;
(2) GE identified the alleged violations by testing and auditing its compliance program. Additionally, GE implemented remedial measures and new processes to enhance its sanctions compliance procedures, including developing a training video for all company employees using the alleged violations as a case study; and
(3) GE cooperated with OFAC by executing and extending multiple statute of limitations tolling agreements.
This enforcement action highlights the sanctions risks to U.S. companies and their foreign subsidiaries associated with (i) accepting payments from third parties and (ii) conducting transactions in foreign currency or at a foreign financial institution. Additionally, this action demonstrates the importance of conducting appropriate due diligence on customers and other counter-parties when initiating and renewing customer relationships. Ongoing compliance measures should be taken throughout the life of commercial relationships.
As noted in OFAC’s Framework for Compliance Commitments, U.S. companies can mitigate sanctions risk by conducting risk assessments and exercising caution when doing business with entities that are affiliated with, or known to transact with, OFAC-sanctioned persons or jurisdictions, or that otherwise pose high risks due to their joint ventures, affiliates, subsidiaries, customers, suppliers, geographic location, or the products and services they offer.
For more information regarding OFAC regulations, please go to: www.treasury.gov/ofac.
LINK To Document In PDF Format
Posts About GE Current Operations In Cuba:
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2016/12/13/general-electric-enters-cuba?rq=General%20Electric
https://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2016/3/12/lysrp5is9trf82ppzyke0404lbz1wr?rq=General%20Electric
152 Days Since Libertad Act Operational: 20 Lawsuits, 5 Court Districts, 58 Attorneys, 103 Parties, 72 Plaintiffs, 67 Defendants, 5 Potential Defendants, 4 Class Action Requests
/As of 1 October 2019, which is 152-days since the Trump Administration made operational Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”):
Twenty (20) lawsuits filed.
Court Filing Fees US$130,960.00
Fifty-Eight (58) Attorneys.
One Hundred And Three (103) companies/individuals, excluding attorneys, are lawsuits parties.
Seventy-Two (72) plaintiffs.
Four (4) Class Action status requests.
Sixty-seven (67) defendants.
Five (5) companies notified as will be added as defendants unless prompt settlement.
Lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Courts in Southern Florida (16), Washington DC (1), Washington State (1), Nevada (1) and Delaware (1).
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.
LINK To The Complete Data In PDF Format
