Port Mariel Handles 2 millionth TEU Since Opening In 2014; Can Process 800,000 TEU Annually

Seatrade Maritime News
Colchester, United Kingdom
12 October 2020

Cuba’s Mariel Container Terminal achieves 2m teu handled

By Michele Labrut 

PSA-managed Mariel Container Terminal (TC Mariel) has achieved the milestone of handling 2m teu since its inauguration on 27 January 2014. 

The MV Julius, from the shipping line Melfi Marine Corp, transport the container that would become the two millionth teu handled by the terminal. This vessel operates on a regular service between the Mediterranean and the Caribbean. 

This milestone is part of the contribution made by TC Mariel in the modernisation and economic development project of Cuba, as a key link of Mariel Special Development Zone (ZEDM).  The ZEDM was inaugurated in November 2013 and provides a production and logistics platform. 

TC Mariel offers berthing in protected waters and cargo operations with a 702 m long berth and four super post-panamax dock cranes. The terminal has an annual capacity of 800,000 teu and in 2019 it handled 322,000 teu. 

PSA-operated TC Mariel’s modern infrastructure and equipment, qualified personnel, advanced technology and its access channel for panamax ships, which is the process of being dredged to receive neo-panamax ships, has positioned the terminal as a strategic logistics hub with great potential within the region. 

Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved.  Seatrade, a trading name of Informa Markets (UK) Limited.

Six Months Since EU Asked By Defendant In Libertad Act Lawsuit To Provide Guidance; 2nd Defendant Asked In August. EU Responds It's "actively accessing application" Where Are EU Attorneys?

France, Spain, UK
EU-Domiciled Companies Are Defendants In Libertad Act Lawsuits; Two Await Instructions From EC- One Defendant Waiting Six Months; Where Are EU Attorneys?

Bristol, United Kingdom-based Imperial Brands plc
(2019 revenues approximately US$34 billion)*
Paris, France-based BNP Paribas S.A.
(2019 revenues approximately US$49 billion)
Palma, Spain-based Iberostar Group
(2019 revenues approximately US$2.5 billion)
Paris, France-based Pernod Ricard
(2019 revenues approximately US$10.4 billion)
Paris, France-based Société Générale S.A.
(2019 revenues approximately US$25 billion)
London, United Kingdom-based WWP plc
(2019 revenues approximately US$14 billion)*

*(until 31 December 2020 when the United Kingdom departs the European Union, then United Kingdom statutes relevant) 

There are two (2) Libertad Act lawsuits where the defendant(s) have requested guidance from the Brussels, Belgium-based European Commission (EC).   

Iberostar Group sent its letter to the EC on 15 April 2020.  Imperial Brands sent its letter to the EC on 27 August 2020. 

From The EU: The EC is the European Union’s (EU) “politically independent executive arm.  It is alone responsible for drawing up proposals for new European legislation, and it implements the decisions of the European Parliament and the Council of the EU.”   

TEMPLATE FOR APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORISATIONS- under Article 5 paragraph 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom ('Regulation').  Criteria for assessing possible applications for such an authorisation are laid down in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1101. This template aims to help EU operators consider and submit a possible application, by providing the basic elements to be taken into account in such an application. LINK

In the third quarter of 2019, the then twenty-eight, now twenty-seven member EC confirmed its intention to issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) to law firms in the United States.  The law firm(s) would be retained to file “amicus curiae” (friend-of-the-court) motions and other motions on behalf of each Libertad Act Title III lawsuit defendant who is domiciled in the EC.  To date, no RFP has been published. 

Excerpt From Judge’s Order Granting Iberostar’s Motion To Stay (4/24/20): ”This requirement comes from a European Union blocking statute enacted to counteract the effects of the Helms-Burton Act, and Iberostar faces EUR 600,000 in sanctions for failure to first obtain authorization. (ECF No. 16 at ¶ 3.) Iberostar’s request for authorization has already been filed and is currently pending before the European Commission. (Id. at ¶ 18.) In the interest of international comity, this Court has determined that it is appropriate to stay this case pending the Iberostar’s request for authorization from the European Commission.  The Court grants Iberostar’s motion for a stay (ECF No. 16), and the case is stayed until the European Union grants Iberostar’s request for authorization.  Iberostar shall submit status reports on its request for authorization every 30 days. In the interim, the Court directs the Clerk to administratively close this case.” 

On 23 September 2020, Iberostar Hoteles Y Apartamentos, S.L. filed a “Defendant’s Status Report” with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.   

Excerpts:  

Defendant IBEROSTAR HOTELES Y APARTAMENTOS, S.L.U. (“Iberostar”) submits 1(Iberostar reserves all its rights and will move to dismiss based on its Rule 12 defenses when it receives authorization to do so from the European Commission.)  this status report pursuant to this Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings dated April 24, 2020 (D.E. 17), directing Defendant to submit status reports every 30 days on its request for authorization to the European Union Commission. Defendant states as follows: 

1. Since the last update filed on May 26, 2020, Iberostar continues to await a decision on its application for authorization to the European Commission to respond to the Complaint in this action which was filed with the European Commission on April 15, 2020 (the Application”).  Defendant’s Motion to Stay, ¶ 2. (D.E. 16). 

2. The European Commission acknowledged receipt of Defendant’s Application on May 19, 2020. 

3. On June 15, 2020, Iberostar requested the European Commission to provide an update on the status of the Application. 

4. On June 22, 2020, the European Commission confirmed that it is “currently assessing [Defendant’s] application,” and that the Commission does “[its] utmost to ensure that a decision is taken in due course.” 

5. On August 10, 2020, the European Commission informed Iberostar regarding the procedures involved in the consideration of the pending Application. They explained that it requires “extensive consultation of both the Commission’s services and Member States’ authorities.” 

6. On September 21, 2020, Iberostar requested an update from the European Commission regarding the status of Iberostar’s Application. 

7. This morning, on September 23, 2020, the Commission replied that its “services are actively assessing [Iberostar’s] application.” The Commission highlighted that the “complexity of [Iberostar’s] request requires careful consideration, including extensive consultation of both the Commission services and Member States’ authorities.” Finally, the Commission confirmed that, “[d]espite the challenges presented by the current health situation, [they] do [their] utmost to ensure that a decision is taken in due course.” 

8. Defendant will keep this Court duly updated of any developments on the request for authorization from the European Commission. 

The Lawsuits 

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, MARIA TERESA RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a MARIA TERESA LANDA, ALFREDO RAMON FORNS, RAMON ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, RAUL LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, CHRISTINA CONROY, and FRANCISCO RAMON RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs, v. IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, CORPORACIÓN HABANOS, S.A., WPP PLC, YOUNG & RUBICAM LLC, and BCW LLC, a/k/a BURSON COHN & WOLFE LLC [1:20-cv-23287; Southern Florida District].

Berenthal & Associates (plaintiff)
Rodriguez Tramont & Nunez (plaintiff)
Nelson Mullins (defendant)
Allen & Overy (defendant)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (defendant)
Broad & Cassel (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

SUCESORES DE DON CARLOS NUNEZ Y DONA PURA GALVEZ, INC., BDA BANO NUNEZ V. SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE, S.A., D/B/A SG AMERICAS, INC.; THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, D/B/A SCOTIA HOLDINGS (US) INC., A/K/A THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, MIAMI AGENCY; THE NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA, D/B/A NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; AND BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA, S.A., D/B/A BBVA, USA., [1:19-cv-22842; Southern Florida District]. NOTE: Case transferred to New York Southern District On 2 February 2020 [1:20-cv-00851]. Current defendants Societe Generale, S.A. and BNP Paribas, S.A.

Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP (plaintiff)
Law Offices Of Paul Sack P.A. (plaintiff)
MoloLamken LLC (plaintiff)
Mayer Brown LLP (defendant)
ReedSmith LLP (defendant)
Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman (defendant)

MARLENE CUETO IGLESIAS AND MARIAM IGLESIAS ALVAREZ V. PERNOD RICARD [1:20-cv-20157; Southern Florida District]

IPS Legal Group, P.A. (plaintiff)
Law Offices of Andre G. Raikhelson LLC (plaintiff)
Ainsworth & Clancy PLLC (plaintiff)
Carlton Fields P.A. (defendant)
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. (defendant)

MARIA DOLORES CANTO MARTI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATES OF DOLORES MARTI MERCADE AND FERNANDO CANTO BORY V. IBEROSTAR HOTELES Y APARTAMENTOS SL [1:20-cv-20078; Southern Florida District]

Zumpano Patricios P.A. (plaintiff)
Bird & Bird (defendant)
Holland & Knight (defendant)

NOTE: Iberostar Hoteles has two properties in the United States: 70 Park Avenue in New York City and Berkeley in Miami Beach, Florida.  Iberostar Hoteles manages eighteen properties in the Republic of Cuba. 

Excerpts From Defendant’s Motion To Stay Proceedings (4/23/20)  

1. Iberostar is caught between the conflicting demands of two legal systems: that of the United States and that of the European Union (“EU”). On the one hand, Iberostar must respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint by May 8, 2020. On the other hand, the European Commission requires an EU-based company to obtain authorization before it can file a response to any lawsuit brought under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act (the “Helms-Burton Act” or the “Act”). This requirement arises from the EU blocking statute enacted to counteract the effects of the Helm-Burton Act, expressly prohibiting a Spanish entity such as Iberostar1 from complying “whether directly or through a subsidiary or other intermediary person, actively or by deliberate omission, with any requirement or prohibition, including requests of foreign courts, based on or resulting, directly or indirectly, from the laws specified in the Annex [which expressly includes the Act] or from actions based thereon or resulting therefrom.” See Council Regulation 2271/96, Protecting Against the Effects of the Extra-Territorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country, and Actions Based Thereon or Resulting Therefrom, 1996 O.J. (L 309) 1 (EC) (the “Council Regulation 2271/96”) attached as Exhibit A.  

2. On April 15, 2020, Iberostar filed an application for authorization from the European Commission to respond to the Complaint in this action. See Exhibit B.2 Iberostar has also requested the expedited consideration of its application to the European Commission.  Iberostar does not know how long it will take to obtain a response to its application given that the applicable European legislation establishes no specific deadline for the European Commission to answer the request. Iberostar will be prepared to respond promptly after it receives a response on or after May 8, 2020. To avoid a protracted delay, this request for a stay is limited to no more than 75 days.  

3. Should Iberostar ignore the European Commission’s mandate and actively participate in this action without the Commission’s authorization, each breach would be subject to a penalty of up to EUR 600,000 by the Spanish government pursuant to Spanish Law 27/1998, of July 13, on Sanctions Applicable to Infringements of the Rules Established in Council Regulation 2271/96 (“Law 27/1998”).  See Law 27/1998, art. 5. The potential for sanctions is elevated given the Spanish government’s overt repudiation of Title III of the Act.   

4. However, if Iberostar fails to timely respond to the Complaint, it risks the possibility of not only waiving certain Rule 12(b) defenses, but also the potential entry of a default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.  

5. Therefore, as it awaits a response from the European Commission on its application, Iberostar respectfully requests a brief stay of proceedings based on the principle of international comity that counsels recognition and accommodation by U.S. courts of a foreign jurisdiction’s interests in a matter involving its nationals.  A temporary stay will also conserve the parties’ and the Court’s scarce judicial resources.  If the motion is granted, Iberostar will provide status reports on the progress of its application every thirty (30) days, or as otherwise directed by the Court. Iberostar further warrants that it will continue to press for an expeditious disposition of its pending application before the European Commission.  To that end, Iberostar has already asked the Secretariat of State for Commerce of the Kingdom of Spain to bring to the attention of the European Commission the need to timely address the request for authorization filed by Iberostar.   

Defendant has conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel about the request to stay the proceedings in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), and Plaintiff’s counsel does not agree to the requested relief.   

Court Document Links:
Template For Applications For Authorisations To EU (9/18/20)
Defendant's Status Report Maria Delores Canto Marti v. Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos S.L. (9/23/20)
Order Denying Motion To Vacate Stay In Maria Delores Canto Marti v. Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos S.L. (9/17/20)
Reply In Further Support Of Defendant Imperial Brands PLC’s Motion For A Limited Stay (9/18/20)
Defendant Imperial Brands PLC's Opposition To Motion To Strike The Declaration Of Andrew Rhys Davies (9/22/20)
Defendant Imperial Brands PLC’s Motion For A Limited Stay (8/28/20)
Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

LINK To Posts

Iberostar Hotels Of Spain Sued By Former Property Owners Using Libertad Act

EC Now Has To Decide What It Perhaps Doesn’t Want To Decide- Iberostar Of Spain Libertad Act Lawsuit Is First To Report U.S. Court Recognizing EC’s Interest In Title III Lawsuits  April 26, 2020  

Libertad Act Lawsuit Update: 4 Of 29 Cases On Appeal... Is U.S. Supreme Court The Eventual Destination?

JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA V. CARNIVAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ CARNIVAL CRUISE LINE, A FOREIGN CORPORATION [1:19-cv-21725 Southern Florida District; 20-12960 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Creed & Gowdy (plaintiff- appellate)
Jones Walker (defendant)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

ROBERT M. GLEN V. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., [1:19-cv-23994 Southern Florida District; 4:20-cv-00482-A Transferred To Northern Texas District; 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 20-10903]

Reid Collins & Tsai (plaintiff)
Ewusiak Law, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Day (defendant)
Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP (defendant)

DANIEL A. GONZALEZ VS. AMAZON.COM, INC., AND SUSSHI INTERNATIONAL, INC., D/B/A/ FOGO CHARCOAL [1:19-cv-23988; Southern Florida District; 20-12113-F 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]

Cueto Law Group, P.L. (plaintiff)
Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford (defendant- Susshi International)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (defendant- Amazon)

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

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

LINK To Libertad Act Lawsuit Filing Statistics

Might A Libertad Act Lawsuit Reach The United States Supreme Court? The United States Supreme Court accepts approximately one hundred to one hundred-fifty of approximately 7,000 cases it is requested to review each year. The United States Supreme Court accepts cases decided in either a United States Court of Appeals or highest State Court (if the state court decided a United States Constitutional issue). Senior law clerks for the nine United States Supreme Court Justices are often the first layer to determine which cases are reviewed.

Supreme Court Procedures

Background: Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good behavior, typically, for life.

The Constitution states that the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case. The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. Appellate jurisdiction means that the Court has the authority to review the decisions of lower courts. Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts.

Writs of Certiorari: Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value. In fact, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue).

The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court.

Law Clerks: Each Justice is permitted to have between three and four law clerks per Court term. These are individuals who, fairly recently, graduated from law school, typically, at the top of their class from the best schools. Often, they have served a year or more as a law clerk for a federal judge. Among other things, they do legal research that assists Justices in deciding what cases to accept; help to prepare questions that the Justice may ask during oral arguments; and assist with the drafting of opinions.

While it is the prerogative of every Justice to read each petition for certiorari himself/herself, many participate in what is informally known as the "cert pool." As petitions for certiorari come in on a weekly basis, they are divided among the participating Justices. The participating Justices divide their petitions among their law clerks. The law clerks, in turn, read the petitions assigned to them, write a brief memorandum about the case, and make a recommendation as to whether the case should be accepted or not. The Justice provides these memoranda and recommendations to the other Justices at a Justices' Conference.

Briefs: If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for certiorari), the case is placed on the docket. According to the Supreme Court's rules, the petitioner has a certain amount of time to write a brief, not to exceed 50 pages, putting forth his/her legal case concerning the issue on which the Court granted review. After the petitioner's brief has been filed, the other party, known as the respondent, is given a certain amount of time to file a respondent's brief. This brief is also not to exceed 50 pages.

After the initial petitions have been filed, the petitioner and respondent are permitted to file briefs of a shorter length that respond to the other party's respective position. If not directly involved in the case, the U.S. Government, represented by the Solicitor General, can file a brief on behalf of the government. With the permission of the Court, groups that do not have a direct stake in the outcome of the case, but are nevertheless interested in it, may file what is known as an amicus curiae (Latin for "friend of the court") brief providing their own arguments and recommendations for how the case should be decided.

Oral Arguments: By law, the U.S. Supreme Court's term begins on the first Monday in October and goes through the Sunday before the first Monday in October of the following year. The Court is, typically, in recess from late June/early July until the first Monday in October.

The Court hears oral arguments in cases from October through April. From October through December, arguments are heard during the first two weeks of each month. From January through April, arguments are heard on the last two weeks of each month. During each two-week session, oral arguments are heard on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays only (unless the Court directs otherwise).

Oral arguments are open to the public. Typically, two cases are heard each day, beginning at 10 a.m. Each case is allotted an hour for arguments. During this time, lawyers for each party have a half hour to make their best legal case to the Justices. Most of this time, however, is spent answering the Justices' questions. The Justices tend to view oral arguments not as a forum for the lawyers to rehash the merits of the case as found in their briefs, but for answering any questions that the Justices may have developed while reading their briefs.

The Solicitor General usually argues cases in which the U.S. Government is a party. If the U.S. Government is not a party, the Solicitor still may be allotted time to express the government's interests in the case.

During oral arguments, each side has approximately 30 minutes to present its case, however, attorneys are not required to use the entire time. The petitioner argues first, then the respondent. If the petitioner reserves time for rebuttal, the petitioner speaks last. After the Court is seated, the Chief Justice acknowledges counsel for the petitioner, who already is standing at the podium. The attorney then begins: "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court . . . ."

Only the Chief Justice is addressed as Mr. Chief Justice. Others are addressed as "Justice Scalia," "Justice Ginsburg," or "Your Honor." The title "Judge" is not used for Supreme Court Justices.

Courtroom/Classroom Simulations: Modifications of Procedure: Justices, typically, ask questions throughout each presentation. However, in courtroom or classroom simulations, to put student attorneys at ease, student Justices do not ask questions for the first two minutes of each side's argument. When the student Marshal holds up a five-minute warning card, the student attorney at the podium should conclude his/her argument and be ready to end when the Marshal holds up the STOP card.

Before leaving the podium after making the initial presentation, counsel for the petitioner may reserve some time for rebuttal after the respondent's counsel has presented. The petitioner — not the Court — is responsible for keeping track of the time remaining for rebuttal. In typical program simulations, more than one student attorney argues each side. In that instance, they should inform the student Marshal before the court session begins how they wish to divide their time. Usually, the first student attorney to speak also handles the rebuttal.

Conference: When oral arguments are concluded, the Justices have to decide the case. They do so at what is known as the Justices' Conference. When Court is in session, there are two conferences scheduled per week – one on Wednesday afternoon and one on Friday afternoon. At their Wednesday conference, the Justices talk about the cases heard on Monday. At their Friday conference, they discuss cases heard on Tuesday and Wednesday. When Court is not in session, no Wednesday conference is held.

Before going into the Conference, the Justices frequently discuss the relevant cases with their law clerks, seeking to get different perspectives on the case. At the end of these sessions, sometimes the Justices have a fairly good idea of how they will vote in the case; other times, they are still uncommitted.

According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc. The Chief Justice calls the session to order and, as a sign of the collegial nature of the institution, all the Justices shake hands. The first order of business, typically, is to discuss the week's petitions for certiorari, i.e., deciding which cases to accept or reject.

After the petitions for certiorari are dealt with, the Justices begin to discuss the cases that were heard since their last Conference. According to Supreme Court protocol, all Justices have an opportunity to state their views on the case and raise any questions or concerns they may have. Each Justice speaks without interruptions from the others. The Chief Justice makes the first statement, then each Justice speaks in descending order of seniority, ending with the most junior justice—the one who has served on the court for the fewest years.

When each Justice is finished speaking, the Chief Justice casts the first vote, and then each Justice in descending order of seniority does likewise until the most junior justice casts the last vote. After the votes have been tallied, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Justice in the majority if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, assigns a Justice in the majority to write the opinion of the Court. The most senior justice in the dissent can assign a dissenting Justice to write the dissenting opinion.

If a Justice agrees with the outcome of the case, but not the majority's rationale for it, that Justice may write a concurring opinion. Any Justice may write a separate dissenting opinion. When there is a tie vote, the decision of the lower Court stands. This can happen if, for some reason, any of the nine Justices is not participating in a case (e.g., a seat is vacant or a Justice has had to recuse).

Opinions: All opinions of the Court are, typically, handed down by the last day of the Court's term (the day in late June/early July when the Court recesses for the summer). With the exception of this deadline, there are no rules concerning when decisions must be released. Typically, decisions that are unanimous are released sooner than those that have concurring and dissenting opinions. While some unanimous decisions are handed down as early as December, some controversial opinions, even if heard in October, may not be handed down until the last day of the term.

A majority of Justices must agree to all of the contents of the Court's opinion before it is publicly delivered. Justices do this by "signing onto" the opinion. The Justice in charge of writing the opinion must be careful to take into consideration the comments and concerns of the others who voted in the majority. If this does not happen, there may not be enough Justices to maintain the majority. On rare occasions in close cases, a dissenting opinion later becomes the majority opinion because one or more Justices switch their votes after reading the drafts of the majority and dissenting opinions. No opinion is considered the official opinion of the Court until it is delivered in open Court (or at least made available to the public).

On days when the Court is hearing oral arguments, decisions may be handed down before the arguments are heard. During the months of May and June, the Court meets at 10 a.m. every Monday to release opinions. During the last week of the term, additional days may be designated as "opinion days."

Libertad Act Lawsuit Update: MSC Cruises Receives Second Amended Complaint

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. MSC CRUISES SA CO, AND MSC CRUISES (USA) INC. [1:19-cv-23588; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Venable (defendant)

LINK To Second Amended Complaint (10/8/20)

Amazon Libertad Act Lawsuit Update: Next Stop To 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals- Plaintiff Appearing Pro Se

DANIEL A. GONZALEZ VS. AMAZON.COM, INC., AND SUSSHI INTERNATIONAL, INC., D/B/A/ FOGO CHARCOAL [1:19-cv-23988; Southern Florida District; 20-12113-F 11th Circuit Court of Appeals]

Cueto Law Group, P.L. (plaintiff)
Daniel Gonzalez (plaintiff Pro Se- appeal)
Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford (defendant- Susshi International)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (defendant- Amazon)

LINK To Appellant Reply Brief (9/3/20)

LINK To Notice Of Appeal (6/8/20)

LINK To Notice To Parties (6/11/20)

Teck Resources Of Canada Libertad Act Lawsuit Update: Plaintiff Says Its Canadian Company And Court Has No Jurisdiction

HEREDEROS DE ROBERTO GOMEZ CABRERA, LLC v. TECK RESOURCES LIMITED [1:20-cv-21630; Southern Florida District]

Hirzel Dreyfuss & Dempsey, PLLC (plaintiff)
Roig & Villarreal, P.A. (plaintiff)
Law Office of David A. Villarreal, P.A. (plaintiff)
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (defendant)

LINK: Defendant Tech Resources Limited’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint And Memorandum Of Law (9/15/20)

Excerpts:
This is one of many claims recently brought in this District under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, 22 U.S.C. § 6021, et seq. (the “Helms-Burton Act” or “Act”). For at least four separate and independent reasons, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.

First, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant Teck, a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Canada. Teck has no jurisdictionally relevant contacts of any kind with the State of Florida, and the Amended Complaint fails to plead that it does.

Second, even if there were some cognizable basis to exercise jurisdiction over Teck, the Amended Complaint should still be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Amended Complaint alleges that Teck is liable for having “trafficked” in various mining properties in Cuba confiscated by the Cuban government, without compensation, in October 1960. However, according to the Amended Complaint, those mining properties were owned by a corporation named Minera Rogoca S.A. (“Minera Rogoca”). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 8, 11. Putting to one side whether there can be any claim at all under U.S. law for the confiscation of real and personal property in Cuba by the Cuban government from a Cuban corporation, such claim would belong to Minera Rogoca, not HRGC or its alleged predecessors in interest.

Third, HRGC cannot possibly be a proper plaintiff here. It appears from the records of the Florida Secretary of State that “Herederos de Roberto Gomez Cabrera, LLC” is not even a validly formed entity under Florida, or any other, law.2 Even if it were, as this Court recently held in Gonzalez v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 19-23988-Civ-Scola, 2020 WL 1169125, at *1 (S.D. Fla. March 11, 2020), for property confiscated before March 12, 1996, only a U.S. national that acquired ownership of the claim before that date can pursue a claim under the Helms-Burton Act. No such allegation is, or could be, made here.

Fourth, HRGC’s alleged claim fails to meet the requirements of the statute and of international law. A claim under the Helms-Burton Act can only be asserted if the property was confiscated from a U.S. national, which is not, and is not alleged to be, the case here. On the other hand, if Mr. Gomez Cabrera had been a U.S. national at the time of the alleged confiscation, then he (or presumably his heirs) would have been eligible to file a claim with the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, established under 22 U.S.C. §§ 1621, et seq. (the “FCSC”). No such claim was ever filed, either byMinera Rogoca or Mr. Gomez Cabrera, or by any U.S. national claiming ownership through either of them. The failure to make a claim before the FCSC by one eligible to do so forecloses a claim under the Helms-Burton Act, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. §6082(a)(5)(A). For these reasons, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.

Pernod Ricard Libertad Lawsuit Update: Plaintiff Wants Discovery

MARLENE CUETO IGLESIAS AND MARIAM IGLESIAS ALVAREZ V. PERNOD RICARD [1:20-cv-20157; Southern Florida District]

IPS Legal Group, P.A. (plaintiff)
Law Offices of Andre G. Raikhelson LLC (plaintiff)
Ainsworth & Clancy PLLC (plaintiff)
Carlton Fields P.A. (defendant)
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. (defendant)

Plaintiff's Response In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss The Second Amended Complaint (10/9/20)

Declaration Of Miriam Iglesias Alvarez (10/9/20)

Declaration Of Marlene Cueto Iglesias (10/9/20)

Declaration Of Justin Boyd In Support Of Plaintiff Response To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (10/9/20)

LINK: Plaintiffs’ Reply To Defendant’ss Memorandum Of Law In Opppsition To Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion For Leave To Conduct Limited Jurisdictional Discovery (10/5/20)

Excerpts:

Defendant Pernod Ricard (“Defendant”) contends that the length of Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Limited Jurisdictional Discovery is somehow indicative of the validity of Plaintiffs request to conduct discovery. While the substantive issues in this case are complex, Plaintiffs request before the Court is straightforward and does not require a twenty-page brief to reach the conclusion that jurisdictional discovery is warranted. The Eleventh Circuit has held that the court’s power to allow jurisdictional discovery “is not entirely discretionary.”

Defendant’s arguments in opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery are premature. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ contention that limited jurisdictional discovery would reveal that Defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court, Plaintiffs have not propounded discovery to Defendant. Defendant cannot make specific objections to discovery requests that is has not received. Accordingly, the Court should disregard Defendant’s arguments as untimely.

American Airlines Libertad Act Lawsuit Update: Plaintiff Wants Discovery; Defendant Wants To Wait

JOSE RAMON LOPEZ REGUEIRO V. AMERICAN AIRLINES INC. AND LATAM AIRLINES GROUP, S.A. [1:19-cv-23965; Southern Florida District]

Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Jones Day (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

LINK: Joint Status Report (10/1/20)

U.S. Ag/Food Exports To Cuba Decrease 52% In August; Decline 49.4% Year-To-Year

ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
October 2020

August 2020 Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Decrease 52%- 1
58th Of 224 August U.S. Food/Ag Export Markets- 2
Year-To-Year Exports Decrease 49.4%- 2
Cuba Ranks 59th Of 224 Ag/Food Export Markets- 2
August 2020 Healthcare Product Exports US$204,486.00- 2
August 2020 Humanitarian Donations US$352,821.00- 3
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Continue- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 16

AUGUST 2020 FOOD/AG EXPORTS TO CUBA DECREASE 52%- Exports of food products and agricultural commodities from the United States to the Republic of Cuba in August 2020 were US$15,099,435.00 compared to US$31,724,133.00 in August 2019 and US$15,322,008.00 in August 2018.

Agricultural commodity and food product exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba thus far in 2020 are US$110,144,983.00 compared to US$217,838,615.00 in 2019, representing a decrease of 49.4%.

Since December 2001, agricultural commodity and food product exports from the United States to the Republic of Cuba is US$6,243,017,679.00.

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

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

Complete Report In PDF Format

London-Based Imperial Brands, WWP (And U.S.-Based Subsidiaries Y&R And Burson Cohn Wolfe), Havana-Based Habanos Sued Using Libertad Act: EU Asked To Respond

The defendants: Bristol, United Kingdom-based Imperial Brands (2019 revenues approximately US$36 billion); Havana, Republic of Cuba-based Corporacion Habanos S.A. (2019 revenues approximately US$531 million); London, United Kingdom-based WWP PLC (2019 revenues approximately US$13 billion) and two of its United States subsidiaries: New York, New York-based Burson Cohn Wolfe (2019 revenues approximately US$691 million) and New York, New York-based Young & Rubicam LLC (2019 revenues approximately US$556 million)

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, MARIA TERESA RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a MARIA TERESA LANDA, ALFREDO RAMON FORNS, RAMON ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, RAUL LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, CHRISTINA CONROY, and FRANCISCO RAMON RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs, v. IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, CORPORACIÓN HABANOS, S.A., WPP PLC, YOUNG & RUBICAM LLC, and BCW LLC, a/k/a BURSON COHN & WOLFE LLC [1:20-cv-23287; Southern Florida District].

Berenthal & Associates (plaintiff)
Rodriguez Tramont & Nunez (plaintiff)
Nelson Mullins (defendant)
Allen & Overy (defendant)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (defendant)
Broad & Cassel (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

Filing Links
Complaint (6 August 2020)
Defendant Imperial Brands PLC’s Opposition To Motion To Strike The Declaration Of Andrew Rhys Davies
Defendant Imperial Brands PLC’s Motion For A Limited Stay
Reply In Further Support Of Defendant Imperial Brands PLC’s Motion For A Limited Stay
Order Denying Motion To Vacate Stay
EU Template For Applications For Authorizations

Excerpts From Complaint

After taking control of power in 1959, the Castro Regime and Cuba’s communist government systematically “nationalized” the major privately-owned business enterprises in Cuba without compensation to the lawful owners of the property. In 1961, as part of its takeover of the entire tobacco industry, the Castro government confiscated ownership of RRHSC and the RRHSC Property. Before the RRHSC Property was confiscated, the Partagás Factory produced world renowned cigarettes under the Partagás brand and had grown to become the third largest manufacturer of cigarettes in Cuba with a 16.3% share of the market.

In 2007, Defendant Imperial Brands PLC (“Imperial”), well-aware of the Liberty Act, purchased Altadis S.A. and its “50% ownership interest in [Habanos], a company which distributes cigars manufactured in Cuba.”7 Corporacion Habanos S.A. (“Habanos”) is a joint venture company 50% owned by Cuba, or one or more Cuban-owned companies, and 50% owned by Imperial.

Imperial and its partner Tabacuba, together with the subsidiaries they own and control, have expanded their use of and benefit from the RRHSC Property by retaining agents to market and publicize the products produced at the confiscated RRHSC Property. The agents retained by Imperial and Habanos include Defendant WPP PLC (“WPP”) through its U.S-based advertising agency subsidiaries, Defendants Young & Rubicam LLC (“Y&R”), and BCW LLC, a/k/a Burson Cohn & Wolfe LLC (“BCW”).

9. Beginning no later than 2017, Y&R and BCW assisted in setting up, or directly set up, sponsored official “portals” for Imperial to market Habanos products on the U.S.-based social media platforms Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.

10. Imperial’s agent, WPP, through Y&R, BCW, and previously through a third WPP subsidiary, Ogilvy, has continuously marketed and publicized the RRHSC Property and the Habanos’ products made at and shipped from there since at least 2010.

EC Now Has To Decide What It Perhaps Doesn’t Want To Decide- Iberostar Of Spain Libertad Act Lawsuit Is First To Report U.S. Court Recognizing EC’s Interest In Title III Lawsuits
April 26, 2020

For the first time, a Libertad Act lawsuit has a transnational dimension because of a decision by a judge of a United States District Court to recognize the appropriateness of international comity- the principle that United States courts should recognize a foreign country’s sovereign interests in matters before it. Mr. Hermenegildo, Altozano, attorney with Madrid, Spain-based Bird & Bird, informed the court that “On April 15, 2020, I filed an Application for Authorisation under Article 5 paragraph 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom, on behalf of the Spanish company Iberostar Hoteles y Apartamentos S.L.U. ("Iberostar").”

Imperial Brands PLC agrees sale of Worldwide Premium Cigar Business for €1,225 million with proceeds to be used to reduce debt (8 October 2020)

Imperial Brands PLC (“Imperial”) is pleased to announce it has agreed the sale of its worldwide premium cigar businesses (“Premium Cigars”) to investment consortia of individual investors in two distinct transactions for a total consideration of €1,225 million (£1,074 million), which represents a multiple of 11.8x FY19 EBITDA on a standalone basis. The disposal reinforces Imperial’s focus on simplifying its business and realising value for shareholders. The sale multiple recognises the luxury nature of the businesses’ products and their international growth profile. After adjusting for tax and other costs, the disposals are expected to realise net cash proceeds of around €1,094 million (£958 million). The proceeds will be used for debt reduction and will reduce September 2019 pro-forma net debt to EBITDA leverage by c 0.2 times.

Joint Interim Chief Executives Dominic Brisby and Joerg Biebernick said: “We are delighted to be able to announce the sale of Premium Cigars in the current challenging global environment. It has been a complex transaction involving joint venture partners and assets across multiple geographies and we would like to thank everyone involved for working so hard to get the deal agreed.”

“This disposal reinforces our strategic ambition of becoming a leaner and more agile organisation and the proceeds will realise value for shareholders by reducing debt as part of our ongoing focus on active capital management.”

“We believe we have found the right long-term owners for Premium Cigars; they are committed to investing in the business to maximise future growth opportunities and are well positioned to further develop operations internationally.” The sale will take place in two transactions documented under two sale agreements: one for the USA business (“Premium Cigar USA”); and another for the Rest of the World business (“Premium Cigar RoW”). In respect of the transactions:

Gemstone Investment Holding Ltd will acquire Premium Cigar USA for a total consideration of €185 million (£162 million). This transaction is subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, including customary antitrust and other regulatory clearances. Allied Cigar Corporation, S.L will acquire Premium Cigar RoW for a total consideration of €1,040 million (£912 million). This transaction is subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, including customary antitrust and other regulatory clearances. The transactions are expected to close in the third quarter of calendar year 2020. The Premium Cigar RoW transaction includes the sale of the Dominican Republic handmade premium cigar factory which is expected to close in 2021.

Of the Premium Cigar RoW transaction consideration, €88 million (£77 million) will be deferred for 12 months from close and €69 million (£61 million) will be deferred and contingent upon transfer of the Dominican Republic factory. The Premium Cigar business contributed £80 million of profit before tax in the year to 30 September 2019. The business comprises assets that are wholly owned as well as investments in a number of joint ventures, which results in a different accounting treatment for the two asset types: The wholly owned assets represented £226 million of net revenue and £30 million of adjusted operating profit of the Africa, Asia and Australasia division for the year to 30 September 2019. Our investments in the Premium Cigar joint ventures are accounted for using the equity method and our share of the profit after tax is £50 million for the year to 30 September 2019.

Pro-forma earnings dilution in the financial year to 30 September 2019 is around 6 pence per share*. As at 30 September 2019, the gross assets of Premium Cigars were £1,287 million and net assets were £1,111 million. An update on asset values and expected adjustments to foreign exchange reserves resulting from the transaction will be provided on publication of Imperial’s interim results for the 6 months to 31 March 2020.

Imperial is being advised by AZ Capital on the agreed sales of Premium Cigar USA and Premium Cigar RoW.

*Earnings dilution calculation based on FY19 reported results & assumes 100% of proceeds are used to reduce debt, reducing the need for further financing in the short term, based on an implied equivalent coupon of 2.75% in the current volatile market conditions.

Background on Premium Cigars: The business comprises assets purchased as part of Imperial’s acquisition of Altadis in 2008, and the disposal consists of two transaction perimeters:

Premium Cigar US

Tabacalera USA, which is responsible for the business’ premium cigar operations in the US, the world’s largest premium cigar market, including: The assets and other property of Altadis USA, which is responsible for the distribution of premium cigars in the US; Leading online retail platforms, including JR Cigar, cigar.com and Serious Cigars; A specialist brick-and-mortar retailer, Casa de Montecristo, with 28 stores across the USA.

Premium Cigar RoW: Cuban premium cigar interests, including: A 50 per cent stake in Habanos S.A., which exports hand-made cigars from Cuba and is responsible for international marketing activities. Habanos products include world-renowned Cuban brands such as Cohiba, Montecristo and Romeo y Julieta; A 50 per cent stake in Altabana S.L., which is responsible for the distribution of Cuban cigars worldwide through its network of over 20 subsidiary distributors; A 50 per cent stake in Internacional Cubana de Tabaco, S.A., which is responsible for the manufacturing of Cuban premium machine-made cigars; A 50 per cent stake in Promotora de Cigarros, S.L., which manages the distribution of the Cuban premium machine-made cigar portfolio worldwide; Other sales of premium cigar products through Tabacalera SA including:
o Exclusive distribution of Cuban handmade cigars in Spain; Non-Cuban premium handmade cigar sales operations outside the US, including Vegafina, the bestselling non-Cuban brand outside the US.

Premium cigar manufacturing facilities in Honduras and Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic factory manufactures both mass market cigars and premium cigars and will be physically separated to enable the sale of the premium cigar facilities. All employees, other than those involved with mass market cigars in the Dominican Republic factory, will transfer to the new owner Allied Cigar Corporation, S.L.

Updated Libertad Act Lawsuit Statistics- 28 Filings; 59+ Law Firms; 176+ Attorneys; 9,500 Documents; US$5+ Million In Billable Hours

The Trump Administration on 2 May 2019 made operational Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as “Libertad Act”).  

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

29 Lawsuits Filed (11 Certified Claimants & 18 Non-Certified Claimants)

3 Of The Dismissed Lawsuits At Court Of Appeals 

US$183,849.00+ Court Filing Fees (not including attorney court appearance fees)

65+ Law Firms

189+ Attorneys

10,000+ Filed Court Documents

US$5+ Million Law Firm Billable Hours (estimated 85% by defendants)

14 Countries Impacted

113 Plaintiffs (some in multiple cases) 

4 Class Action Requests

58 Defendants (including corporate parent, subsidiaries; some sued in multiple lawsuits)

22 United States Defendants (not including subsidiaries)

6 Republic of Cuba Initial Defendants (three remaining)

27 Non-United States Defendants

8 European Union-Based Defendants

5 Companies Notified As Potential Defendants   

Lawsuits filed in United States District Courts in Southern Florida (23), Washington DC (1), Western Washington State (1), Nevada (1), Southern District New York (1), Northern Texas (1) and Delaware (2).  Some cases have been transferred and some cases have been consolidated; one dismissed by Plaintiff.  

65 Law firms retained by plaintiffs/defendants: Ainsworth & Clancy; Allen & Overy; Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman; Akerman; Andrews & Springer; Arent Fox; Aronovitz Law; Baker & McKenzie; Ballard Spahr; Berenthal & Associates; Berliner Corcoran & Rowe; Bird & Bird; Boies Schiller Flexner; Bracewell; Broad & Cassel; Carlton Fields; Carlton Fields Jorden Burt; Coffey Burlington; Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; Colson Hicks Eidson; Creed & Gowdy; Cueto Law Group; Duane Morris, Dubbin & Kravetz; Ewusiak Law; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Hirzel Dreyfuss and Dempsey; Hogan Lovells; Holland & Knight; IPS Legal Group; Jones Day; Jones Walker; Kantrowitz, Goldhamer, & Graifman; Kelly Hart & Hallman; Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton; Law Office of Andre G. Raikhelson; Law Office of Alexander Villarreal; Law Offices of Paul Sack; Law Offices of Robert L. Muse; Mandel & Mandel; Manuel Vazquez PA; MoloLamken; Margol & Margol; Mayer Brown; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell; Nelson Mullins; Pacifica Law Group; Potter Anderson & Corroon; Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman; Reed Smith; Reid Collins & Tsai; Rice Reuther Sullivan & Carroll; Rivero Mestre; Rodriguez Tramont & Nunez; Roig & Villarreal; Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess; Scott Douglass & McConnico; Sidley Austin; Steptoe & Johnson; Venable; Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford; Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor; Walden, Macht & Haran; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr; Zumpano Patricios.

Countries impacted: Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Netherlands, Panama, Republic of Cuba, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States. 

Certified Claimant Participation: Of the 5,913 claimants certified by the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (USFCSC), these (original claim value in parenthesis) have filed Libertad Act lawsuits: 2nd largest certified claimant North American Sugar (US$97,373,414.72); 9th largest certified claimant Exxon Mobil Corporation (US$71,611,002.90 and US$173,157.12); 31st largest certified claimant Havana Docks Corporation (US$9,179,700.08); 38th largest certified claimant Helen Claflin (US$7,508,689.96); 73rd largest certified claimant Mary Rentschler (US$2,929,577.88); 182nd largest certified claimant William Claflin (US$623,674.31); 183rd largest certified claimant Anne Allen (US$623,674.00);  88th largest certified claimant Julies Shepard (US$2,033,959.17); 195th largest certified claimant Javier Garcia-Bengochea (US$547,365.24); 3,954th largest certified claimant John Weeks (US$3,114.00).

LINK To Complete Statistics In PDF Format

LafargeHolcim Of Switzerland Sued For US$270+ Million By Certified Claimant In Libertad Act Lawsuit

WILLIAM H. CLAFLIN, IV; JOSEPHINE C. HORAN; PATRICIA M. CLAFLIN; EDWARD A. CLAFLIN; ELAINE Y. ALEXANDER; JOHN K. SPRING, JR.; HELEN S. MONTERO; WILLIAM C. SPRING; SUSAN K. SPRING; DAVID G. WITTER; MALCOLM G. WITTER; DEAN WITTER III; HELEN C. WITTER; KATHARINE C. WEEKS; KATHARINE W. WHITE; MARTHA W. SINCLAIR; JOHN W. WEEKS JR.; DAVID C. WEEKS; SINCLAIR WEEKS; STEPHEN D. WEEKS; ROBERT F. WEEKS; ESTATE OF ANNE C. ALLEN; ESTATE OF HELEN C. SPRING; ESTATE OF JOHN W. WEEKS; and ESTATE OF PRENTICE W. CLAFLIN V. LAFARGEHOLCIM LTD; INVERSIONES IBERSUIZAS S.A.; HOLCIM TRADING SA (F/K/A) UNION MARITIMA INTERNACIONAL SA; DE RUITER OUDERLANDE B.V.; LAS PAILAS DE CEMENTO S.A.U.; and UNKNOWN SUBSIDIARY OF THE LAFARGEHOLCIM GROUP [1:20-cv-23787; Southern Florida District].

Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP (plaintiff)

Roig Lawyers (plaintiff)

LINKS To:

Complaint (9/11/2020)

USFCSC

Summons

Summons

Summons

Summons

Summons

Civil Cover Sheet

Excerpts From Complaint

Plaintiffs bring this action to recover treble damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, codified at 22 U.S.C. § 6021, et seq. (the “Helms-Burton Act”) against Defendants LafargeHolcim, De Ruiter, Las Pailas, and the Unknown Subsidiary for trafficking in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959 and as to which Plaintiffs own 100% of the claims as certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (“FCSC”).

Cuba converted the Confiscated Soledad Property into the Carlos Marx cement plant, which utilizes and benefits from the Confiscated Soledad Property, including its rivers, railroads, limestone, and other infrastructure.

11. Defendants used a complex web of shell entities and transactions designed, until very recently, to conceal the fact that LafargeHolcim has partially owned and operated and profited from the Carlos Marx cement plant in partnership with the Cuban government since 2000.

Plaintiffs, who now own the FCSC Certified Claims to the Confiscated Soledad Property, seek treble money damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees against certain Defendants for trafficking in the Confiscated Soledad Property as defined by the Helms-Burton Act.

The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that the current fair market value of the Confiscated Soledad Property is greater than the amount of the FCSC Certified Claims plus interest. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the current fair market value of the property, which is estimated to be $270 million, plus attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs.

In fact, in 2000, prior to LafargeHolcim’s (then known as Holderbank) investment in Cuba, LafargeHolcim sought legal advice from a U.S. law firm about the effect of the Helms-Burton Act and the FCSC Certified Claims on its then potential investment in, modernization of, and management of the Carlos Marx cement plant. LafargeHolcim’s U.S. law firm advised that investing in the cement plant without obtaining the authorization of the persons holding the FCSC Certified Claims would subject it to liability under the Helms-Burton Act. The U.S. law firm also advised LafargeHolcim that LafargeHolcim should not try to conceal its trafficking through the use of various corporate structures, for any such attempted concealment would not avoid said liability.

21. Contrary to its U.S. law firm’s advice, LafargeHolcim proceeded to traffic, knowingly and intentionally, in the Confiscated Soledad Property by affiliating with, using, and conspiring with the other Defendants to create and maintain a complex web of corporate structures, shell companies, and alliances designed to conceal, until recently, LafargeHolcim’s investment in and trafficking in the Confiscated Soledad Property.

22. Since 2000, LafargeHolcim has trafficked, knowingly and intentionally, in the Confiscated Soledad Property, seemingly confident that it would not be held accountable for its trafficking in any U.S. court. But LafargeHolcim has purposefully availed itself and sought the protection of the U.S. legal system, even as it took active steps to evade that system, including by filing a civil complaint in federal court and admitting on the record in that lawsuit that it, i.e., Defendant LafargeHolcim Ltd, which is based in Switzerland: (a) has extensive business operations in the United States, (b) is the United States’ leading cement producer, (c) offers waste management services in numerous cities throughout the United States, (d) recovers and recycles waste through co-processing at service locations across North America, and (e) has reached a significant number of consumers in the United States.

Booking.com & Booking Holdings Again Defendants In Another Libertad Act Lawsuit: "Copacabana Hotel"

OSVALDO SOTO V. BOOKING.COM B.V. AND BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. [1:20-cv-24044; Southern Florida District]

Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)

LINKS To:

Complaint For Damages (10/2/2020)

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Civil Cover Sheet

Summons

Summons

Excerpts From Complaint

The Soto family owned several business ventures throughout Cuba, including the famous oceanfront Copacabana Hotel2 “Copacabana”), located at Avenida Primera between 44 and 46 streets, in Havana, Cuba. The Copacabana was inaugurated in 1955, and after Fidel Castro seized power and established a communist government in Cuba in 1959, the Copacabana was confiscated along with the Soto family’s other properties and business ventures in 1961. This forced the Soto family to flee their native country to the United States.

After seizing the Copacabana from the Soto family, the Cuban government, together with Be Live Hotels S.L. and the defendants, exploited and benefitted from the Copacabana for decades without the consent of the Soto family and without paying them any compensation whatsoever. Defendants continue to offer the Copacabana to Floridians3 through their interactive websites, emails directly targeting Floridians, marketing campaigns in Florida, and through work done in their Florida offices. Osvaldo N. Soto now sues to right the defendants’ unlawful trafficking in his property and for just compensation.

On November 22, 2019, Soto informed defendants of his intent to commence an action unless defendants ceased to traffic the Copacabana. See Composite Exhibit D. Despite being on actual notice, defendants continued to market and make reservations at the Copacabana on their websites for their economic benefit.

26. Soto was not eligible to file a claim with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under Title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (22 U.S.C. § 1643, et seq.), because he was not a U.S. citizen when the Copacabana was confiscated.

27. The Copacabana has not been the subject of a certified claim under Title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (22 U.S.C. § 1643 et seq.).

28. Soto has been injured by defendants’ trafficking in the Copacabana without his permission and without paying him any compensation.

Societe Generale And BNP Paribas File Motion To Dismiss In Libertad Act Lawsuit- "Frustration Of Purpose Theory" Fails

SUCESORES DE DON CARLOS NUNEZ Y DONA PURA GALVEZ, INC., BDA BANO NUNEZ V. SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE, S.A., D/B/A SG AMERICAS, INC.; THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, D/B/A SCOTIA HOLDINGS (US) INC., A/K/A THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, MIAMI AGENCY; THE NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA, D/B/A NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; AND BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA, S.A., D/B/A BBVA, USA., [1:19-cv-22842; Southern Florida District]. NOTE: Case transferred to New York Southern District On 2 February 2020 [1:20-cv-00851]. Defendants Currently Societe General, S.A. and BNP Paribas, S.A.

Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP (plaintiff)

Law Offices Of Paul Sack P.A. (plaintiff)

MoloLamken LLC (plaintiff)

Mayer Brown LLP (defendant)

ReedSmith LLP (defendant)

Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman (defendant)

LINKS To:

Notice of Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss (10/2/2020)

Joint Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss And Second Amended Complaint Pursuant To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1) And 12(b)(6)

Exhibit A

Declaration Of Alex C. Lakatos

Stockholders Agreement

Exhibit B

Excerpts From Motion To Dismiss

The SAC contains no well-pleaded allegations that the Defendants in the action, Société Générale (“SG”) and BNP Paribas (“BNPP”), actually trafficked in any of the confiscated property. Rather, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) and guilty plea (respectively) in connection with U.S. sanctions on Cuba reflect “conduct [that] includes engaging in commercial activity with BNC,” id. ¶ 39, which Plaintiffs maintain is sufficient to support Helms-Burton liability. Expounding on this theory, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should be liable not because their alleged transactions with BNC made use of particular confiscated assets, but instead because BNC’s ownership of “confiscated property made BNC a more stable, less risky, and more desirable counterparty.”

Finally, the fact that the property at issue was confiscated from Cuban nationals is yet another reason that Title III relief is unavailable here. As numerous courts have recognized, Helms-Burton requires that a plaintiff allege a legally valid “claim” to the confiscated asset. The language, history, and structure of the Act show that such a claim must be valid as a matter of international law. But Cuba confiscated the Banco Nuñez assets from its own nationals—and it is long settled that international law does not recognize a claim for such purely “domestic” takings.

Third, the Individual Plaintiffs lack standing to bring Count II, which they assert “to the extent Sucesores” cannot bring Count I. As the Individual Plaintiffs acknowledge, they assigned any Banco Nuñez claims they purported to hold to Sucesores. Consequently, they lack standing to bring Count II as a contingent claim or otherwise. Nor can the Individual Plaintiffs cure this defect by invoking a “frustration of purpose” theory (or any other theory) to void the Stockholders Agreement, because a party that lacks standing, such as the Individual Plaintiffs, cannot request any relief from the Court. The Individual Plaintiffs, by asking the Court to issue a ruling on substantive contractual matters that they hope would redress their lack of standing, have put the cart before the horse. In any event, for the reasons discussed below, the Individual Plaintiffs’ “frustration of purpose” theory fails as a matter of law.

Biden Criticizes Trump For "Approach" Towards Cuba; Echo Of Kerry Comments Last Month

Miami Herald
Miami, Florida
5 October 2020

Excerpts....

In his first visit to Miami in more than a year, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Monday attacked President Donald Trump’s hard-line policies in the Americas, saying his opponent’s tough talk and steep sanctions have only entrenched Cuba’s Communist government.

“The administration’s approach is not working. Cuba is no closer to democracy than it was four years ago,” the former vice president said from a mostly empty gymnasium at José Martí Park in Little Havana, the historic heart of Miami’s Cuban exile community. “There’s more political prisoners. The secret police are as brutal as ever. And Russia is once again a presence in Cuba and Havana.”

Biden also criticized Trump for failing to topple Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and for refusing to grant undocumented exiles in the U.S. Temporary Protected Status from deportation back to a country suffering from crippling hyperinflation. “Maduro, who I’ve met, is a dictator, plain and simple,” said Biden. “And he’s caused incredible suffering among the Venezuelan people to maintain his grip on power.”

LINK To Post (9 September 2020): Former U.S. Secretary Of State Kerry Shares A Biden Administration Approach To Cuba- And Cuba Won't Like It

LINK To Post (28 May 2020): Cuba Advocates Should Not Be So Confident About President Biden

OFAC Fines New York-Based GGA US$5,864,860.00 For 2010-2015 Canada & Cuba-Related Transactions

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today announced a settlement with Generali Global Assistance, Inc. (GGA), a New York-incorporated travel assistance services company.  GGA agreed to remit $5,864,860 to settle its potential civil liability for 2,593 apparent violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.  GGA intentionally referred the Cuba-related payments to its Canadian affiliate, thereby avoiding processing reimbursement payments directly to Cuban parties and to travelers while they were located in Cuba.  GGA then subsequently reimbursed its Canadian affiliate for those payments.  GGA formally codified this indirect payment process in its procedures manual.  OFAC determined that the case was voluntarily self-disclosed to OFAC and that the apparent violations constitute an egregious case.

LINK TO OFAC Settlement Document

About Generali Global Assistance- "Travel insurance plans are administered by Customized Services Administrators, Inc., CA Lic. No. 821931, located in San Diego, CA and doing business as Generali Global Assistance & Insurance Services. Plans are available to residents of the U.S. but may not be available in all jurisdictions. Benefits and services are described on a general basis; certain conditions and exclusions apply. Travel Retailers may not be licensed to sell insurance, in all states, and are not authorized to answer technical questions about the benefits, exclusions, and conditions of this insurance and cannot evaluate the adequacy of your existing insurance. This plan provides insurance coverage for your trip that applies only during the covered trip. You may have coverage from other sources that provides you with similar benefits but may be subject to different restrictions depending upon your other coverages. You may wish to compare the terms of this policy with your existing life, health, home and automobile policies. The purchase of this plan is not required in order to purchase any other travel product or service offered to you by your travel retailers. If you have any questions about your current coverage, call your insurer, insurance agent or broker. This notice provides general information on Generali’s products and services only. The information contained herein is not part of an insurance policy and may not be used to modify any insurance policy that might be issued. In the event the actual policy forms are inconsistent with any information provided herein, the language of the policy forms shall govern."

About Generali Global Assistance- "Travel insurance plans are underwritten by: Generali U.S. Branch, New York, NY; NAIC # 11231. Generali US Branch operates under the following names: Generali Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A. (U.S. Branch) in California, Assicurazioni Generali – U.S. Branch in Colorado, Generali U.S. Branch DBA The General Insurance Company of Trieste & Venice in Oregon, and The General Insurance Company of Trieste and Venice – U.S. Branch in Virginia. Generali US Branch is admitted or licensed to do business in all states and the District of Columbia."

Exxon Mobil Responds With 1,452 Pages To Cuba In Libertad Act Lawsuit: FSIA Jurisdiction Is Key

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION V. CORPORACION CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), CORPRACION CIMEX, S.A. (Panama), AND UNION CUBA-PETROLEO [1:19-cv-01277; Washington DC]

Steptoe & Johnson (plaintiff)
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C. (defendant)

29 September 2020 Filing Links

Plaintiff’s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Motion To Dismiss The Action And For A Partial Stay (78 pages)
Declaration of Dr. Joan Martinez Evora (196 pages)
Declaration of Jared R. Butcher (43 pages)
Declaration of Jared R. Butcher (Exhibits 1-41) (272 pages)
Declaration of Jared R. Butcher (Exhibits 42-150) (358 pages)
Declaration of Jared R. Butcher (Exhibits 151-210) (381 pages)
Declaration of Jared R. Butcher (Exhibits 211-224) (124 pages)

Excerpts From Filing:

Congress did not intend Plaintiff’s claims to be barred by the FSIA. Section 302(c) of Title III states, “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter, provisions of Title 28 [which includes the FSIA] and the rules of the courts of the United States apply to actions under this section to the same extent as such provisions and rules apply to any other action brought under Section 1331 of title 28.” 22 U.S.C. § 6082(c)(1) (emphasis added).11 Thus, the FSIA applies only so long as it does not conflict with Title III, in which case Title III must control as Congress directed.12 Janko v. Gates, 741 F.3d 136, 139-40 (D.C. Cir. 2014). This conclusion accords with Congress’s finding that trafficking has direct effects in the U.S., 22 U.S.C. §§ 6081(2), (6), which satisfies the requirements for subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA and the personal jurisdiction requirements of this Court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330(b), 1605(a)(2).

Defendants admit they are trafficking in the Confiscated Property. They admit that they use and benefit from the Confiscated Property through various commercial activities that supply Cuba’s domestic market for energy and petroleum products and that procure U.S. dollars and acquire U.S. products to sustain the Cuban economy. Measured in dollars, these commercial activities amount to billions in transactions annually. It is clear just from this introductory summary that Plaintiff has standing to bring these claims.

Defendants’ attempts to avoid liability fall flat. Their premise is that, notwithstanding sixty years of communist tyranny, Cuban entities operate independently; this is preposterous. Facing clear liability, Defendants argue sovereign immunity. But it is unavailable here for three reasons.

First, Title III expressly authorizes private civil suits in federal courts against “any person” including “any agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.” See 22 U.S.C. §§ 6023(1), (11). Title III’s exception to sovereign immunity for trafficking by state-owned entities is well founded in Congress’s findings that trafficking has direct effects on U.S. nationals in the U.S. See id. § 6081. Moreover, Congress mandated that Title III must be given priority over any potentially conflicting provisions, including the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). See id. § 6082(c)(1).

Second, even if Title III did not include an express exception to immunity (which it does), the direct effects of trafficking would satisfy the commercial activity exception under the FSIA for activities that “cause[] a direct effect in the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2). It is undisputed that the confiscated refinery and processing facilities are used for oil exploration and production of refined products that are then sold via a network of service stations in Cuba, which includes confiscated service stations operated by CIMEX and CUPET. Additionally, CUPET uses the Confiscated Property in oil exploration joint ventures with energy companies that compete directly with Plaintiff and other U.S. companies, and CUPET admits it has travelled to the U.S. to engage in lobbying and other activities to promote and facilitate its oil exploration work.

Third, because some of Defendants’ commercial activities are conducted in the U.S., the FSIA’s expropriation exception is also satisfied. See id. § 1605(a)(3). The first requirement—that Plaintiff’s claim relates to “rights in property taken in violation of international law”—is met because Plaintiff’s claim is based on Defendants’ trafficking in property that was unlawfully expropriated. The second requirement is satisfied because that property “is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality”—here the Defendants. And the third requirement is also satisfied because “that agency or instrumentality [the Defendants] is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States” as explained in detail below. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied, or if necessary, jurisdictional discovery should be conducted.1

Plaintiff Exxon Mobil Corporation’s action fits squarely within the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (“LIBERTAD”)—also known as the Helms Burton Act. LIBERTAD was essentially designed to remedy the wrongs set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants’ efforts to deny liability are nothing more than lawyerly ploys to avoid the obvious—Defendants continue to use and enjoy Plaintiff’s confiscated property without any compensation to (or authorization from) Plaintiff for over half a century.

Page 58- Any Juridical Separateness Should Be Disregarded to Prevent Injustice
“[T]he doctrine of corporate entity, recognized generally and for most purposes, will not be regarded when to do so would work fraud or injustice.” Bancec, 462 U.S. at 629. The exception applies in cases “where a foreign sovereign intentionally seeks to gain a benefit while using the legally separate status of its instrumentality as a shield to guard against concomitant costs or risks . . . where a sovereign otherwise unjustly enriches itself through the instrumentality . . . or where a sovereign uses its instrumentality to defeat a statutory policy.” DRC, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 3d at 218.

It is undisputed that Cuba profits from the commercial activities of CUPET and CIMEX and that some of those activities involve use of Plaintiff’s Confiscated Property, which violates Title III and the policy of “deny[ing] traffickers any profits from” economic exploitation of the Confiscated Property. See 22 U.S.C. § 6081(11). Defendants are tools of the Cuban State (Evora Decl. ¶¶ 24-25), and it would be unjust to allow Cuba to benefit from the ongoing violation of U.S. laws by Defendants, while hiding behind a façade of juridical separateness.

Page 59- Regardless, Defendants Have Minimum Contacts with the United States
As discussed, Defendants have minimum contacts by virtue of their commercial activities involving the U.S. and U.S. entities. Supra Section III(B)(2)(b). Personal jurisdiction is conferred on this Court so long as it “is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.” Fed R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2)(B). In this Circuit, personal jurisdiction “turns on whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with the nation as a whole to satisfy due process,” which is the case when a defendant “purposefully directed” its activities at residents of the U.S., even if there is no physical conduct in the U.S.

Page 60- Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement Should Be Denied
Defendants’ one-sentence “motion” (Mot. at 60) is insufficient to support a motion. Regardless, it is unnecessary since Defendants know what property was confiscated and how it is used. See Feldman v. C.I.A., 797 F. Supp. 2d 29, 42 (D.D.C. 2011).

Might Richard Grenell Be Secretary Of State In 2nd Trump Term? Cuba & Venezuela Likely Subject To "Diplomatic Militancy"

He is a highly visible antagonist of H.E. Dr. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, who will be retiring in 2021. That by itself could be the reason for his appointment.

He does not have the ethical issues that surround The Honorable Michael Pompeo, the current United States Secretary of State. As does Secretary Pompeo, he would not ascribe to the traditional absence of the Secretary of State from involvement in United States elections. He is believed to be the first openly gay member of a cabinet. He would be the first openly gay United States Secretary of State. The Honorable Donald Trump, President of the United States, would relish that “first.” He is young: Fifty-four years of age. He is an avid user of Twitter. He was a Fox News contributor. The current occupant of the Oval Office likes him. He would effectively channel the views of President Trump.

A United States Secretary of State Richard Grenell would be expected to focus using diplomatic militancy upon issues relating to China, Cuba, Iran, Turkey, and Venezuela. His tenure would be judged by which of those five countries, and perhaps others, accede to “regime change” whether as a change in personnel or a change in behavior. Secretary Grenell would be the Sherpa for the “deals” mentioned frequently by President Trump- principally with Iran, then Venezuela, and then Cuba.

NOTE: A potential selection for United States Secretary of State in a Biden Administration could be The Honorable Christopher Dodd, former United States Senator from Connecticut (1981-2011) and former member of the United States House of Representatives (1975-1981), who is a friend of former Vice President Joseph Biden (2009-2017).

The White House
Washington DC
7 September 2020

THE PRESIDENT: “When reports come out that certain countries don't really like me too much, that's not because of my personality, although it could be that also, frankly. It's because of the fact that I've been very tough on countries that have been ripping us off for so many years. If you look at NATO, with the exception of eight countries -- we're one of them -- every country is way behind. They’re delinquent, especially Germany, in paying their NATO bills. That means we end up paying it, and we're not doing it. I told them; we're not doing it. And they've increased their spending now $130 billion, going up to $400 billion a year. It’s all because of me. Then you hear the country doesn’t like me. I mean, I can understand that, because President Obama and other presidents, in all fairness, would go in there and they’d make a speech and they’d leave. I went in there, I looked, and I said, “This is unfair. We’re paying for NATO.” We’re paying for NATO. Almost all of it. So they rip us off on the military and then they rip us off, with the European Union, on trade. And Biden doesn’t have a clue. You know he doesn't have a clue. Everybody knows he doesn't have a clue. In primetime, he wasn't good. And now it's not primetime.”

Thank you, Mr. President. After Navalny poisoning, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is under pressure to cancel Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany. Would you support such a move?

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, I've been support- -- I've been supportive of that. I was the first one that brought it up. You never heard of Nord Stream 2 until Trump came along. When I came along, I said, “Wait a minute. We're protecting Germany from Russia, right?” NATO. “We're protecting Germany from Russia. Germany is paying Russia billions and billions of dollars to get their energy.” And the real number is probably 60 to 70 percent, ultimately, of their energy is going to come from Russia. And I said this for years, that nobody talks about it. One of the many things, between sanctions and all of the -- what we've done for Ukraine, relative to what the past -- they used to send pillows, and we sent tank busters. But I brought that up a long time ago. Russia is unhappy that I brought it up. But you never heard of Nord Stream 2; nobody did, until I got elected. And I said, “Why is Germany making a deal to give billions of dollars to Russia, and then we're protecting Germany from Russia? How does that work?” And then, on top of it, Germany is delinquent because they're only paying a little more than 1 percent and they're supposed to be paying 2 percent, and even the 2 percent is low. But just remember: Trump -- me -- I got the countries of NATO to spend one point -- $130 billion, going to $400 billion a year. Think of it: $400 billion a year more for NATO. And the purpose of NATO primarily is Europe protection against Russia. Now, they can use it for other, I guess -- and they have a little bit in the Middle East, et cetera, et cetera. But I'm the one that did that. So -- but nobody talks about that. Nobody talks about Nord Stream 2. The answer is: Absolutely, if they feel that something happens. But I don't know that Germany is in a position right now, because Germany is in a very weakened position, energy wise. They're closing all their plants. They're closing their nuclear. They're closing their coal. They’re closing a lot of plants. And they are -- they have put themselves in a very bad position, frankly. Very, very bad position.”

United States Department Of State
Washington DC
2020

Richard A. Grenell served as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany 2018-2020. He continues to serve as Special Presidential Envoy for Serbia and Kosovo Peace Negotiations. Ambassador Grenell previously served as Acting Director of National Intelligence, spokesman to four ambassadors at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, and founded the global public affairs consultancy, Capitol Media Partners. Ambassador Grenell holds an MPA from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a BA from Evangel College.

The White House
Washington DC
20 February 2020

Statement from the Press Secretary: Today, the President designated United States Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell as Acting Director of National Intelligence. Ambassador Grenell was confirmed to his role as Ambassador by the Senate in April 2018, and he has years of experience working with our Intelligence Community in a number of additional positions, including as Special Envoy for Serbia-Kosovo Negotiations and as United States spokesman to the United Nations. He is committed to a non-political, non-partisan approach as head of the Intelligence Community, on which our safety and security depend. The President has every confidence that Ambassador Grenell will perform his new duties with distinction.

The White House
Washington DC
3 October 2019

President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Appoint Individual to a Key Administration Post

Richard Grenell of California to serve concurrently as Special Presidential Envoy for Serbia and Kosovo Peace Negotiations and Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Federal Republic of Germany. Richard A. Grenell has served as the United States Ambassador to Germany since May 8, 2018. Mr. Grenell, a foreign policy writer and commentator, founded the international consulting firm Capitol Media Partners in 2010. For nearly two decades, he has served as the primary communications adviser for public officials at the Federal, State, local, and international levels, as well as for a Fortune 200 ranked company. Mr. Grenell is the longest serving United States spokesman at the United Nations (2001-2008) having served four United States Ambassadors. He earned a B.A. from Evangel University and an MPA from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

United States Senate
Washington DC
8 January 2018

REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS- UNITED STATES SENATE
SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate of Demonstrated Competence- Foreign Service Act, Section 304(a)(4)
POST: Federal Republic of Germany
CANDIDATE: Richard Allen Grenell

Richard Allen Grenell, a foreign policy communications specialist, writer and commentator, is the Founding Partner of Capitol Media Partners. He has served as the primary communications adviser for public officials at the local, state, federal, and international levels, as well as for a Fortune 300 ranked company. Mr. Grenell has worked extensively with clients based in the U.S. as well as around the world and throughout Europe. He has been a Fox News Foreign Policy Contributor and frequently writes and comments on foreign affairs for a variety of news outlets. Mr. Grenell’s leadership, management expertise, knowledge of governance and highly developed communication skills make him an excellent candidate for Ambassador to Germany.

Mr. Grenell is the longest serving U.S. spokesman in history at the United Nations in New York (2001-2008), where he was part of the negotiation team with the German delegation on a myriad of global issues, including Iran and North Korea sanctions, UN reform and peacekeeping operations. Previously, Mr. Grenell served as Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for DaVita, El Segundo, California (2008-2009), Press Secretary, Mayor of San Diego, California (1998-2000), Press Secretary, State of New York Division of Lottery, Albany, New York (1995-1997), Press Secretary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. (1993-1995), Assistant, Campaign Division, National Republican Congressional Committee, Washington, D.C. (1993), Coalitions Coordinator for the Bush-Quayle Re-election campaign, Washington, D.C. (1992) and Administrator, American Arbitration Association (1989-1991).

Mr. Grenell earned a B.A. from Evangel College (now University) and a M.P.A. from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He received a Superior Honor Award from the Department of State and speaks basic Spanish.

AIS Financial Services In Cuba Sanctioned By U.S. Department Of State Due To Connection With Military

United States Department of State
Washington DC
28 September 2020

”Today, the Department of State is adding American International Services (AIS) to the Cuba Restricted List. AIS is a financial institution controlled by the Cuban military that processes remittances sent to the Cuban people. The Cuban military also uses AIS, its parent company FINCIMEX, and other entities to charge fees and manipulate the remittance and foreign currency market as part of the regime’s schemes to make money and support its repressive apparatus. The profits earned from these operations disproportionately benefit the Cuban military, furthering repression of the Cuban people and funding Cuba’s meddling in Venezuela.

President Trump has made it clear that he stands with the Cuban people in their longstanding struggle for freedom and against the communist regime in Havana. Adding AIS to the Cuba Restricted List furthers the Administration’s goal of preventing the Cuban military from controlling and benefiting from the flow of remittances that should instead benefit the Cuban people. The people should be able to receive funds from their family abroad without having to line the pockets of their oppressors.

We urge anyone who sends remittances to family in Cuba to use means other than Cuban government-controlled remittance entities.

The Cuban people deserve to live in freedom and dignity, able to choose their leadership and provide for themselves and their families. The United States stands with the Cuban people as they struggle to achieve this vision and look forward to the day when the dream of freedom becomes reality.”

LINK To Federal Register Publication (29 September 2020)