UPDATE 24- Son of Hostage in Iran Meets Secretary Pompeo

Zakka Family Appreciates Continued Support Of The U.S. Government

Yesterday, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo delivered remarks at the Department of State to families of American citizens and U.S Legal Permanent residents held captive abroad. Mr. Omar Zakka, the youngest son of Mr. Nizar Zakka, who last month testified before Congress a second time about his father’s case, was at the State Department for meetings with senior U.S. officials including Secretary of State of Mike Pompeo.

On behalf of my father and the rest of the Zakka family, I thanked Secretary Pompeo and his team for what they are doing to help bring my dad home. I am confident if Lebanon were to fully help the United States, my father would be home. Lebanon and all parties in a position to do so should follow the example of the Trump administration and help my father,” Omar said.

Mr. Nizar Zakka was in Iran at the invitation of the Iranian government, a guest of the former Vice President Shahindokht Molaverdi. Upon information and belief, Mr. Zakka was unlawfully detained and kidnapped on September 18, 2015, by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC); and it is probable Mr. Zakka’s abduction was orchestrated to coincide on or about September 17, the last day of the U.S. Congressional review period of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The following press release was issued following yesterday’s events.

Secretary Pompeo’s remarks can be viewed below.

Prior Statements and Releases

UPDATE 23- Zakka Family Appreciates Continued Support of the US Congress

Earlier today, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Middle East, North Africa, and International Terrorism held a hearing titled, “The Status of American Hostages in Iran.” Mr. Omar Zakka, the youngest son of Mr. Nizar Zakka, testified before the Committee on Nizar’s ongoing unlawful detention.

Statement on U.S. Congressional Hearing to  

Secure Release of Hostages in Iran

Zakka Family Appreciates Continued Support Of The U.S. Congress

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa, and International Terrorism held a hearing today, The Status of American Hostages in Iran. Mr. Omar Zakka, the youngest son of Mr. Nizar Zakka, testified before the Committee. Mr. Zakka is a U.S. Legal Permanent Resident and U.S.-based ICT professional who has been held hostage in Iran since 2015.

“We ask this government to take all available legal and diplomatic measures to reunite us with our father. We ask this government to do the same for all the families of the other hostages. Help us reunite with our father,” Omar told members of the committee this afternoon. His testimony is available at the Committee website.

The Middle East, North Africa, and International Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) is a long-time human rights champion and has been working for several years to secure the release of Americans and U.S. LPRs unlawfully detained in Iran and elsewhere. Rep. Deutch in his opening remarks stated:

“Iran’s despicable practice of holding American’s and other foreign nationals hostage should not be tolerated by any responsible nation.” He went on to discuss Mr. Zakka’s case emphasizing his unjust detainment. “Nizar is an IT professional who was invited to Iran to participate in an IT conference. Let me say that again. He was invited to the country. And then detained.”

Chairman Deutch and Ranking Member Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) announced at today’s hearing a number of Congressional proposals to strengthen U.S. hostage policy including the ‘‘Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act of 2019.” A Congressional resolution has also been introduced on Iran hostages.

“This is the second time Omar has presented his dad’s case to the Congress and, frankly, Omar hopes it will be the last time. As many as 12 nations appear to have foreigners unlawfully deprived of liberty in Iran. Nizar’s case and others like it are an international problem that requires multilateral cooperation, including nations in a position to help such as Lebanon. Talks based solely on humanitarian issues should be established with Iran to help Nizar and other hostages. With political will it’s possible to bring him home soon,” said Jason Poblete, Mr. Nizar Zakka’s attorney in the United States.

 

Follow this link for more information about the hearing, including Omar’s testimony and video clips of the hearing.

 

  

 

Prior Statements and Releases 

MIAMI HERALD: Foreign Investment in Cuba Might Be At Risk If US Allows Lawsuits Over Confiscated Property

Ever since the passage of The Helms-Burton Act in 1996, Title III of the provision has been suspended by every President, preventing lawsuits in U.S. courts against foreign companies conducting business on property in Cuba subject to a U.S. certified Claim. Last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo notified the Congress that instead of suspending Title III for 6 months, it would only be a 45-day suspension during which the Administration would conduct a careful review.

PobleteTamargo attorney Jason Poblete discussed the potential risks to foreign investors looking to enter the Cuban market in an article published in The Miami Herald.

Poblete explains that, “[T]his would be another layer of concern for potential foreign investors and could chill investment in Cuba considerably.” He goes on to add that, “It would not be easy to make a Title III claim. It requires time, money and emotional capital.”

 

The complete article in The Miami Herald written by Mimi Whitefield can be found here.

The Trump Administration Considers Allowing American Citizens to Sue Companies Trafficking in Confiscated Properties in Cuba

By Arthur M. Freyre*

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on January 16, 2019, that he is evaluating if Title III of the Helms-Burton Cuba sanctions law would be waived in 45 days or whether he would recommend to President Trump that Americans be allowed to defend property rights in U.S. federal court. Secretary Pompeo’s decision is expected to come by March 2nd. If Title III is not waived, American citizens and others may sue in U.S. federal court for trafficking in confiscated properties in Cuba. Foreign companies doing business in Cuba, or any person subject to U.S. law who may be considering Cuba-related transactions, should familiarize themselves with this matter.

Background

American taxpayers have been barred from bringing forth anti-trafficking property lawsuits because every president has waived Title III since the law was enacted in 1996. One of the main reasons Title III has been waived until now is the concern that a foreign company or country would prevail against the U.S. in the court of the World Trade Organization.

To understand the impact of Title III, some historical perspective will help highlight why it is such an important tool in defending American property rights. After the 1959 communist takeover of Cuba, the Cuban government targeted American citizens and others opposed to the socialist revolution. The Cuban government’s confiscation of property resulted in thousands of American citizens and countless Cuban nationals losing their residences, businesses, and other forms of personal and real property.

Internationally it is well recognized that all nations, including Cuba, may confiscate property for different reasons, but under international law, nations have an obligation to compensate foreign nationals for property confiscations or expropriations. Cuba’s confiscations were driven by both economic and ideological reasons in a process that violated both international property law and international human rights law.

The only remedy that an American citizen had at the time was to file their claims for certification by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. The International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (22 U.S.C. 1643, et. seq.) governs the certified claims process. The Cuba Claims Program was completed and closed in 1972, when the Commission certified 5,911 claims. The program was briefly reopened in 2005, during which two additional claims were certified.

Updating U.S.-Cuba Policy & Laws in Response to New Circumstances

In the early 1990s, for the first time since the Cold War, the U.S. Congress looked closely at how best to protect U.S. national interests, including property rights of American nationals. In 1996, the Congress passed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act or “Helms-Burton”. This law was also enacted, in part, as a response to the murder of three citizens and one U.S. national whose civilian airplanes were shot down by the Cuban Air Force over international waters.

The new law created an updated legal and policy framework for U.S.-Cuba relations that included tougher sanctions, but also a mechanism to defend U.S. property rights such as Title III that would authorize lawsuits against foreign companies and others doing business in Cuba on property that is the subject of a certified claim or otherwise confiscated property. Every president since Clinton has waived this section for national security reasons, barring all lawsuits. However, the Trump Administration is taking a second look at this option to help claim holders defend their property rights.

While the ultimate goal of Title III is settling the claims, not litigation, such lawsuits may afford claimants the right to sue for trafficking in properties that are the subject of a certified claim or otherwise confiscated. According to the law, certain lawsuits may not be allowed such as those pertaining to transactions on confiscated properties used today for lawful travel and telecommunications as defined in the statute and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. This restriction on Title III, and other legal questions, will undoubtedly receive a great deal of scrutiny by administration officials and those considering filing a lawsuit.

Take Steps to Ensure Lawful Transactions in Cuba Do Not Include Confiscated Properties

U.S. and foreign companies doing business in Cuba may need to reassess their risk exposure if the Trump Administration implements Title III. Companies doing business in Cuba should always screen potential transactions for confiscated property scenarios. Foreign companies with an office in the United States should have an additional layer of vigilance for two reasons. First, foreign companies with U.S. offices are subject to embargo regulations, even if the U.S. subsidiary has no contact with Cuba. There are also extra-territorial legal considerations.

The second reason is that executives of foreign companies that do business in Cuba could lose their U.S. visa for engaging in trafficking in property subject to a certified claim or other claims. There are other potential penalties including the loss of U.S. visas for company officials whose businesses engage in unlawful trafficking under U.S. law, reputational risk, among others. Several Members of Congress are also considering anti-trafficking legislation to bolster and update existing laws and regulations.

In closing, companies doing business in Cuba should reassess their risk exposure, regardless of whether Title III will be implemented or waived.

*Arthur M. Freyre of PobleteTamargo LLP advises clients on public policy and legal matters having many years of experience as both a consultant and expert in public policy matters . Mr. Freyre is a regular contributor to online publications focused on foreign policy and technology, including DC Dispatches and the International Law Quarterly.

 

New Year, New House

The Brookings Institute published a report looking at other characteristics in December 2018, and noted the following similarities among the incoming Congressmen:

  • They are highly educated;
  • Least politically experienced; and
  • The overall loss of institutional memory.

The second characteristic regarding political experience is one that stands out. The incoming freshmen class’ lack of political experience coupled with the Senate’s familiarity and pragmatism on the other side gives us an indication of what we can expect from Congress this year; legislative gridlock.

Brookings defined political experience by whether or not the incoming freshmen served in local government, such as a mayor or city councilman, or in the state legislature, as a state representative or state senator. The report showed that only 41% had political experience, with 32% having served as a state elected official, and 15% serving on the local level (i.e. city or county). Contrast this with the fact that many new Senate freshmen members served in state wide positions such as governor or state attorney general.

To provide some comparison, consider the 104th Congress and the 112th Congress. For historical perspective, the 104th Congress was when the GOP gained majorities in the House and the Senate in the 1994 election. This was significant because the GOP had been the majority party in the House since 1954, and the Senate since 1980. The 112th Congress is unique because then speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats lost their majority after the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. In both cases, the incoming freshmen class had over 50% with previous political experience.

This lack of local and/or state political experience from the House side may be problematic. Under this new Congress, we may see more ideological legislation to come out of the House. When the Senate passes its version of the legislation, there may be problems due to the difference in perspective between the two legislative bodies, resulting in anticipated gridlock.

Any legislation that falls under gridlock may get resolved in 2021 at the earliest, when there is either a new Administration that is inaugurated and/or new leadership in the Congress that would change the party in control over the House or Senate. However, there are some issues that currently seem to have bipartisan support such as those in the technology sector, which may see more movement this session. Tech issues like data privacy have a greater chance of passage partly because technology issues impacts our lives on both a personal and commercial level, which garners support from across both sides of the aisle.

Despite the expectation of gridlock, that does not mean that your issue has to fall under this result. By utilizing a firm that understands the political climate and can advise you as your issue is navigated through the legislative process you can keep your issue from becoming stagnant. To learn more please visit these links on our website and do not hesitate to contact us.

Congressional Investigations & Witness Preparation

Political Risk Analysis