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.

 

Poblete Tamargo v. Department of State; PT Files FOIA Suit Against State for Documents on Outstanding Property Claims Against Cuba

Background

After the 1959 Cuban revolution the government of Cuba confiscated properties from American citizens and others. To date, this remains the largest confiscation of American property by any foreign government in history.  The confiscations took place under the color of law, some were confiscated with the use of force and violence. The Cuban government has refused to compensate the former owners of the property in violation of Cuban law and international law.

The Helms-Burton law was enacted to, in part, “protect United States nationals against confiscatory takings and the wrongful trafficking in property confiscated by Cuba.” This law provides American citizens with a legal tool to defend their property rights in relation to claims arising from the confiscation of their real and personal property in Cuba. This remedy, the filing of a Helms-Burton Title III lawsuit, has not been available to U.S. citizens because it has been waived by every President since it was enacted into law in 1996.

The Helms-Burton law has two sections or titles, Title III and Title IV, which are specially designed to defend property rights of U.S. persons with a claim, either certified or uncertified, against Cuba. Title III allows American citizens to file lawsuits in U.S. courts against a corporation, the Cuban government, or other persons trafficking in property that is the subject of a certified claim or an uncertified claim. Title IV is an administrative tool that is administered by the Secretary of State on a case-by-case basis which denies U.S. visas to those who traffic in such property.

Request for Records & FOIA Lawsuit

PobleteTamargo Attorneys and Public Policy professionals have decades of experience handling international claims. In the case of Cuba, one of the firm’s attorneys helped draft the Helms-Burton law. The firm is exploring every possible tool to assist clients in settling claims. Filed in fall 2018, the lawsuit aims to raise awareness of US-Cuba claims among interested parties, including fellow lawyers, policymakers, scholars, and the media. The Complaint is attached below.

Poblete Tamargo v Dep’t… by on Scribd

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING: Holding Cuban Leaders Accountable

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018, the House Committtee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on National Security held a hearing, led by Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Ron DeSantis, to discuss the Administration’s Cuba policy, review the 1996 shoot down of the Hermanos al Rescate (Brothers to the Rescue) humanitarian aircraft, and examine human rights violations by the Castro regime.

 

 

 

Key witnesses included:

  • Ms. Miriam de la Peña, Mother of Hermanos al Rescate Pilot Mario de la Peña
  • Ms. Ana Alejandre Ciereszko, Sister of Hermanos al Rescate Pilot, Armando Alejandre Jr.
  • Mr. Jason Poblete, PobleteTamargo Attorney 
  • Ambassador Roger Noriega, Visiting Fellow at American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
  • Dr. William LeoGrande, Dean Emeritus for American Univeristy’s School of Public Affairs

BACKGROUND:

  • On February 24, 1996, the humanitarian organization Hermanos al Rescate (Brothers to the Rescue) launched a search and rescue mission for refugees fleeing the oppressive Castro regime in Cuba. Two Cuban MiGs followed the planes and destroyed two small rescue planes with heat seeking missiles killing four men.
  • President Obama visited Cuba in March 2016, becoming the first U.S. president to visit the island since 1928. As part of his Cuban Thaw, President Obama released three of the five Cuban intelligence operatives who were convicted for their role in the Brothers to the Rescue shoot down.
  • In January 2017, the Administration signaled a shift in U.S. policy towards Cuba by curtailing American travel and investment and resumption of the embargo. The Administration has also withdrawn diplomats out of Cuba.

 

Full Testimonies and further information can be found here

Confiscated Property in Cuba is Being Sold in Miami

Nearly 60 years ago, American’s living in Cuba were forced to flee the island as Fidel Castro took power and began expropriating property. They left Cuba with the notion that they were not abandoning their homes and property, and had every intention of returning to the island in the near future. The new regime was quick to criminalize those that were forced to flee the island and declared that any property left behind was now owned by the Cuban government.

Decades later, possessions that were left behind during the Castro revolution are turning up in the United States as stolen heirlooms are being sold to the highest bidder.

In an article from The Miami Herald, PobleteTamargo attorney Jason Poblete discusses the difference between confiscated and abandoned properties, a necessary clarification in establishing ownership, that can be legally uncertain based on Cuba’s definition of abandoned property, which is not internationally recognized.

“That’s the Nazis’ defense, which frustrated efforts to win justice for many years … and has been used by communist governments but is not recognized in international law,” said Jason Poblete, an expert on U.S. sanctions on Cuba who has represented clients whose properties were confiscated.

Poblete goes on to express the importance in discussing questions about property and ownership in the Cuba of the Future.

“In a transition process, these are questions that must be raised. What was done in 1959 must be studied,” he said. “Sadly, what is happening now is a black market on Cuban art, for example. Very valuable pieces are being trafficked. This is part of a discussion that must take place when we talk about ‘transitional justice.’ ”

The Miami Herald article found below was originally published on May 3, and can be found here.