Business Opportunities: The Impact of President Trump's Cuba Policy
Most of the policy openings introduced by President Barack Obama remain in place. We still have an embassy in Havana, commercial flights and cruises to the island continue and certain American industries continue shipping products to the island country. So what changed? Basically, there were two major changes to the existing policy, writes Jorge Espinosa.
July 21, 2017 at 03:30 AM
9 minute read
On May 20, fulfilling a campaign promise to a room full of supporters in Miami, President Donald Trump announced, “I am canceling the last administration's completely one-sided deal with Cuba.” While this declaration played well to his supporters, it was far from true. Most of the policy openings introduced by President Barack Obama remain in place. We still have an embassy in Havana, commercial flights and cruises to the island continue and certain American industries continue shipping products to the island country. So what changed? Basically, there were two major changes to the existing policy.
Travel by Americans for pure tourism without an allowed exemption is no longer allowed. The exemptions were still in place under the Obama policy but they were not being strictly policed. As long as it was likely to lead to exchanges with the Cuban people, Americans were free to book a trip to Cuba without any formalities. The 12 categories of authorized exemptions include family visits, journalists, cultural exchanges, educational trips, humanitarian trips and the ambiguous “support for the Cuban people.” This will likely result in a resurgence of the role of the licensed tour company to help Americans comfortably comply with the regulations.
The second major change involves who an American can spend money with on the island. The Secretary of State has been empowered to compile a list of forbidden Cuban entities that are “under the control of, or act for or on behalf of, the Cuban military, intelligence or security services or personnel … its affiliates, subsidiaries and successors.” This policy specifically names and targets a mega company owned and operated by the Cuban military, Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), its affiliates, subsidiaries and successors. This is likely to have a deep impact on doing business with Cuba since Gaesa owns numerous subsidiaries throughout the island particularly in the lucrative tourist industry. It is also likely to create some initial confusion since affiliates seems to expand the reach of the prohibition beyond government-owned entities and successors could in theory capture private entities who take over previous manufacturing or services offered by a government company.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readFlorida Supreme Court Clarifies Qualifications for Court-Appointed Arbitrators
3 minute read4 New Judges: Meet the Lawyers DeSantis Just Elevated to the Bench
Big Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250