U.S. Code » Title 22 » Chapter CHAPTER 21— SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— CLAIMS AGAINST CUBA AND CHINA

22 U.S.C. § 1643

Congressional declaration of purpose

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the purpose of this subchapter to provide for the determination of the amount and validity of claims against the Government of Cuba, or the Chinese Communist regime, which have arisen since January 1, 1959, in the case of claims against the Government of Cuba, or since October 1, 1949, in the case of claims against the Chinese Communist regime, out of nationalization, expropriation, intervention, or other takings of, or special measures directed against, property of nationals of the United States, and claims for disability or death of nationals of the United States arising out of violations of international law by the Government of Cuba, or the Chinese Communist regime, in order to obtain information concerning the total amount of such claims against the Government of Cuba, or the Chinese Communist regime, on behalf of nationals of the United States. This subchapter shall not be construed as authorizing an appropriation or as any intention to authorize an appropriation for the purpose of paying such claims.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case: Banco Nacional De Cuba, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Chase Manhattan Bank, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, 658 F.2d 875 (2d Cir. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Banco Nacional De Cuba, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Chase Manhattan Bank, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, 658 F.2d 875 (2d Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “22 U.S.C. §§ 1643 -43k (1976). Were we to allow the railroad equipment counterclaim here, so that several millions of dollars would go directly to the trust beneficiaries rather than into a claims settlement fund, the result would be to give Chase’s customers a preference over…”
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. The First Nat'l City Bank of New York, 431 F.2d 394 (1st Cir. 1970). · cites it 3× “), on October 16, 1964, Congress provided for “the determination of the amount and validity of claims against the Government of Cuba * * * [arising] out of nationalization expropriation, intervention, or other takings of * * * property of nationals of the United States * * 22…”
Judah v. Delaware Trust Co., 378 A.2d 624 (Del. 1977). “See International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, 22 U.S.C. §§ 1643 -1643k. 11 . Fundamental Documents of Communist China 41 (A.”
North Am. Sugar Indus., Inc. v. Xinjiang Goldwind Sci. & Tech. Co., Ltd., 124 F.4th 1322 (11th Cir. 2025). “” In October 1964, Congress enacted Title V of the Interna- tional Claims Settlement Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 1643–1643k, 2 to respond to the Castro regime’s expropriation of property from U.”
Morris v. People's Repub. of China, 478 F. Supp. 2d 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). “See 22 U.S.C. § 1643 (2006). During a second claims period, the Commission heard claims arising from November 6, 1966 until May 11, 1979.”
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1967). “It claims that Congress intended that the rights of these litigants would be restricted to those granted in the Cuban Claims Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 1643 -1643k. That Act, however, contained no language indicating that persons claiming under the Hickenlooper Amendment were to be so…”
Juan Rigores Sardino v. The Fed. Reserve Bank of New York & the Sec'y of the Treasury of the United States, 361 F.2d 106 (2d Cir. 1966). “Congress has already taken steps to determine the claims of our nationals against Cuba, 22 U.S.C. § 1643 , although without as yet providing for their payment.”
Banco Para El Comercio Exterior De Cuba v. First Nat'l City Bank, 658 F.2d 913 (1st Cir. 1981). “If, as appears, Citibank does not contest the validity of Bancec’s claim, judgment should be entered for Bancec in the amount of $193,-280.”
Mario Alfonso Tagle & Lourdes A. Martinez v. Donald T. Regan, as Sec'y of Treasury of the United States, Defendant, 643 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir. 1981). “988 (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 1643 et seq.) pointing out that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated in regard to Cuban assets nominally held by defunct Cuban corporations which are substantially owned by United States citizens: In the committee’s view, if the assets are…”
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), 111 F.4th 12 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “See 22 U.S.C. § 1643 et seq. Congress tasked the Commission with determining “the amount and validity of claims by nationals of the United States against the Government of Cuba” for “losses resulting from the nationalization, expropriation, intervention, or other taking of .”
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. First Nat'l City Bank of NY, 270 F. Supp. 1004 (S.D.N.Y. 1967). “…assessing claims filed by First National City. See International Claims Settlement Act, § 501, 78 Stat. 1110 (1964), 22 U.S.C. § 1643 .”
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Farr, 243 F. Supp. 957 (S.D.N.Y. 1965). “There is nothing in the Cuban Claims Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 1643 -1643k, which was before the Congress at approximately the same time as the Hickenlooper Amendment, or in its legislative history that in any way casts doubt upon this construction.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.