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

22 U.S.C. § 1643b

Receipt of claims; determination of amount and validity

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Claims for property loss

The Commission shall receive and determine in accordance with applicable substantive law, including international law, the amount and validity of claims by nationals of the United States against the Government of Cuba, or the Chinese Communist regime, arising 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, for losses resulting from the nationalization, expropriation, intervention, or other taking of, or special measures directed against, property including any rights or interests therein owned wholly or partially, directly or indirectly at the time by nationals of the United States, if such claims are submitted to the Commission within such period specified by the Commission by notice published in the Federal Register (which period shall not be more than eighteen months after such publication) within sixty days after October 16, 1964, or sixty days after November 6, 1966, with respect to claims against the Chinese Communist regime, or of legislation making appropriations to the Commission for payment of administrative expenses incurred in carrying out its functions with respect to each respective claims program authorized, under this subchapter, whichever date is later. In making the determination with respect to the validity and amount of claims and value of properties, rights, or interests taken, the Commission shall take into account the basis of valuation most appropriate to the property and equitable to the claimant, including but not limited to, (i) fair market value, (ii) book value, (iii) going concern value, or (iv) cost of replacement.

(b) Claims for disability or death

The Commission shall receive and determine in accordance with applicable substantive law, including international law, the amount and validity of claims by nationals of the United States against the Government of Cuba, or the Chinese Communist regime, arising 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, for disability or death resulting from actions taken by or under the authority of the Government of Cuba, or the Chinese Communist regime, if such claims are submitted to the Commission within the period established by the Commission under subsection (a), or within six months after the date the claims first arose (as determined by the Commission), whichever date last occurs.

(Mar. 10, 1950, ch. 54, title V, § 503, as added Pub. L. 88–666, Oct. 16, 1964, 78 Stat. 1110; amended Pub. L. 89–262, § 2, Oct. 19, 1965, 79 Stat. 988; Pub. L. 89–780, § 3, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1365.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1966—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 89–780, § 3, empowered the Commission to receive claims against the Chinese Communist regime arising since October 1, 1949, if such claims are submitted within such period of time specified by the Commission by notice published in the Federal Register, which notice is required to be published within 60 days after November 6, 1966.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 89–780, § 3(1), (2), provided for applicability of subsection to the Chinese Communist regime in the case of claims arising since October 1, 1949.

1965—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 89–262 struck out “arising out of debts for merchandise furnished or services rendered by nationals of the United States without regard to the date on which such merchandise was furnished or services rendered or” after “Government of Cuba”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), 111 F.4th 12 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), 111 F.4th 12 (D.C. Cir. 2024). · cites it 4× “Exxon’s reliance on a third source—the Commission’s certification of Exxon’s claim—falls short for similar reasons: Congress authorized the Commission to certify losses due to the expropriation of “property including any rights or interests therein owned wholly or partially,…”
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 505 F. Supp. 412 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). · cites it 2× “” Cuban Claims Act of 1964, 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a). IX Chase’s Counterclaim or Set-off as Equipment Trustee As noted earlier, Chase, as trustee for the benefit of American and other owners of equipment trust certificates, secured by financing leases of railway equipment seized by…”
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. The First Nat'l City Bank of New York, 431 F.2d 394 (1st Cir. 1970). “See 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a) (1970 Supp.). On the other hand, Congress and the Executive Branch have also acted, pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.”
Nielsen v. Sec'y of the Treasury, 424 F.2d 833 (D.C. Cir. 1970). “(22 U.S.C. § 1643b) If the government’s transfer of the property to the Cuban corporation would have relegated appellants to the assertion of nationalization claims against Cuba by the nations of their present residence, has the government’s prohibition of that transfer, at…”
Havana Docks Corp. v. MSC Cruises SA CO (S.D. Fla. 2020). “” 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a) (emphasis added). Here, the property interest held by Plaintiff at the time was a time-limited concession that by its own terms expired in 2004.”
Havana Docks Corp. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. (S.D. Fla. 2020). “” 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a) (emphasis added). Here, the property interest held by Plaintiff at the time was a time-limited concession that by its own terms expired in 2004.”
North Am. Sugar Indus., Inc. v. Xinjiang Goldwind Sci. & Tech. Co., Ltd. (S.D. Fla. 2021). “22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a). On March 26, 1969, FCSC certified that Plaintiff suffered losses in the amount of $97,373,414.”
De Fernandez v. Seaboard Marine Ltd (S.D. Fla. 2022). “” 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a). A claim certified by the FCSC under the Settlement Act serves as both conclusive proof of ownership of a property interest and as the presumptive measure of damages under the LIBERTAD Act.”
Sierra v. Trafigura Trading, LLC (D. Del. 2024). “22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a). The HBA allows United States nationals to file lawsuits based on certified or uncertified claims; the claims at issue here are uncertified.”
Jose Ramon Lopez Regueiro v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (11th Cir. 2025). “; see 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a). A claim could not be certified as valid under the Cuban Claims Act “unless the property on which the claim was based was owned .”
— 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a) — 9 cases
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), 111 F.4th 12 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “Exxon’s reliance on a third source—the Commission’s certification of Exxon’s claim—falls short for similar reasons: Congress authorized the Commission to certify losses due to the expropriation of “property including any rights or interests therein owned wholly or partially,…”
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 505 F. Supp. 412 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “” Cuban Claims Act of 1964, 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a). IX Chase’s Counterclaim or Set-off as Equipment Trustee As noted earlier, Chase, as trustee for the benefit of American and other owners of equipment trust certificates, secured by financing leases of railway equipment seized by…”
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. The First Nat'l City Bank of New York, 431 F.2d 394 (1st Cir. 1970). “See 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a) (1970 Supp.). On the other hand, Congress and the Executive Branch have also acted, pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.”
Havana Docks Corp. v. MSC Cruises SA CO (S.D. Fla. 2020). “” 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a) (emphasis added). Here, the property interest held by Plaintiff at the time was a time-limited concession that by its own terms expired in 2004.”
Havana Docks Corp. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. (S.D. Fla. 2020). “” 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a) (emphasis added). Here, the property interest held by Plaintiff at the time was a time-limited concession that by its own terms expired in 2004.”
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.