Consent of Use negotiations'?AB InBev admits' Trafficking So why have they not been named in a lawsuit yet...? Is it coming or are they warmer to the idea of paying consent of use' ...?
As a result of the activation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, AB InBev may be subject to potential U.S. litigation exposure beginning 2 May 2019, including claims accrued during the prior suspension of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act
The Company advises the staff supplementally that it owns indirectly a 50% equity interest in Cerveceria Bucanero S.A. (“CBSA”), a Cuban company. The Company’s 50% equity interest is owned through Cerbuco Brewing Inc. (“Cerbuco”), a Canadian company that is wholly-owned by Interbrew International B.V., the Company’s wholly-owned Dutch subsidiary. The other 50% equity interest in CBSA is owned by Corporacion Alimentaria S.A., (“Coralsa”), an entity owned by the Cuban government. Through Cerbuco, the Company operates CBSA as a joint venture with Coralsa. CBSA’s principal asset is the Holguin Brewery in Cuba which it operates.
revenue recognized for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 from Cuba amounted to USD 106.2 million, USD 104.3 million and USD 89.8 million, respectively. These amounts represented 0.2%, 0.4% and 0.4% of the Company’s global revenue
While recent U.S. sanctions have spooked many potential partners, Cuba’s existing 200-odd joint ventures and other agreements with foreign companies appear to be staying the course. A number of well-known corporations such as Nestle, Unilever, Imperial Cigars, Sheraton, Pernod-Ricard, Total and AB InBev have ventures in Cuba and none have fled in response to the U.S. crackdown. The companies did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment. However, the sources said some were considering restructuring along the lines of British beverage giant Diageo PLC, which recently arrived in Cuba and partnered with a local firm in August to market rum.
U.S. Certified Corporate Claims are the strongest cases going forward. Then there is the question of what constitutes "trafficking" the way I read the ACT is you cannot drink from 2 Cups either your doing business in the U.S or your not ...
so for example: if your using sugar from the fields and selling the cookies in Europe but you have branches in the U.S you are liable if your booking trips to a hotel or processing payments(Facilitator to the trafficking) that was on a certified claimants property then you are liable I believe this was the intent of congress being one step removed does not make you immune and I think we will start to see more light coming from Appellate courts decisions