Holcim Ltd (PK) (HCMLY) Quote

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties through undersigned counsel that the above-captioned action is dismissed, with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The parties further stipulate that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED STATUS REPORT REGARDING SERVICE UPON FOREIGN DEFENDANTS (06/18/21)

Plaintiffs, through their undersigned counsel, respectfully submit their Amended Status Report Regarding Service Upon Foreign Defendants. On June 1, 2021, pursuant to the Court’s May 26, 2021 Order (Dkt. 39), Plaintiffs submitted their Status Report Regarding Service Upon Foreign Defendants (Dkt. 41), reporting, inter alia, “[t]hat the process of serving the remaining foreign defendants remains underway.” The foreign defendants who have not been served are Inversiones Ibersuizas S.A.; Holcim Trading SA (F/K/A) Union Maritima Internacional SA; de Ruiter Ouderlande B.V.; and Las Pailas de Cemento S.A.U. (“Foreign Defendants”).*In addition, Plaintiffs informed the Court that Plaintiffs and LafargeHolcim had “reached an agreement in principle to settle this action in its entirety” and that the parties were “working diligently to consummate their settlement agreement and expect that the agreement will be completed on or before June 28, 2021.” (Dkt. 41). * Plaintiffs did not request that Clerk of the Court issue a summons to Defendant Unknown Subsidiary of the LafargeHolcim Group.

The settlement was finalized on June 17, 2021. Immediately after the settlement was finalized, Plaintiffs’ counsel instructed Plaintiffs’ vendor, TransPerfect Legal Solutions, to request cancellation of Hague Convention service upon the Foreign Defendants. TransPerfect has confirmed that its foreign partner has requested cancellation of service upon the Foreign Defendants. HCMLY h ttps://www.cubatrade.org/blog/2021/6/25/c3jwa630da63op8aldrdfsug9du9c4

GO FRAZ
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164545926

"The Parties are working diligently to consummate their settlement agreement and expect that the agreement will be completed on or before June 28, 2021," says a status report on the case.

https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/national/in-historic-first-swiss-firm-settles-suit-by-miami-family-over-seized-property-in-cuba/article_398e7d21-f257-54ce-b6ec-a6ccfe51dafc.html
Thanks to a surprising decision by former President Donald Trump in May 2019 allowing people to sue under the Title III provision, owners of property seized by the Cuban government can demand compensation from foreign companies in Cuba "trafficking in stolen property." The provision allows U.S. citizens to claim compensation in federal courts from any company — American or foreign — that has benefited from the use of confiscated property on the island.

Since then, claimants have been filing lawsuits against hotels, cruise and travel companies, airlines and banks, among others, accused of benefiting from business with properties that were taken by the Cuban government after the revolution.

Go FRAZ

AAL, AMZN, BUD, CCL, CO, CVX, FRAZ NCLH, ODP, RCL, SHERF, XOM MA V BNPQF CS TRVG HCMLY

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lafargeholcim-nears-settlement-over-property-in-cuba-11622067104

David Baron, an attorney at law firm Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP who is representing the plaintiffs, declined to comment. Grace Mead, an attorney at Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson PA who represents LafargeHolcim, also declined to comment.

The mediator, Layn Phillips, as well declined to comment, citing confidentiality constraints. Neither would a spokesman for LafargeHolcim comment.
The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit against LafargeHolcim, two of its subsidiaries, and three other entities, seeking up to $810 million in monetary damages, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs said they own 100% of claims to the property, and that those claims were certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, a quasi-judicial agency within the U.S. Justice Department, which valued the property at more than $11 million in 1969, according to the complaint.

GO FRAZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


AAL, AMZN, BUD, CCL, CO, CVX, FRAZ NCLH, ODP, RCL, SHERF, XOM MA V BNPQF CS TRVG BKNG SCGLF

LafargenHolcim Ltd. changed to Holcim Ltd. ADR:


https://otce.finra.org/otce/dailyList?viewType=Symbol%2FName%20Changes

LafargeHolcim has settled a lawsuit

In a First, Parties in Helms-Burton Case Reach Settlement Over Property in Cuba

An American family that once owned a vast sugar plantation in Cuba sought more than $160 million from Swiss multinational LafargeHolcim for its use of the property that had been seized in the Cuban revolution.
By Amy Guthrie | May 25, 2021 at 07:19 PM

https://www.law.com/international-edition/2021/05/25/in-a-first-parties-in-helms-burton-case-reach-settlement-over-property-in-cuba/

GO FRAZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


AAL, AMZN, BUD, CCL, CO, CVX, FRAZ NCLH, ODP, RCL, SHERF, XOM MA V BNPQF CS TRVG BKNG SCGLF

HCMLY LafargeHolcim Switzerland Sued US$270+ Million By Certified Claimant In Libertad Act Lawsuit
October 07, 2020

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/36228448/Claflin_et_al_v_LafargeHolcim_Ltd_et_al

Excerpts From Complaint

Plaintiffs bring this action to recover treble damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, codified at 22 U.S.C. § 6021, et seq. (the “Helms-Burton Act”) against Defendants LafargeHolcim, De Ruiter, Las Pailas, and the Unknown Subsidiary for trafficking in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959 and as to which Plaintiffs own 100% of the claims as certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (“FCSC”).

Cuba converted the Confiscated Soledad Property into the Carlos Marx cement plant, which utilizes and benefits from the Confiscated Soledad Property, including its rivers, railroads, limestone, and other infrastructure.

11. Defendants used a complex web of shell entities and transactions designed, until very recently, to conceal the fact that LafargeHolcim has partially owned and operated and profited from the Carlos Marx cement plant in partnership with the Cuban government since 2000.

Plaintiffs, who now own the FCSC Certified Claims to the Confiscated Soledad Property, seek treble money damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees against certain Defendants for trafficking in the Confiscated Soledad Property as defined by the Helms-Burton Act.

The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that the current fair market value of the Confiscated Soledad Property is greater than the amount of the FCSC Certified Claims plus interest. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the current fair market value of the property, which is estimated to be $270 million, plus attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs.

In fact, in 2000, prior to LafargeHolcim’s (then known as Holderbank) investment in Cuba, LafargeHolcim sought legal advice from a U.S. law firm about the effect of the Helms-Burton Act and the FCSC Certified Claims on its then potential investment in, modernization of, and management of the Carlos Marx cement plant. LafargeHolcim’s U.S. law firm advised that investing in the cement plant without obtaining the authorization of the persons holding the FCSC Certified Claims would subject it to liability under the Helms-Burton Act. The U.S. law firm also advised LafargeHolcim that LafargeHolcim should not try to conceal its trafficking through the use of various corporate structures, for any such attempted concealment would not avoid said liability.

21. Contrary to its U.S. law firm’s advice, LafargeHolcim proceeded to traffic, knowingly and intentionally, in the Confiscated Soledad Property by affiliating with, using, and conspiring with the other Defendants to create and maintain a complex web of corporate structures, shell companies, and alliances designed to conceal, until recently, LafargeHolcim’s investment in and trafficking in the Confiscated Soledad Property.

22. Since 2000, LafargeHolcim has trafficked, knowingly and intentionally, in the Confiscated Soledad Property, seemingly confident that it would not be held accountable for its trafficking in any U.S. court. But LafargeHolcim has purposefully availed itself and sought the protection of the U.S. legal system, even as it took active steps to evade that system, including by filing a civil complaint in federal court and admitting on the record in that lawsuit that it, i.e., Defendant LafargeHolcim Ltd, which is based in Switzerland: (a) has extensive business operations in the United States, (b) is the United States’ leading cement producer, (c) offers waste management services in numerous cities throughout the United States, (d) recovers and recycles waste through co-processing at service locations across North America, and (e) has reached a significant number of consumers in the United States.

FRAZ GO GO GO
PCHM SECI