770 F.3d 207
2d Cir.2014Background
- Hausler seeks to attach blocked Cuban assets under TRIA § 201 to satisfy a Florida state judgment against Cuba.
- The underlying Florida judgment awarded damages for acts by Cuba and remains unsatisfied.
- Blocked EFTs are restrained at New York garnishor banks under Cuban Assets Control Regulations.
- District Court held TRIA preempts state law on property interests and Cuba had a property interest in the EFTs.
- Garnishees and adverse claimants argue Cuba has no direct property interest in midstream EFTs; no Cuban transmission to the block bank occurred.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviews whether EFTs are attachable “assets of” Cuba under TRIA § 201(a) and analyzes state-law property interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are midstream EFTs attachable assets of Cuba under TRIA § 201(a)? | Hausler: EFTs are Cuba's blocked assets subject to attachment to satisfy judgment. | Banks: Cuba has no direct property interest in EFTs held by intermediary banks; TRIA does not reach them unless directly transmitted by Cuba or its agencies. | No; EFTs are not attachable because Cuba or its agencies did not transmit the EFTs directly to the blocking bank. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009) (defines EFTs as property interests and analyzes intermediary-possession effects)
- Export-Import Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., 609 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (TRIA § 201(a) property-rights framework and gaps filled by state law)