MIAMI, United States. – Behind the failed of the High Court of Justice in London on the lawsuit filed by the CRF-I Ltd. fund, David Charters, president of that financial institution, described the court decision as “a complete victory.”
According to the agency ReutersJudge Sara Cockerill, in charge of the case, ruled this Tuesday that the British High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case against Cuba, but did in relation to the case against the Banco Nacional de Cuba (BNC).
“CRF has been successful against BNC… at the same time, it has lost against Cuba,” said the magistrate when summarizing her decision in a brief hearing.
In this regard, Charters said in a statement that CRF “remains committed to finding a solution with Cuba that does not have any impact on its budget for at least five years, recognizing the difficult economic situation facing the country.”
For the president of the financial entity based in the Cayman Islands, the judge’s ruling only left Cuba as a State out of the lawsuit, but not the Banco Nacional de Cuba, an entity that, moreover, is controlled by the island’s regime .
“The BNC was the Central Bank of Cuba and continues to be responsible for managing these unpaid Cuban debts,” said the manager.
“Cuba won a technical point in this trial that we have already corrected and we do not expect this issue to affect the final result, which is a complete victory for CRF,” added Charters.
Although Cuban state propaganda celebrated the court ruling by assuring that “the Republic of Cuba is out of the lawsuit,” the court report on the case indicated that the process would continue against the BNC.
A note signed by regime spokesman Humberto López —a member of the Cuban delegation that attended the hearing held in January— on the digital portal cubadebate and shared by the official media indicates that “CRF is a stranger in the financial instruments that it claimed against Cuba and did not have the right to establish the claim in London; The Republic of Cuba is, therefore, immune to English jurisdiction and has no obligation to respond with its assets to this claim.”
