EXPROPRIATION

Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Issues

Must a plaintiff bringing a claim under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government in which the plaintiff holds a claim, or instead in property the plaintiff would have owned at the time of trafficking had no expropriation occurred?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act (“the Act”), passed to compensate United States nationals for property seized by the Cuban Regime, provides a private cause of action only for property interests held at the time the Act was passed. Petitioner Havana Docks Corporation, whose facilities were confiscated by the Cuban government in 1960, argues that limiting the cause of action to present-day interests violates the original objectives of the Act. Although its ownership would have expired in 2004, Havana Docks asserts that it retains a continuing property interest according to the Act. Respondent cruise lines, including Royal Caribbean Cruises, contend that the Act only protects specific types of property interests and that they did not “traffic” in Havana Docks’ property according to the statute’s definition. The outcome of the case has implications for United States foreign policy goals in Cuba as well as U.S. nationals’ ability to receive compensation for past confiscations by the Cuban government.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world “as if there had been no expropriation.”

In 1905, the Cuban government granted a company, Compañia del Puerto, a concession—an agreement to build and operate a pier at Havana’s port at its own expense. Havana Docks Corp. v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Republic of Hungary v. Simon

Issues

Does expropriated property have a commercial nexus with the United States when the property is liquidated, the proceeds from liquidating that property are commingled with a foreign nation’s general assets, and those general assets are then later used commercially in the United States?

This case asks the Court to determine whether the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is satisfied when a claimant’s assets were seized and liquidated into funds that were “commingled” with the nation’s general assets, and the nation’s general assets were then used for commercial purposes within the United States. Hungary argues that commingled assets do not satisfy the expropriation exception because there is insufficient evidence to establish that the funds from the liquidated assets were directly used in a commercial capacity in the present day. The Simon survivors counter that commingled assets do satisfy the expropriation exception and that there is sufficient evidence that the funds from their seized property were later used for commercial purposes within the United States. This case touches on important questions regarding the role of American courts in international disputes, the Holocaust’s legacy, and human rights violations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; (2) whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference; and (3) whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA.

Foreign sovereigns generally enjoy sovereign immunity in the United States, which prevents American courts from asserting jurisdiction over them. Simon v.

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to EXPROPRIATION