Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. · ¶2

Held: The cruise lines' use of the docks is sufficient to establish that they used “property which was confscated by the Cuban Government”; Havana Docks is not required to establish that the cruise lines traffcked in Havana Docks' property interest. Pp. 245–253. (a) Title III generally makes any person who “traffcs in property which was confscated by the Cuban Government . . . liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property.” § 6082(a)(1)(A). This dispute turns on whether the relevant “property which was confscated” must be Havana Docks' property interest in the docks (the concession), or whether it could instead be the docks themselves. Under the plain text of Title III, “property which was confscated” can refer to the physical property in which the plaintiff had an interest, and not just the interest itself. Title III makes entities liable for trafficking in…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.