UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

(Jury Trial Demanded) 

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, 

MARIA TERESA RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a MARIA TERESA LANDA, 

ALFREDO RAMON FORNS, 

RAMON ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, 

RAUL LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, 

CHRISTINA CONROY, and 

FRANCISCO RAMON RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, 

CORPORACIÓN HABANOS, S.A., 

WPP PLC, YOUNG & RUBICAM LLC, 

and BCW LLC, a/k/a BURSON COHN & WOLFE LLC 

Defendants. 

__________________________________________/ 

Complaint 

Plaintiffs, LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, MARIA TERESA RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a 

MARIA TERESA LANDA, ALFREDO RAMON FORNS, RAMON ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, 

RAUL LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, CHRISTINA CONROY, and FRANCISCO RAMON 

RODRIGUEZ, sue Defendants, IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, CORPORACIÓN HABANOS, S.A., 

WPP PLC, YOUNG & RUBICAM LLC, and BCW LLC, a/k/a BURSON COHN & WOLFE 

LLC, and allege as follows:

Introduction 

1. Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Rodriguez Family”) are the heirs and successors of 

Ramón Rodriguez Gutiérrez (“RRG”) and the owners of a 90% interest1 in Ramón Rodriguez e 

1

 The remaining 10% interest is owned by two individuals who obtained their interest, by 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 1 of 21
2

Hijos Sociedad en Comandita2 (“RRHSC”). Before 1961, RRHSC owned and operated the former 

Partagás cigarette factory building (the “RRHSC Property”) in Havana.3

2. In 1955, RRHSC erected a modern mixed-use building adjacent and connected to 

the main building of the Partagás factory at the corner of Calle 23 y 16 (23rd Street and 16th). The 

new building’s structure included a ground level garage for the factory’s fleet of trucks, a storage 

facility, a mezzanine suite of executive offices and a six-story tower. 4 Today, the RRHSC 

Property, rebranded “Empresa de Tabaco Torcido ‘José Martí,’” prominently displays the names 

Tabacuba (the Cuban state tobacco monopoly company) and H. Upmann on its façade.5

3. After taking control of power in 1959, the Castro Regime and Cuba’s communist 

government systematically “nationalized” the major privately-owned business enterprises in Cuba 

without compensation to the lawful owners of the property. In 1961, as part of its takeover of the 

entire tobacco industry, the Castro government confiscated ownership of RRHSC and the RRHSC 

Property. Before the RRHSC Property was confiscated, the Partagás Factory produced worldrenowned cigarettes under the Partagás brand and had grown to become the third largest 

manufacturer of cigarettes in Cuba with a 16.3% share of the market. 

operation of law, through their deceased father, who was not a U.S. citizen as of 1996. 

2

 Ramon Rodriguez and Sons, a Limited Partnership. 

3 A picture of Partagás cigarette boxes with a drawing of the Partagás (RRHSC) factory and a 

photograph of the factory believed to have been taken in the 1950s is shown at Composite Exhibit 

1. 

4 A picture of the modern mixed-use building that was erected as an annex to the main Partagás 

cigarette factory is shown at Composite Exhibit 2. 

5 Pictures of the modern façade are shown at Composite Exhibit 3. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 2 of 21
3

4. The “Rodriguez Family are the owners of a “Claim” under the Cuban Liberty and 

Democratic Solidarity Act also known as Helms-Burton (the “Liberty Act” or “Libertad Act”) due 

to the Cuban government’s confiscation and trafficking in the RRHSC Property.6 The Liberty Act 

took effect in 1996: 

It is the purpose of statute to deter third party foreign investors from 

trafficking in the confiscated property (defined as ‘purchas[ing] an 

equity interest in, manag[ing], or enter[ing] into joint ventures 

using property and assets some of which were confiscated from 

United States nationals.’) 

Glen v. Club Mediterranee S.A., 450 F.3d 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added) (quoting 

22 U.S.C. § 6081(5)); see also 22 U.S.C. § 6022(6) (Liberty Act is designed “to protect United 

States nationals against confiscatory takings and the wrongful trafficking in property confiscated 

by the Castro regime.”). 

5. In 2007, Defendant Imperial Brands PLC (“Imperial”), well-aware of the Liberty 

Act, purchased Altadis S.A. and its “50% ownership interest in [Habanos], a company which 

distributes cigars manufactured in Cuba.”7 Corporacion Habanos S.A. (“Habanos”) is a joint 

venture company 50% owned by Cuba, or one or more Cuban-owned companies, and 50% owned 

by Imperial. 

6 As a recent decision in this District explained that: “‘[t]he Helms-Burton Act refers to the 

property interest that former owners of confiscated property now have as ownership of a ‘claim 

to such property.’” Glen II, 450 F.3d at 1255 (quoting 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A)); see also id. 

(noting that actions brought under Title III are “actions brought ‘on a claim to the confiscated 

property’ against traffickers in the property” (quoting 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(4))). See Havana Docks 

Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 19-CV-23590, 2020 WL 1905219, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 

17, 2020) (emphasis added). 

7 See October 12, 2007 letter from Imperial to the SEC’s Office of Global Security at 2. (Copy 

attached as Exhibit 4). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 3 of 21
4

6. Imperial, both through Habanos and other joint-venture subsidiaries, as well as 

through the Cuban tobacco monopoly company, Tabacuba, Imperial’s joint-venture partner in 

Habanos, has and continues to use the RRHSC Property without compensation to, or authorization 

from, the Rodriguez Family. The unauthorized use of the RRHSC Property has included the 

production and shipping of millions of hand-rolled cigars (sold under various premium brand 

names) manufactured at the RRHSC Property, or manufactured at other nearby factories, and 

processed, stored, and shipped from the RRHSC Property. The unauthorized use of the RRHSC 

Property also extends to Tabacuba’s management of the day to day business of all Cuban tobacco 

products from offices it maintains in the RRHSC Property. Imperial’s trafficking also includes use 

of the RRHSC Property for marketing of Habanos’ products. 

7. All Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs under the Liberty Act for “trafficking”8

because they participate in, or profit from, trafficking of the RRHSC Property by the Cuban 

government, through Tabacuba and its joint venture partner, Defendant Imperial. Tabacuba and 

Imperial traffic in the RRHSC Property through their jointly owned and controlled joint venture 

company Habanos and through the distribution network that Tabacuba and Imperial own. 

8. Imperial and its partner Tabacuba, together with the subsidiaries they own and 

control, have expanded their use of and benefit from the RRHSC Property by retaining agents to 

8 For purposes of the Act, a person “traffics” in confiscated property if that person “knowingly” 

and intentionally: (i) sells, transfers, distributes, dispenses, brokers, manages, or otherwise 

disposes of confiscated property, or purchases, leases, receives, possesses, obtains control of, 

manages, uses, or otherwise acquires or holds an interest in confiscated property, (ii) engages in a 

commercial activity using or otherwise benefiting from confiscated property, or (iii) causes, 

directs, participates in, or profits from, trafficking (as described in clause (i) or (ii)) by another 

person, or otherwise engages in trafficking (as described in clause (i) or (ii)) through another 

person, without the authorization of any United States national who holds a claim to the property. 

See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 4 of 21
5

market and publicize the products produced at the confiscated RRHSC Property. The agents 

retained by Imperial and Habanos include Defendant WPP PLC (“WPP”) through its U.S-based 

advertising agency subsidiaries, Defendants Young & Rubicam LLC (“Y&R”), and BCW LLC, 

a/k/a Burson Cohn & Wolfe LLC (“BCW”). 

9. Beginning no later than 2017, Y&R and BCW assisted in setting up, or directly set 

up, sponsored official “portals” for Imperial to market Habanos products on the U.S.-based social 

media platforms Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.9

10. Imperial’s agent, WPP, through Y&R, BCW, and previously through a third WPP 

subsidiary, Ogilvy, has continuously marketed and publicized the RRHSC Property and the 

Habanos’ products made at and shipped from there since at least 2010. 

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue 

Parties 

11. Plaintiffs Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Maria Teresa Rodriguez, Alfredo Ramon Forns, 

Ramon Alberto Rodriguez, Raul Lorenzo Rodriguez, and Francisco Ramon Rodriguez are 

individuals residing in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

12. Plaintiff Christina Conroy is an individual residing in Montgomery County, 

Maryland. 

13. Each Plaintiff was a U.S. citizen prior to 1996, and each is a U.S. National under 

22 U.S.C. § 6023(15)(B). 

9 These portals include: 

https://www.instagram.com/habanos_oficial/

https://twitter.com/Habanos_Oficial

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCstGLy96wdZG7eCM4855_DA. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 5 of 21
6

14. Plaintiff Luis Manuel Rodriguez is the last surviving son of RRG. He obtained his 

interest in the Claim through RRG’s will upon RRG’s death in 1964. 

15. Plaintiff Maria Teresa Rodriguez, a/k/a Maria Teresa Landa, is the last surviving 

daughter of RRG. She obtained her interest in the Claim through RRG’s will upon RRG’s death 

in 1964. 

16. Plaintiff Alfredo Ramon Forns is the only child of RRG’s daughter, Maria 

Mercedes Rodriguez (“MMR”). MMR, who was a U.S. citizen prior to 1996, obtained her interest 

in the Claim through RRG’s will upon RRG’s death in 1964. Plaintiff Alfredo Ramon Forns 

obtained his interest in the Claim by operation of law upon MMR’s death in 2013. 

17. Plaintiff Ramon Alberto Rodriguez is the son of Ramon Francisco Rodriguez, 

(“RFR”) who predeceased RRG. Plaintiff Ramon Alberto Rodriguez obtained his interest in the 

Claim through RRG’s will upon RRG’s death in 1964. 

18. Plaintiffs Raul Lorenzo Rodriguez and Francisco Ramon Rodriguez are the sons of 

Raul Bernardo Lupo Rodriguez (“RBLR”), and Christina Conroy is the only child of Alex Lorenzo 

Rodriguez (“ALR”), the third son of RBLR. ALR predeceased RBLR. RBLR obtained his interest 

in the Claim through RRG’s will upon RRG’s death in 1964. Plaintiffs Raul Lorenzo Rodriguez, 

Francisco Ramon Rodriguez, and Christina Conroy obtained one-half of their interest in the Claim 

by operation of law upon RBLR’s death in 1986. The other half of RBLR’s interest in the Claim 

was transferred by operation of law to his wife Esther Beltran Rodriguez (“EBR”) upon RBLR’s 

death in 1986. EBR, who was a U.S. citizen prior to 1996, passed her interest in the Claim to 

Plaintiffs Raul Lorenzo Rodriguez, Francisco Ramon Rodriguez, and Christina Conroy through 

her will upon EBR’s death in 2019. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 6 of 21
7

19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Imperial, is a limited liability company 

incorporated in England and Wales, having its principal place of business in England. 

20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Habanos is a Cuban joint venture 

corporation 50% owned by Imperial, either directly or through one or more subsidiaries, and 50% 

owned by the Cuban government, either directly or through one or more Cuban-controlled entities. 

According to Imperial, “The international marketing of Cuban hand-made cigars is carried out 

through Habanos S.A., in which we have a 50 per cent stake.”10

21. Upon information and belief, Defendant WPP PLC (“WPP”), is limited liability 

company incorporated in the UK. WPP earns more income from the U.S than any other country.11

WPP also leases over 2.8 million square feet of office space in the U.S.12

22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Young & Rubicam LLC (“Y&R”), is a 

limited liability company incorporated in Delaware having its principal place of business in New 

York. Y&R is a subsidiary of WPP and has offices in Miami-Dade. 

23. Upon information and belief, Defendant BCW LLC, a/k/a Burson Cohn & Wolfe 

LLC (“BCW”), is a limited liability company incorporated in Delaware having its principal place 

of business in New York. BCW is a subsidiary of WPP and has offices in Miami-Dade. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

24. Plaintiffs’ claim arises under 22 U.S.C. § 6021, et seq., and the amount in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $50,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. 

10 See https://www.imperialbrandsplc.com/about-us/our-companies/tabacalera.html

11 See WPP Form 20-F filing with SEC for year ended 12/31/2017 at 10, 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806968/000119312518141442/d462033d20f.htm

12 See id. at 12. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 7 of 21
8

Therefore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction (federal question) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331. 

25. As further set out below, Habanos committed tortious acts in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida. In particular: (1) Habanos leases, possesses, controls, manages, uses, or otherwise 

acquired or holds an interest in the confiscated RRHSC Property13; (2) Habanos has engaged and 

continues to engage “in a commercial activity using or otherwise benefiting from” the RRHSC 

Property confiscated by Cuba 14 ; and (3) Habanos “causes, directs [or] participates in . . . 

trafficking” by Imperial, WPP, Y&R, BCW, and by non-defendants, Twitter, YouTube, and 

Instagram.15 These acts have caused damage to Plaintiffs, six of whom reside in Florida. 

26. As further set out below, Imperial committed tortious acts in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida. In particular, Imperial through its ownership in and its control of Habanos: (1) leases, 

possesses, controls, manages, uses, or otherwise acquired or holds an interest in the confiscated 

RRHSC Property16; (2) has engaged and continues to engage “in a commercial activity using or 

otherwise benefiting from” the RRHSC Property confiscated by Cuba17; and (3) “causes, directs 

[or] participates in, or profits from, trafficking” by Habanos and other joint venture companies 

owned by Imperial and Tabacuba, including Altabana, S.L.18, as well as by WPP, Y&R, BCW, 

13 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(i). 

14 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(ii). 

15 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii). 

16 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(i). 

17 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(ii). 

18 Altabana is a joint venture corporation 50% owned by Imperial, either directly or through one 

or more subsidiaries, and 50% owned by Cuba or Cuban-controlled entities. According to Imperial, 

Altabana holds Imperials “investments in subsidiary companies involved in the marketing and sale 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 8 of 21
9

Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.19 In addition, Imperial has further profited, or is attempting to 

further profit, from the confiscated RRHSC Property through its recent agreement to sell some or 

all of its interests in Habanos and other joint venture companies owned by Imperial and Tabacuba, 

involved in the manufacture, sale, marketing, and distribution of Cuban tobacco products that have 

value at least in part as a result of their engagement “in a commercial activity using or otherwise 

benefiting from” the confiscated RRHSC Property. The These acts have caused damage to 

Plaintiffs, six of whom reside in Florida. 

27. As further set out below, WPP committed tortious acts in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida. In particular, WPP through its ownership in and its control of Y&R and BCW “causes, 

directs [or] participates in, or profits from, trafficking” by Imperial, Habanos, Y&R, BCW, 

Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.20 These acts have caused damage to Plaintiffs, six of whom 

reside in Florida. 

28. Y&R committed tortious acts in Miami-Dade County, Florida. In particular, Y&R 

“causes, directs [or] participates in, or profits from, trafficking” by Imperial, Habanos, Twitter, 

YouTube, and Instagram.21 These acts have caused damage to Plaintiffs, six of whom reside in 

Florida. 

29. BCW committed tortious acts in Miami-Dade County, Florida. In particular, BCW 

“causes, directs [or] participates in, or profits from, trafficking” by Imperial, Habanos, Twitter, 

of Cuban cigars.” See Imperial 2019 Annual Report at 166. 

19 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii). 

20 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii). 

21 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 9 of 21
10

YouTube, and Instagram.22 These acts have caused damage to Plaintiffs, six of whom reside in 

Florida. 

30. Imperial knew in 2007, years after the passage of the Liberty Act, when it purchased 

its interest in Habanos and other entities engaged in trafficking in property confiscated by the 

Cuban government, that Habanos’ operations would “be restricted . . . by the nationality of the 

personnel that” Imperial could “involve in” the Cuban cigar business that it decided to acquire 

whose business was based on trafficking in property confiscated by the Cuban government.23

31. Notwithstanding, Imperial decided, beginning no later than 2010 and continuing 

at least through February 2020, to retain, either directly or through Habanos, WPP and its U.S.-

based “U.S. Corporate Agents,” Ogilvy and later Y&R and BCW, to engage in the marketing of, 

i.e., trafficking in, Cuban cigars manufactured at, stored in, or distributed from the confiscated 

RRHSC Property.24 In addition, no later than 2017, Imperial also decided, either directly or 

through Habanos, WPP or its U.S. Corporate Agents, to contract for the use of social media 

“portals” operated by still additional U.S. corporations. These corporations include Twitter, 

22 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii). 

23 See Imperial’s October 12, 2007 “Response” to SEC inquiry at 2 (acknowledging that by 

acquiring “Altadis’ 50% ownership interest in [Habanos] a company which distributes cigars 

manufactured in Cuba,” Imperial “may be restricted . . . by the nationality of the personnel that we 

involve in these activities. In particular, Altadis’ cigar operations in Cuba could be materially 

limited by the operation of the” the Liberty Act). Copy attached at Exhibit 4; see id. at 4 (“Altadis 

owns a 50% interest in Habanos, the remaining 50% of which is owned by the Cuban state.”) 

24 The marketing, merchandizing, or advertising services provided by Y&R and BCW are not 

exempted by the Liberty Act nor by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515. 

See 31 C.F.R § 515.206 (excluding from “exempt transactions” the: “provision of marketing and 

business consulting services” and “provision of services to market, produce or co-produce, create 

or assist in the creation of information or informational materials.”). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 10 of 21
11

Instagram and YouTube25, all for the purpose of furthering Imperial and Habanos’ ability to profit 

from the trafficking of property confiscated by the Cuban government, including the RRHSC 

Property. 

32. WPP similarly knew that its extensive U.S. business activities, conducted both 

directly and through its many wholly-owned subsidiaries, including Ogilvy, Y&R, and BCW, 

would render it “subject to the laws of the US . . . that impose sanctions and regulate the supply of 

services to certain countries.” 26 These laws include, of course, the Liberty Act. WPP nevertheless 

decided to involve these three U.S. subsidiaries in marketing and publicizing products produced 

at, stored in and shipped from, the confiscated RRHSC Property. WPP thereafter used or allowed 

its U.S. subsidiaries to contract for the use of social media “portals” operated by still additional 

U.S. corporations, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. 

33. Each of the acts described in paragraphs 25 – 32, above, constituted trafficking in 

violation of the Liberty Act. Further, each act of trafficking in the RRHSC Property caused damage 

to Plaintiffs, six of whom reside in Miami-Dade County. 

25 The sponsored official social media “portals” established by Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube 

are not exempted by the Liberty Act nor by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 

515. See 31 C.F.R. § 515.578(a) (authorizing the exportation to Cuba of “services incident to the 

exchange of communications over the internet, such as . . . social networking [and] sharing of 

photos” but only if “such services are widely available to the public at no cost to the user”) 

(emphasis added); id., §515.578(b)(1) (expressly excluding from authorized services the: “direct 

or indirect exportation . . . of services with knowledge or reason to know that such services are 

intended for . . . organizations administered or controlled by the Government of Cuba.”) 

(emphasis added); see also 31 C.F.R § 515.206. 

26 See WPP Form 20-F filing with SEC for year ended 12/31/2017 at 5, 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806968/000119312518141442/d462033d20f.htm 

(disclosing busines “risks” and acknowledging that: “Failure to comply with these laws could 

expose the Group [WPP] to civil and criminal penalties . . ..”) 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 11 of 21
12

34. Due to their extensive use of U.S. Corporate agents to market, publicize and assist 

in the trafficking, in violation of the Liberty Act, of property confiscated by the Cuban government, 

Defendants Habanos, Imperial and WPP should reasonably have anticipated the possibility that 

they would be sued in the United States by U.S. Nationals holding claims to property confiscated 

by the Cuban government, including this lawsuit on the Claim to the RRHSC Property. 

35. Due to their actions described above, all Defendants should further have reasonably 

anticipated the possibility that they would be sued in the United States by U.S. Nationals holding 

claims to property confiscated by the Cuban government, including this lawsuit on the Claim to 

the RRHSC Property, in the Southern District of Florida, which is widely-known to be home to 

over a million Cuban refugees and their successors, many of whom are U.S. Nationals owning 

claims to property confiscated by the Cuban government. 

36. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant pursuant to the Florida 

“long-arm” statute, Section 48.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes, because each Defendant committed a 

tortious act within this state, either directly or through an agent, and the cause of action asserted 

against each Defendant arises from that tortious conduct. 

37. In the alternative, if Defendants are deemed not to have sufficient contacts with 

Florida despite their commission of multiple acts of trafficking in violation of the Liberty Act 

causing damage to Plaintiffs in Florida, Defendants are nevertheless subject to personal 

jurisdiction under the federal “long-arm” statute set out in Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.27 If Defendants’ personal contacts with any single state are not sufficient to subject 

27 Rule 4(k) provides in relevant part: “(2) For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a 

summons . . . establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if: (A) the defendant is not subject 

to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction; and (B) exercising jurisdiction is 

consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.” 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 12 of 21
13

them to personal jurisdiction in any particular state, Rule 4(k) allows the Court to consider a 

defendant’s contacts with the U.S. as a whole where the claim asserted against the defendant arises 

under federal law. Plaintiffs’ claim here arises under the federal Liberty Act. Therefore, 

Defendants’ contacts with the U.S. as a whole, including Imperial, Habanos and WPP’s reliance 

on Y&R, BCW, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram to conduct marketing and social media 

campaigns in violation of the Liberty Act, are sufficient to satisfy the applicable constitutional 

requirements. 

38. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) 

and 1391(d), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims 

occurred in the Southern District of Florida.

Facts 

39. Plaintiffs are U.S. Nationals as defined by the Libertad Act. See 22 U.S.C. § 

6023(15). 

40. The RRHSC Property was owned and improved by RRHSC until the Cuban 

Government confiscation in 1961. 

41. As part of its takeover of the entire tobacco industry, the Castro government 

confiscated ownership of RRHSC and the RRHSC Property on June 30, 1961.28

42. The communist Cuban Government maintains possession and control of the 

RRHSC Property and has not paid any compensation to Plaintiffs, or their predecessor RRG, for 

28 On June 30, 1961, by decision of the “Junta Central de Planificacion,” Cuba’s Central 

(Economic) Planning Board, Cuba’s communist government confiscated ownership of RRHSC as 

part of it takeover of the entire tobacco industry. See excerpt at Exhibit 5; English translation of 

excerpt at Exhibit 5A; Spanish text of excerpt at Exhibit 5B. The Junta Central de Planificacion’s 

decision and proclamation appears in Cuba’s government register, the “Gaceta Oficial,” No. 131 

dated July 7, 1961, page 13203. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 13 of 21
14

its seizure. Nor has any claim to the RRHSC Property been settled pursuant to an international 

claims settlement agreement or other mutually accepted settlement procedure. 

43. Plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the Claim arising from Cuba’s “nationalization” 

and uncompensated taking of the RRHSC Property. 

44. Upon information and belief, Imperial acquired its interest in Habanos in 2007 

when it acquired “Altadis’ 50% ownership interest in” Habanos “a company which distributes 

cigars manufactured in Cuba.” Imperial knew that its joint venture partner in Habanos and 

Altabana, Cuba (through its monopoly company, Tabacuba), acquired its interest in and control 

over the Cuban tobacco industry and the RRHSC Property by “nationalizing” assets when the 

rightful owners of the property fled the brutal Castro dictatorship. 

45. The RRHSC Property is currently in the exclusive control of the Cuban government 

through Tabacuba, Habanos and its joint venture partner, Imperial. Upon information and belief, 

Tabacuba and Habanos have continuously used the RRHSC property without authorization from 

the Rodriguez Family since at least 2010, and likely for many years before that. The unauthorized 

use of the RRHSC Property includes the production and shipping of millions hand-rolled cigars 

(sold under various premium brand names) and other tobacco products manufactured at the 

property, or manufactured at other nearby factories, and stored, processed or shipped from the 

RRHSC Property. Imperial and Habano’s trafficking also includes use of the RRHSC Property for 

marketing and publicity of Habanos’ products.29

29 See Composite Exhibit 6 containing pictures published by the Habanos website of “visit 

the factories” tours promoted by Habanos at the RRHSC Property. Exhibit 7 is a picture of the 

loading dock at the RRHSC Property in operation. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 14 of 21
15

46. Habanos itself documented its possession, control of, management, and use of the 

RRHSC Property. In a February 2010 publicity piece entitled: “Cigar Factory Readings and 

Readers,” Habanos referred to the factory (the RRHSC Property) “Standing on famous 23rd Street 

in Havana’s bustling Vedado neighborhood right between the 14th and 16th streets,” as the 

“humongous and modern H. Upmann cigar factory.” 30 The continuous use of the RRHSC Property 

includes the use of a portion of the RRHSC Property by Imperial’s joint venture partner, Tabacuba, 

for its executive offices, and the use of the loading dock31 and space for warehousing and shipping 

Habanos’ products. Tabacuba’s name appears prominently on the building.32

47. Imperial, Habanos, and Tabacuba, (collectively, the “Direct Traffickers”) 

knowingly and intentionally lease, possesses, control, manage, use, or otherwise acquired or hold 

an interest in the confiscated RRHSC Property, without the authorization of the Rodriguez Family. 

Each also has and continues to engage in a commercial activity using or otherwise benefiting from 

the confiscated RRHSC Property without the authorization of the Rodriguez Family. 

48. Imperial and its partner Tabacuba, through the joint venture companies they jointly 

control, have expanded their use of and benefit from the RRHSC Property by retaining agents to 

market and publicize the products produced at the confiscated RRHSC Property. The agents 

retained by Imperial and Habanos include WPP through its advertising agency subsidiaries, Y&R 

and BCW. Among other things, those agencies assisted in setting up, or directly set up, the 

sponsored “official” portals listed above on the Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram platforms (Y&R, 

BCW, Ogilvy, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram, collectively, the “U.S. Corporate Agents”). The 

30 See http://habanosnews.habanos.com/en/cigar-factory-readings-and-readers . 

31 See Exhibit 7. 

32 See Composite Exhibits 2 and 3. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 15 of 21
16

work of the U.S. Corporate Agents on behalf of Imperial, Habanos and Tabacuba has included 

marketing and publicizing the Habanos’ products manufactured in, stored at, or shipped from, the 

RRHSC Property. WPP, acting in serial and uninterrupted fashion first through Ogilvy and later 

through Y&R, and BCW, has continuously marketed and publicized the RRHSC Property, and the 

Habanos’ products made at, stored in, or shipped from the RRHSC Property, since at least 2010. 

49. Between 2010 and 2015, WPP used a subsidiary known as Ogilvy to market 

Habanos products. Beginning in 2016, marketing of Habanos products was switched to Y&R, 

another WPP subsidiary. Most recently, beginning in 2019, marketing of Habanos products was 

again switched to still another WPP subsidiary, BCW. In each instance, the switch from one to 

another WPP subsidiary was done without any apparent break or interruption in marketing 

services. Indeed, although WPP ostensibly switched from using Y&R to using BCW as the 

Habanos trafficking marketer, BCW continued using the same contact address as Y&R had been 

using -- (press.habanos@yr.com). 

50. The Direct Traffickers have expanded their trafficking by retaining agents to assist 

in and further their trafficking in the property. The U.S. Corporate Agents have and, with the 

possible exception of Twitter, Instagram and Ogilvy, continue to, knowingly and intentionally, act 

as agents for the Direct Traffickers. Each has and continues to cause, direct, participate in, or profit 

from, the trafficking of the RRHSC Property by the Direct Traffickers, all without the 

authorization of the Rodriguez Family. 

51. Imperial recently announced that it “has agreed the sale of its worldwide premium 

cigar businesses,” including the non-U.S. business it calls “the Rest of the World business 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 16 of 21
17

(“Premium Cigar RoW”).33 By Imperial’s own admission, these “assets” consist primarily of 

Imperial’s interest in Cuban joint venture companies, including: 

 A 50 per cent stake in Habanos S.A., which exports hand-made cigars from 

Cuba and is responsible for international marketing activities. . . . 

 A 50 per cent stake in Altabana S.L., which is responsible for the distribution 

of Cuban cigars worldwide through its network of over 20 subsidiary 

distributors. 

 A 50 per cent stake in Internacional Cubana de Tabaco, S.A., which is 

responsible for the manufacturing of Cuban premium machine-made cigars. 

A 50 per cent stake in Promotora de Cigarros, S.L., which manages the 

distribution of the Cuban premium machine-made cigar portfolio worldwide. 

Other sales of premium cigar products through Tabacalera SA including: 

Exclusive distribution of Cuban handmade cigars in Spain; 

52. Imperial has further profited, or is attempting to further profit, from the confiscated 

RRHSC Property through its recent agreement to sell some or all of its interests in Habanos and 

other Imperial subsidiaries involved in the manufacture, sale, marketing, and distribution of Cuban 

tobacco products that have value at least in part as a result of their engagement “in a commercial 

activity using or otherwise benefiting from” the confiscated RRHSC Property. 

53. Consistent with its purpose of “deter[ing] third party foreign investors from 

trafficking in confiscated property (defined as ‘purchas[ing] an equity interest in, manag[ing], 

or enter[ing] into joint ventures using property and assets some of which were confiscated from 

United States nationals.’)34, the Liberty Act defines trafficking in property confiscated by the 

33 See Imperial Brands PLC agrees sale of Worldwide Premium Cigar Business at 1, 

https://www.imperialbrandsplc.com/media/key-announcements/2020/imperial-brands-plcagrees-sale-of-worldwide-premium-cigar-busin.html

34 See Glen v. Club Mediterranee S.A., 450 F.3d 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006) (emphasis 

added) (quoting 22 U.S.C. § 6081(5)). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 17 of 21
18

Cuban government broadly. For purposes of the act, a person “traffics” in confiscated property if 

that person “knowingly”35 and intentionally: 

(i) sells, transfers, distributes, dispenses, brokers, manages, or 

otherwise disposes of confiscated property, or purchases, leases, receives, 

possesses, obtains control of, manages, uses, or otherwise acquires or holds an 

interest in confiscated property, 

(ii) engages in a commercial activity using or otherwise benefiting 

from confiscated property, or 

(iii) causes, directs, participates in, or profits from, trafficking (as 

described in clause (i) or (ii)) by another person, or otherwise engages in 

trafficking (as described in clause (i) or (ii)) through another person, without the 

authorization of any United States national who holds a claim to the property. 

See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13) (emphasis added). 

54. Property is also broadly defined in the Liberty Act: 

The term “property” means any property (including patents, copyrights, 

trademarks, and any other form of intellectual property), whether real, 

personal, or mixed, and any present, future, or contingent right, security, or 

other interest therein, including any leasehold interest. 

55. The conduct described above constitutes trafficking in the RRHSC Property by 

Imperial and Habanos. In particular, each knowingly and intentionally engages or engaged in a 

commercial activity using or otherwise benefiting from the confiscated RRHSC Property, without 

the authorization of the Rodriguez Family. Each also causes, directs, participates in, or profits 

from, trafficking of the RRHSC Property by Cuba (and Tabacuba), again without the authorization 

of the Rodriguez Family. 

35 The term “knowingly” is defined in the Act as meaning “with knowledge or having reason 

to know.” See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(9). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 18 of 21
19

56. The conduct described above also constitutes trafficking in the RRHSC Property 

by WPP, Y&R, and BCW. In particular, by assisting Imperial, Habanos, and Tabacuba in 

marketing and publicizing the Habanos’ products manufactured, stored at or shipped from the 

RRHSC Property, each causes, directs, participates in, or profits from, or otherwise engages in, 

trafficking in the RRHSC Property by Imperial, Habanos, and Cuba, all without the authorization 

of the Rodriguez Family. 

57. Imperial and its joint venture partner Cuba (Tabacuba) have profited substantially 

from trafficking in the confiscated RRHSC Property. According to data reported in Imperial’s 

Annual Reports for the period from 2009 to 2019, “profits” earned by Imperial and Cuba from 

sales and distribution of Cuban cigars totaled over $1.5 billion. Total “revenues” exceeded $6.7 

billion. 36 A significant portion of that profit and revenue was earned by trafficking in the 

confiscated RRHSC Property. 

58. Plaintiffs provided a thirty-day notice each to Imperial, WPP, Y&R and BCW (and 

to Habanos in care of Imperial) stating, as provided by 22 U.S.C. § 6082 (3)(B) –(D), Plaintiffs’ 

intention to commence this action and demanding that each Defendant immediately cease 

unlawfully trafficking in the RRHSC Property. 

59. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ notice, after the end of the 30-day period beginning on 

the date the notice was provided, each Defendant (with the possible exception of Y&R) continued 

to traffic in the confiscated RRHSC Property. 

36 Imperial’s profits and revenues are reported in GBP. The over $1.5 billion in “profits” and 

over $6.7 billion in “revenues” were calculated by adding the “profits” and “revenues” reported in 

GBP by Imperial for its Habanos and Altabana joint ventures for the years 2009 to 2019. Those 

figures were then converted to dollars at an exchange rate of 1.25 GBP per dollar. That result was 

then doubled two to reflect the presumably equal distribution of profits and revenues between 

Imperial and Cuba in their 50-50 joint venture companies. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 19 of 21
20

Claim for Damages 

60. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 59 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

61. This claim is brought pursuant to the Liberty Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6082. 

62. As set out above, beginning no later than 2010 (Imperial, Habanos, and WPP), or 

no later than 2016 (Y&R) or no later than 2019 (BCW), each Defendant trafficked in the RRHSC 

Property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959 in violation 

of the Liberty Act and is therefore liable to Plaintiffs, who own the Claim to the RRHSC Property, 

for money damages. 

63. Plaintiffs are entitled to money damages under 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A), 

including: 

(i) the amount which is the greater of-- 

. . . (II) the amount determined [by a special master pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6083(a)(2)]; 

or (III) the “fair market value” of the RRHSC Property, “calculated as being either the 

current value of the property, or the value of the property when confiscated plus interest, 

whichever is greater” ; and 

(ii) court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 

64. In addition, treble damages are warranted. Because Defendants (with the possible 

exception of Y&R) continued to traffic in the RRHSC Property after receiving notice from 

Plaintiffs pursuant to § 6082 (3)(B)–(D), Plaintiffs are entitled to three times the money damages 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 20 of 21
21

determined pursuant to § 6082(a)(1)(A), plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. See 22 

U.S.C. § 6082(a)(3)(B)-(C). 

Jury Trial Demand 

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury. 

Dated: August 6, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

Rodriguez Tramont & Nuñez P.A. Berenthal & Associates, P.A. 

By: /s/ Paulino A. Núñez Jr. By: /s/ James L. Berenthal

Frank R. Rodriguez James L. Berenthal 

Florida Bar No. 348988 Florida Bar No.126035 

Email: frr@rtgn-law.com Email: jlb@berenthalaw.com

Paulino A. Núñez Jr. 777 Third Avenue, Suite 22D 

Florida Bar No. 814806 New York, NY 10017-1426 

Email: pan@rtgn-law.com Telephone: (212) 302-9494

255 Alhambra Circle 

Suite 1150 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Telephone: (305) 350-2300 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 21 of 21