UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

(Jury Trial Demanded) 

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, et al., Case No.: 1:20-cv-23287(DPG)(AMO)

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________/ 

SECOND AMENDED 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% interest in Ramón Rodriguez e 

Hijos Sociedad en Comandita1 (“RRHSC”). Before 1961, RRHSC owned and operated the former 

Partagás cigarette factory building (the “RRHSC Property”) in Havana.2

1 Ramon Rodriguez and Sons, a Limited Partnership. 

2

 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. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 1 of 32
2

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, all of which are contained 

within the RRHSC Property. 3 Today, the RRHSC Property, rebranded “Empresa de Tabaco 

Torcido ‘José Martí,’” prominently displays the names Tabacuba (the Cuban state tobacco 

monopoly company), La Vega (the Cuban state tobacco leaf monopoly company) and H. Upmann 

on its façade.4

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. 

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

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

3

 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. The photographs at Composite Exhibit 

2 were taken in December 2019. 

4

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

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 2 of 32
3

Act”) due to the Cuban government’s confiscation and trafficking in the RRHSC Property.5 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 a company known as Altadis S.A (“Altadis”). At the time, Altadis had a “50% 

ownership interest in [Corporación Habanos S.A.], a company which distributes cigars 

manufactured in Cuba.”6

6. Through its purchase of Altadis, Imperial acquired “ownership interests in 

Corporación Habanos S.A. as well as non-parties Altabana S.L., Promotora de Cigarros, S.L. and 

Internacional Cubana de Tabaco, S.A.,” (collectively, the “Cuban Joint Ventures”). According to 

5 A recent decision in this District quoted from the Liberty Act and an Eleventh Circuit 

opinion to describe the claims created by the Liberty Act. See Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal 

Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 19-CV-23590, 2020 WL 1905219, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2020) (“‘[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 [Glen v. Club Mediterranee S.A.], 450 

F.3d [1251] at 1255 [(11th Cir. 2006)] (quoting 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A)) (emphasis added); see 

also id. (noting that actions brought under Title III of the Liberty Act are “actions brought ‘on a 

claim to the confiscated property’ against traffickers in the property”) (quoting 22 U.S.C. § 

6082(a)(4)). 

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

(Copy attached as Exhibit 4A). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 3 of 32
4

Imperial, the Cuban Joint Ventures collectively “manufacture, market, distribute and sell cigars 

manufactured in Cuba.”7 

7. Corporación Habanos S.A. (“Habanos”), as well as non-parties Altabana S.L., 

Promotora de Cigarros, S.L. and Internacional Cubana de Tabaco, S.A., are joint venture 

companies controlled by the Cuban government, directly or through Tabacuba. At all times 

relevant to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs in this action, financial interest in, and operational 

control of, Habanos was 50% owned by Cuba, through one or more Cuban-owned companies, and 

50% owned by Imperial. The Cuban government at all times maintained ultimate control of 

Habanos. 

8. Non-party Tabacuba is the Cuban government run monopoly that manages the 

growth, purchase and resale of all raw tobacco grown in Cuba. 

9. Defendant Habanos is a legal person, corporate or otherwise, separate from Cuba, 

a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest, here ultimate control, is owned by Cuba or 

a political subdivision of Cuba. In the alternative, Habanos is an organ of the Cuban government 

that engages in public activity on behalf of the Cuban foreign government including marketing all 

Cuban tobacco products worldwide. Under the Liberty Act, Habanos is an instrumentality of the 

Cuban Government and is statutorily deemed to be the Cuban Government itself.8 

7 See Imperial, Prospectus for “€15,000,000,000 Debt Issuance Programme,” at 27. (Copy 

attached as Exhibit 4B). 

8 See Liberty Act, 22 U.S.C. § 6023(5) (A) (“The term ‘Cuban Government’ includes . . 

. any agency or instrumentality of the Government of Cuba.”) (emphasis added); see also 22 

U.S.C. § 6023(1) (“The term ‘agency or instrumentality of a foreign state’ has the meaning given 

that term in section 1603(b) of Title 28”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b) (“An ‘agency or 

instrumentality of a foreign state’ means any entity-- (1) which is a separate legal person, 

corporate or otherwise, and (2) . . . a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is 

owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and (3) which is neither a citizen of a 

State of the United States . . . nor created under the laws of any third country.”) (emphasis added).

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 4 of 32
5

10. At all relevant times, Imperial was a joint venture partner in Habanos. The Cuban 

Government, i.e., Habanos, is well-aware, and certainly “knows or should have known” that it 

confiscated RRHSC and the RRHSC Property and that it has continuously used the RRHSC 

Property for the purpose of 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, packaged, and shipped from the RRHSC Property. 

11. The unauthorized and continuous use of the RRHSC Property by Imperial and 

Habanos also extended to Tabacuba’s management of the day-to-day business of all or some 

Cuban tobacco products from offices it maintained in the RRHSC Property, including purchasing 

of raw tobacco from Cuban farmers and subsequent reselling the same to other entities in Cuba for 

further manufacture or use. 

12. Some or all of the Cuban tobacco in the Cuban cigar products manufactured by 

Habanos and advertised or promoted by WPP, Y&R and BCW were purchased, managed and 

resold by Tabacuba from Tabacuba’s offices at the RRHSC Property. 

13. Imperial either inquired of its joint venture partner Tabacuba or should have 

inquired of Habanos regarding the ownership, and Cuba’s acquisition, of the RRHSC Property 

used by Habanos and Tabacuba. In any event, Imperial is bound by the knowledge of its joint 

venture partner, Tabacuba and of Habanos, which knowledge should be deemed to be that of 

Imperial itself. 

14. The WPP Defendants at all times acted as agents of Imperial or Habanos for the 

purpose of advertising, marketing and promoting Cuban Cigar products and the Habanos Brand 

name. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 5 of 32
6

15. The WPP Defendants, as agents of Imperial or Habanos, either inquired of their 

principal (Imperial or Habanos), or should have inquired of their principal, regarding the 

ownership of the RRHSC Property used by Habanos and Tabacuba. In any event, the WPP 

Defendants are bound by the knowledge of their principal, which knowledge should be deemed to 

be that of the WPP Defendants themselves. 

16. Habanos, and therefore Imperial, WPP, Y&R and BCW, either knew, or had 

reason to know, that all or some of the Cuban tobacco in the products manufactured, sold, 

advertised, or promoted by Habanos, Imperial, WPP, Y&R and BCW were purchased, managed 

or sold by Tabacuba from the RRHSC Property. 

17. At all times from January 2008 until at least October 29, 2020, Imperial, both 

through Habanos and the other Cuban Joint Ventures, as well as through the Cuban tobacco 

monopoly company, Tabacuba, Imperial’s joint-venture partner in Habanos, had the use of, and 

continued to use, the RRHSC Property without compensation to, or authorization from, the 

Rodriguez Family. 

18. 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, packaged, and shipped from the RRHSC Property. The unauthorized use of the RRHSC 

Property by Imperial and Habanos also extended to Tabacuba’s management of the day-to-day 

business of all or some Cuban tobacco products from offices it maintained in the RRHSC Property 

at all times from 2007 until at least October 29, 2020.9 Both Habanos, and Imperial, through its 

9

 Tabacuba is the monopoly that purchases raw tobacco from Cuban farmers and entities 

located in Cuba and subsequently resells the tobacco to other entities in Cuba for further 

manufacture or use. Every piece of tobacco that comes from Cuba has at one point been purchased 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 6 of 32
7

financial interests in Habanos and the other Cuban Joint Ventures, benefitted from Tabacuba’s 

continuous use of the RRHSC Property during the entire time that Imperial owned interests in the 

Cuban Joint Ventures. Imperial also benefitted from use of the RRHSC Property for marketing of 

Habanos’ products. 

19. All Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs under the Liberty Act for “trafficking”10

because they participated in, or profited from, trafficking of the RRHSC Property by the Cuban 

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

Imperial trafficked in the RRHSC Property through their Cuban Joint Ventures, including 

Habanos, and the distribution network that Tabacuba and Imperial own. 

20. Imperial and its partner Tabacuba, together with the Cuban Joint Ventures, also 

increased and expanded the benefit they received from trafficking in the RRHSC Property by 

retaining agents to assist in the trafficking by marketing and publicizing the products managed 

from or produced or stored 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”), BCW LLC, a/k/a Burson Cohn & 

Wolfe LLC (“BCW”), and non-party Ogilvy & Mather (“Ogilvy”). 

and later resold by Tabacuba. 

10 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 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 7 of 32
8

21. WPP, together with Y&R, BCW, Ogilvy, and other WPP subsidiaries, operates as 

a single company, (the “WPP Group” or similar). The entities under the WPP Group, including 

WPP, Y&R, BCW, and Ogilvy are part of a complex network that share resources and operate as 

a single entity. The WPP Group, acting nominally through Ogilvy, and later through Y&R and 

BCW, continuously trafficked in the RRHSC Property by marketing and publicizing the Cuban 

tobacco products made, stored, shipped or managed from the RRHSC Property since at least 2010 

through October 2020. 

22. Beginning no later than 2017, all Defendants further increased their trafficking in 

the RRHSC Property when the WPP Group, nominally acting through Y&R and BCW, assisted in 

setting up, or directly set up, sponsored official “portals” for Imperial and its Cuban Joint Ventures 

to market Habanos products on the U.S.-based social media platforms Twitter, YouTube, and 

Instagram.11 

23. In furtherance of Defendants’ trafficking in the RRHSC Property, the WPP Group 

also set up multiple file share sites on internet domains nominally controlled by Y&R (YR.com) 

or by BCW (BM.com, an internet domain nominally controlled by BCW’s predecessor, BursonMarsteller). In addition, the WPP Group used multiple email addresses running through U.S.-based 

servers, including email running through the servers nominally controlled by Y&R (YR.com) and 

Ogilvy (the Ogilvy.com server, including an internet domain nominally controlled by Ogilvy & 

Mather). 

11 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 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 8 of 32
9

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue 

Parties 

24. Plaintiffs Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Alfredo Ramon Forns, Ramon Alberto 

Rodriguez, Raul Lorenzo Rodriguez, and Francisco Ramon Rodriguez are individuals residing in 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

25. At all times relevant hereto, Maria Teresa Rodriguez, was an individual residing in 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

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

Maryland. 

27. 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). 

28. Until the time that RRHSC and the RRHSC Property were confiscated by Cuba in 

1961, RRG owned and controlled RRHSC. Two of RRG’s sons, Plaintiff Luis Manuel Rodriguez 

and Raul Bernardo Lupo Rodriguez (“RBLR”), who is now deceased, were involved in managing 

the RRHSC business prior to confiscation and owned small minority interests in RRHSC. 

29. 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 and the minority interest that 

he owned in RRHSC. 

30. Plaintiff Maria Teresa Rodriguez, a/k/a Maria Teresa Landa, was the last surviving 

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

in 1964. 

31. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 9 of 32
10

in the Claim through RRG’s will upon RRG’s death in 1964. MMR was a Florida resident prior to 

and at the time of her death in 2013, when she died intestate. Plaintiff Alfredo Ramon Forns 

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

32. 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. 

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

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 and the minority interest that he owned in RRHSC. RBLR was a Florida 

resident prior to and at the time of his death in 1986, when he died intestate. 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. 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. 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. 

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

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

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

corporation controlled by Cuba. At all times from January 2008 through October 29, 2020, 

Imperial owned a 50% financial interest in Habanos, either directly or through one or more 

subsidiaries, the other 50% financial interest was owned by the Cuban government, either directly 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 10 of 32
11

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.”12

36. Defendant WPP PLC (“WPP”), is a limited liability company incorporated in the 

Bailiwick of Jersey with “dual-headquarters in London and New York City”13, and thus maintains 

a principal place of business in New York.14 WPP earns more of its income from the U.S than any 

other country.15WPP also leases over 2.8 million square feet of office space in the U.S.16

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

limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware having 

its principal place of business in New York. Y&R is qualified to do business in the State of Florida 

and has offices in Miami-Dade County. Y&R is also qualified to do business in the State of New 

York. 

38. Y&R LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of 

the State of New York and is the alter ego for Y&R and vice versa. Confusingly, Y&R also does 

business through its identity as Y&R LLC and vice versa. 

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

13 See SEC Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order at 2, 

¶ 3, available at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2021/34-93117.pdf. 

14 See id.; see also WPP Form 20-F filing with SEC for year ended 12/31/2020 (“WPP Form 

20-F Filing”) at 9 (WPP has “principal offices in London and New York”), available at 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806968/000119312521138800/d10820d20f.htm. 

15 See WPP Form 20-F filing at 8-9. 

16 See id. at 12. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 11 of 32
12

39. 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 County. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

40. 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. 

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

1331. 

41. 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 Property17; (2) Habanos has engaged and 

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

Property confiscated by Cuba 18 ; and (3) Habanos “causes, directs [or] participates in . . . 

trafficking” by Imperial, the WPP Group, including WPP, Y&R, and BCW, and by non-parties, 

Ogilvy, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.19 The trafficking was furthered through the use of US 

websites, internet domains and other US Services described more fully below. These acts have 

caused damage to Plaintiffs, five of whom reside in Florida. 

42. As set forth in this complaint, the RRHSC Property was confiscated by the Cuban 

government and is currently owned or controlled by Habanos or Tabacuba, each of which is an 

17 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(i). 

18 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(ii). 

19

 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 12 of 32
13

agency or instrumentality of the Cuban government20, or an organ of the Cuban government. As 

set forth in this complaint, this action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United 

States by Habanos through its agents, and acts performed in the United States in connection with 

Habanos’ commercial activity, or upon acts performed outside the United States in connection 

with a commercial activity of the Cuban government that causes a direct effect in the United States, 

specifically, advertising, marketing and trafficking, of tobacco products that were purchased, sold, 

manufactured, packaged or marketed from the RRHSC Property, through agents WPP Group, 

WPP, Y&R, BCW, Ogilvy, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram. The trafficking was furthered 

through the use of US websites, internet domains and other US Services described more fully 

below. Habanos is not immune to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2). 

43. Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 6082 (Section 302 of the HBA) service of process on an 

agency or instrumentality of a foreign state in the conduct of a commercial activity, or against 

individuals acting under color of law, shall be made in accordance with section 1608 of Title 28. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §1608, as an agency or instrumentality of the 

Cuban government, Habanos is properly served by “Serving a Foreign, State, or Local 

Government.” 

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

Florida. In particular, Imperial through its ownership interest in Habanos: (1) leases, possesses, 

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

Property21; (2) has engaged and continued, at least until October 2020, to engage “in a commercial 

20 See n. 8, supra. 

21 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(i). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 13 of 32
14

activity using or otherwise benefiting from” the RRHSC Property confiscated by Cuba22; and (3) 

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

companies owned by Imperial and Tabacuba, including the Cuban Joint Ventures and Altabana, 

S.L. 23 , as well as by the WPP Group, WPP, Y&R, BCW, Ogilvy, Twitter, YouTube, and 

Instagram.24 The trafficking was furthered through the use of US websites, internet domains and 

other US Services described more fully below. In addition, Imperial has further profited from the 

confiscated RRHSC Property through its recent sale of some or all of its interests in Habanos and 

the other Cuban Joint Venture companies owned by Imperial and Tabacuba involved in the 

management, 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. These acts have caused damage to Plaintiffs, 

five of whom reside in Florida. 

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

Florida. WPP through its ownership in and its control of the WPP Group, including WPP, Y&R, 

BCW and Ogilvy “causes, directs [or] participates in, or profits from, trafficking” by Imperial, 

Habanos, Y&R, BCW, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.25 This trafficking was conducted in part 

22 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(ii). 

23 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 Imperial’s “investments in subsidiary companies involved in the 

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

24

 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii). 

25

 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 14 of 32
15

through the use of US websites, internet domains and other US Services described more fully 

below. These acts have caused damage to Plaintiffs, five of whom reside in Florida. 

46. Upon information and belief, WPP itself has few if any direct employees. Instead, 

WPP uses employees of the various WPP affiliates in the WPP Group to supervise and control the 

entirety of the WPP Group. The members of the WPP Group share resources, act as alter egos for 

one another and together constitute a constructive joint venture. Among other things, “WPP 

centrally coordinated the group’s financial matters, reporting, control, treasury, tax, mergers, 

acquisitions, investor relations, legal affairs and internal audit from its headquarters.”26 

47. Upon information and belief, Y&R, together with other subsidiaries of WPP 

(“affiliates”), operate as a single company, under the name “VMLY&R”. 

48. Upon information and belief, Y&R and its affiliates operating under the name 

“VMLY&R” share resources, act as alter egos for one another and together constitute a 

constructive joint venture. 

49. Upon information and belief, Y&R directly benefits by having other companies 

operate under the name “VMLY&R”, “Y&R” and/or “Young & Rubicam” as it presents the image 

of a large, wide reaching, and multifaceted international company to the general public and 

specifically to Y&R clients. 

50. Upon information and belief, BCW, together with other subsidiaries of WPP 

(“affiliates”), operates as a single company, under the name “BCW” 

26 See SEC Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order at 3, 

¶ 5, available at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2021/34-93117.pdf. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 15 of 32
16

51. Upon information and belief, BCW and its affiliates operating under the name 

“BCW”, share resources, act as alter egos for one another and together constitute a constructive 

joint venture. 

52. Defendant BCW has also done business under the name “Young & Rubicam” and 

“Young & Rubicam Group.” 

53. Upon information and belief, BCW directly benefits by having its affiliates conduct 

business and operate under the name “BCW”, as it presents the image of a large, wide reaching, 

and multifaceted international company to the general public and specifically to BCW clients. 

54. Upon information and belief, WPP, Y&R, BCW, and the WPP Group also use the 

unincorporated trade name “Young & Rubicam Group,” or “Y&R Group,” (collectively, “Y&R 

Group”) among other things, to: (1) purchase Internet, email, and other networking and telecom 

services in the United States (“US Services”), including the “YR.com,” “ BM.com,” and 

“Ogilvy.com” Internet domains, social media “portals” operated by Twitter, Instagram, and 

YouTube, networking and other services provided through Microsoft, and other services sold by 

US companies; (2) distribute US Services among WPP, Y&R, BCW, Ogilvy, and other affiliates 

in the WPP Group; and (3) market and sell WPP Group products and services, including through 

the use of US Services, to clients worldwide, including Habanos, the Cuban Joint Ventures and 

other Cuban Government entities. 

55. The sale of U.S. Services to the Cuban Government, including Habanos and the 

Cuban Joint Ventures, is prohibited by law including the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 

C.F.R. Part 515 (“CACRs”).27 U.S. companies, including the U.S. companies that provide the U.S. 

27

 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 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 16 of 32
17

Services that the WPP Group purchases for distribution to WPP subsidiaries for resale to clients 

worldwide, including Habanos, the Cuban Joint Ventures and other Cuban Government entities, 

expressly prohibit the sale of those services to Cuba.28 

56. The trafficking by WPP, Y&R and BCW at issue here is in the form of marketing, 

merchandizing, branding, or advertising services for the benefit of the Cuban government and the 

entities it controls, including Habanos and the Cuban Joint Ventures. That trafficking was 

conducted, in part, through US websites, internet domains and other US Services, in violation of 

both the Liberty Act. This conduct is not exempted by the CACRs, which apply to all “person[s] 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” including corporations owned by U.S. companies, 

such as Y&R, BCW, Ogilvy and the subsidiaries those US companies own and control. The 

CACRs apply equally to WPP and its direct and indirect subsidiaries. 29 

57. Y&R, either directly or through its affiliates, committed tortious acts in MiamiDade County, Florida. Y&R “causes, directs [or] participates in, or profits from, trafficking” by 

Imperial, Habanos, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.30 That trafficking was conducted, in part, 

through US websites, internet domains and other US Services, in violation of both the Liberty Act 

and the CACRs. These acts have caused damage to Plaintiffs, five of whom reside in Florida. 

28 For example, Microsoft states that “All Microsoft Online Services,” including 

Office 365, “are unavailable in Cuba.” See Microsoft.com “International availability” (emphasis 

added) available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/business/internationalavailability; see also Google Workspace Terms of Service (“3.3 Restrictions. Customer will not, 

and will not allow End Users to . . . (d) access or use the Services . . . (vii) in a manner that 

breaches, or causes the breach of, Export Control Laws.”) (emphasis added) available at: 

https://workspace.google.com/terms/premier_terms.html. 

29

 See 31 C.F.R § 515.329(c)-(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. § 5(b)(1); Odebrecht Const., Inc. v. 

Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Transp., 715 F.3d 1268, 1281–82 (11th Cir. 2013). 

30

 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 17 of 32
18

58. BCW, either directly or through its affiliates, committed tortious acts in MiamiDade County, Florida. BCW “causes, directs [or] participates in, or profits from, trafficking” by 

Imperial, Habanos, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.31 That trafficking was conducted, in part, 

through US websites, internet domains and other US Services, in violation of both the Liberty Act 

and the CACRs. These acts have caused damage to Plaintiffs, five of whom reside in Florida. 

59. WPP, either directly or through its affiliates, including the WPP Group, Y&R, 

BCW, and Ogilvy committed tortious acts in Miami-Dade County, Florida. WPP “causes, directs 

[or] participates in, or profits from, trafficking” by Imperial, Habanos, the WPP Group, Y&R, 

BCW, and Ogilvy, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.32 That trafficking was conducted, in part, 

through US websites, internet domains and other US Services, in violation of both the Liberty Act 

and the CACRs. These acts have caused damage to Plaintiffs, five of whom reside in Florida. 

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

its interest in Habanos and the other Cuban Joint Ventures 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.33

31 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii). 

32 See 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii). 

33

 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.”) 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 18 of 32
19

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

at least through October 2020, to retain, either directly or through Habanos, WPP, the WPP Group 

and its U.S.-based corporate agents, Ogilvy and later Y&R and BCW, to engage in the marketing 

of, i.e., trafficking in, Cuban cigars managed from, or manufactured at, stored in, or distributed 

from, the confiscated RRHSC Property. In addition, no later than 2017, Imperial also decided, 

either directly or through Habanos, WPP, the WPP Group and U.S. Corporate Agents, to contract 

for the use of social media “portals” operated by still additional U.S. corporations. These 

corporations include Twitter, Instagram and YouTube34, 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. That trafficking was conducted, in part, through US 

websites, internet domains and other US Services, in violation of both the Liberty Act and the 

CACRs. 

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

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

USA and the WPP Group, and the additional subsidiaries owned and controlled by these U.S. 

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

the supply of services to certain countries.” 35 These laws include, of course, the Liberty Act. WPP 

34 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. 

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

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 19 of 32
20

nevertheless decided to involve these U.S. subsidiaries, or the subsidiaries of these WPP 

subsidiaries, in marketing and publicizing products produced at, stored in and shipped from, the 

confiscated RRHSC Property. WPP thereafter directed or allowed its U.S. subsidiaries, including 

Y&R, BCW, WPP USA and the WPP Group, to use US Services, including YR.com, BM.com, 

Ogilvy.com, and the social media portals by Twitter, Instagram and YouTube, for the purpose of 

trafficking in the RRHSC Property, including providing marketing and advertising services for 

Habanos through US Services. 

63. Each of the acts described in paragraphs 40 – 62, above, constituted trafficking in 

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

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

64. Due to their extensive use of US Services to market, publicize and assist in the 

trafficking of the RRHSC Property confiscated by the Cuban government, including through U.S. 

Agents using US Services in violation of the Liberty Act and the CACRs, 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. 

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

anticipated the possibility that they would be sued 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. 

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

(disclosing business “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 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 20 of 32
21

66. 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. 

67. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Y&R pursuant to the Florida “longarm” statute, Section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes. At all times relevant hereto, Y&R has engaged 

in substantial and not isolated activity in the State of Florida such that exercising general 

jurisdiction over Y&R does not offend the notions of due process. Y&R filed for, and was granted, 

authority to transact business in the State of Florida since 2018; prior to 2018, one of Y&R’s alter 

egos, Young & Rubicam Inc. (a Delaware Corporation), was qualified to do business in Florida 

from 1998 to 2018; prior to that, another one of Y&R’s alter egos, Young & Rubicam Inc. (a New 

York Corporation), filed for, and was granted, authority to transact business in Florida from 1995 

to 1997. Y&R, together with its alter egos, has had a constant presence in Florida since at least 

1995. Upon information and belief, Y&R derived significant income from the State of Florida, 

either directly or through its alter egos. Upon information and belief, Y&R, directly or through 

one of its alter egos, either owned or leased one or more properties in the State of Florida from 

1995 to 2020. 

68. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over BCW pursuant to the Florida “longarm” statute, Section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes. At all times relevant hereto, BCW has engaged 

in substantial and not isolated activity in the State of Florida such that exercising general 

jurisdiction over BCW does not offend the notions of due process. Burson-Marsteller, LLC, the 

predecessor to BCW, filed for, and was granted, authority to transact business in the State of 

Florida in 2003. In 2018, Burson-Marsteller, LLC filed an amendment to its certificate to transact 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 21 of 32
22

business in Florida reflecting that the company had changed its name to BCW LLC (and if the 

name is unavailable, it would use Burson Cohn & Wolfe LLC as an alternate name of transacting 

business in Florida), and as of 2021, BCW remains authorized to business in Florida. Upon 

information and belief, BCW has had a constant presence in Florida since at least 2003 through at 

least the end of 2020. Upon information and belief, BCW derived significant income from the 

State of Florida. Upon information and belief, BCW, directly or through one of its affiliates, either 

owned or leased one or more properties in the State of Florida from 2003 to 2020. 

69. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over WPP pursuant to the Florida “longarm” statute, Section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes. Upon information and belief, WPP operating 

through one or more of its subsidiaries has engaged in substantial and not isolated activity in the 

State of Florida such that exercising general jurisdiction over WPP does not offend the notions of 

due process. 

70. 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, those Defendants who are not subject to the jurisdiction 

of any other State within the United States, 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.36 If 

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

36 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 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 22 of 32
23

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, and US 

Services, including 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. 

71. 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 

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

6023(15). 

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

Government confiscation in 1961. 

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

confiscated ownership of RRHSC and the RRHSC Property on June 30, 1961.37

75. 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 

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. 

37 On June 30, 1961, by decision of the “Junta Central de Planificación,” 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 Planificación’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 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 23 of 32
24

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

and uncompensated taking of the RRHSC Property. 

77. 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 Cuba, its joint venture partner in Habanos, 

Altabana, and the Cuban Joint Ventures (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. 

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

through Tabacuba and Imperial’s (now presumably former) joint venture partnership, Habanos. 

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, until the present.38 

79. The unauthorized use of the RRHSC Property includes the management, 

production, storage, 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 

Habanos’ trafficking also includes use of the RRHSC Property for marketing and publicity of 

Habanos’ products.39 The RRHSC Property, of course, is in Cuba which remains under the control 

of the same regime that confiscated the property. 

38 The photographs at Composite Exhibit 2 were taken in December 2019 and show the 

Tabacuba offices at the RRHSC Property occupied, as well as vehicles outside of two loading 

docks at the property. 

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

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 24 of 32
25

80. 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.” 40 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 for the management of the Cuban tobacco business, and the use of the 

loading dock41 and space for warehousing and shipping Habanos’ products. Tabacuba’s name 

appears prominently on the building.42

81. 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 engaged and continues to engage in a commercial activity using or otherwise 

benefiting from the confiscated RRHSC Property without the authorization of the Rodriguez 

Family. 

82. 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 or stored at, or distributed from the confiscated 

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. 

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

41 See Composite Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 7. 

42 See Composite Exhibits 2 and 3. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 25 of 32
26

RRHSC Property. The agents retained by Imperial and Habanos include WPP through its 

advertising agency subsidiaries, including the WPP Group, Y&R, BCW, and Ogilvy. 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 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. The trafficking by the U.S. Corporate Agents was accomplished through use of US 

Services. 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. 

83. Between 2010 and 2015, WPP and the WPP Group nominally used a subsidiary 

known as Ogilvy to market Habanos products. Beginning in 2016, marketing of Habanos products 

was nominally switched to Y&R, another WPP subsidiary. Most recently, beginning in 2019, 

marketing of Habanos products was again nominally 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). 

84. 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 continued to, 

knowingly and intentionally, act as agents for the Direct Traffickers at least until October 2020. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 26 of 32
27

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. 

85. Imperial, Habanos, WPP, Y&R and BCW either knew, or had reason to know that 

the Cuban tobacco in the products advertised or promoted by WPP, Y&R and BCW were (i) 

purchased, stored, managed, or sold by Tabacuba at or from the RRHSC Property, and that (ii) 

Tabacuba is the Cuban government run monopoly managing the growth, purchase and sale of raw 

tobacco. Imperial, Habanos, WPP, Y&R and BCW are bound by the knowledge of Imperial’s 

partner Tabacuba which at all times was aware that RRHSC and the RRHSC Property were 

confiscated by the Cuban government. 

86. In October 2020, Imperial announced that it had completed the sale of what it 

previously described as “its worldwide premium cigar businesses,” including the non-U.S. 

business it calls “the Rest of the World business (“Premium Cigar RoW”). 43 The sale was 

apparently completed on October 29, 2020. 44 By Imperial’s own admission, these “assets” 

consisted 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. 

43 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

44 See Imperial Brands PLC completes sale of its Worldwide Premium Cigar Businesses, 

https://www.imperialbrandsplc.com/media/key-announcements/2020/imperial-brands-plccompletes-sale-of-its-worldwide-premium-ciga.html

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 27 of 32
28

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. 

87. 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. 

88. 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.’)45, the Liberty Act defines trafficking in property confiscated by the 

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

that person “knowingly”46 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 

45

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

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

46 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 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 28 of 32
29

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). 

89. 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. 

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

Imperial and Habanos. 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. 

91. Habanos is controlled by the Cuban government which confiscated the RRHSC 

Property. Imperial had access to Cuban government property and corporate records before it 

purchased its joint venture interest in Habanos. In addition, Imperial knew by no later than 2010 

that the RRHSC Property was being used by Habanos to manufacture cigars. Imperial also knew 

or should have known since at least 2010 that its joint venture partner, Tabacuba, was using the 

RRHSC Property for administrative offices to support Habanos’ operations and for warehousing 

and shipping cigar products manufactured and sold by Habanos. The use of the RRHSC Property 

by and for the benefit of Habanos and Imperial continued at least through October 2020. 

92. WPP knew or should have known that the WPP Group including its U.S. 

subsidiaries, or subsidiaries of those U.S. corporate subsidiaries, continuously beginning in 2010 

(Ogilvy), then in 2016 (Y&R) and in 2019 (BCW), were engaged in conduct that constituted 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 29 of 32
30

trafficking in confiscated property under the Liberty Act. Similarly, Y&R knew or should have 

known that its subsidiaries or affiliates beginning in 2016, and BCW knew or should have known 

that its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, beginning in 2019, were engaged in conduct that constituted 

trafficking in confiscated property under the Liberty Act. The information was available in Cuban 

corporate and property records and was available from their principal on the trafficking 

assignments, Habanos or Imperial. 

93. WPP knew or should have known that by conflating its subsidiaries by having such 

subsidiaries market their services under the same name, and by sharing services and assets, WPP 

and the subsidiaries would be acting as one entity 

94. Y&R knew or should have known that by having other companies market their 

services under the same brand name as Y&R, and by sharing services and assets, Y&R and the 

subsidiaries would be acting as one entity. 

95. BCW knew or should have known that by having other companies market their 

services under the same brand name as BCW, and by sharing services and assets, BCW and the 

subsidiaries would be acting as one entity. 

96. 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, including through extensive use of US Services, 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. 

97. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 30 of 32
31

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

confiscated RRHSC Property. 

98. 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. 

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

the date the notice was provided, each Defendant continued to traffic in the confiscated RRHSC 

Property. 

Claim for Damages 

100. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 99 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

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

102. 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 that was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959 in violation 

47 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 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 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 31 of 32
32

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

Property, for money damages. 

103. 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. 

104. In addition, treble damages are warranted. Because Defendants 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 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. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

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

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

Paulino A. Núñez Jr. James L. Berenthal 

Florida Bar No. 814806 Florida Bar No.126035 

Primary email: pan@rtgn-law.com email: jlb@berenthalaw.com 

255 Alhambra Circle 45 East 72nd Street 

Suite 1150 Suite 5-C 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 New York, NY 10021 

Telephone: (305) 350-2300 Telephone: (212) 302-9494 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2022 Page 32 of 32