Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino Brief Fact Summary. The bills of lading for a shipment of sugar contracted between Farr, Whitlock & Co an American commodities broker was assigned by Banco Nacional de Cuba (P), but another Cuban bank instituted this action alleging conversion of the bills of lading and sought to recover the proceeds thereof from Farr and to enjoin Sabbatino (D), a court-appointed receiver from exercising control over such proceeds. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The judiciary, in line with the Act of State Doctrine will not examine the validity of a taking of property within its own territory by a foreign sovereign government recognized by this country in the absence of international agreements to the contrary, even if the taking violates customary international law. Facts. A contract to purchase Cuban sugar from a wholly owned subsidaiary of Compania Azucarera Vertientes-Camaquey de Cuba (CAV) a corporation organized under Cuban law was made by Farr, Whitlock & Co. (Farr) an American commodities broker. The CAV stock was principally owned by United States residents. The agreement was for Farr to pay for the sugar in New York upon the presentation of the shipping documents. After this deal, a law was enacted in Cuba which empowered the government to nationalize forcefully, expropriation of property or enterprise in which American nationals had an interest. Hence, the sugar which Farr had contracted was expropriated from Compania Azucarera. Farr however entered into contracts which was similar to the one made with CAV with the Banco Para el Comercio de Cuba, which was an instrumentality of the government. This was done by Farr in order to obtain consent from the Cuban government before a ship carrying sugar could leave Cuba.A bill of lading which was also an instrumentality of the Cuban government was assigned by the bank to Banco Para el Comercio de Cuba, who presented the bills and a sight draft as required under the contract to Farr in New York in return for payment. After CAV notified Farr of its claim to the proceeds as rightful owner of the sugar, Farr refused the documents.

Digest_6_Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino

Download PDF Report

Upload
mrvirgines
View
5
Download
2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Digest of the case Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino

Citation preview

BancoNacionaldeCubav.SabbatinoBriefFactSummary.ThebillsofladingforashipmentofsugarcontractedbetweenFarr,Whitlock&CoanAmericancommoditiesbrokerwasassignedbyBancoNacionaldeCuba(P),butanotherCubanbankinstitutedthisactionallegingconversionofthebillsofladingandsoughttorecovertheproceedsthereoffromFarrandtoenjoinSabbatino(D),acourt-appointedreceiverfromexercisingcontroloversuchproceeds.SynopsisofRuleofLaw.Thejudiciary,inlinewiththeActofStateDoctrinewillnotexaminethevalidityofatakingofpropertywithinitsownterritorybyaforeignsovereigngovernmentrecognizedbythiscountryintheabsenceofinternationalagreementstothecontrary,evenifthetakingviolatescustomaryinternationallaw.Facts.AcontracttopurchaseCubansugarfromawhollyownedsubsidaiaryofCompaniaAzucareraVertientes-CamaqueydeCuba(CAV)acorporationorganizedunderCubanlawwasmadebyFarr,Whitlock&Co.(Farr)anAmericancommoditiesbroker.TheCAVstockwasprincipallyownedbyUnitedStatesresidents.TheagreementwasforFarrtopayforthesugarinNewYorkuponthepresentationoftheshippingdocuments.Afterthisdeal,alawwasenactedinCubawhichempoweredthegovernmenttonationalizeforcefully,expropriationofpropertyorenterpriseinwhichAmericannationalshadaninterest.Hence,thesugarwhichFarrhadcontractedwasexpropriatedfromCompaniaAzucarera.FarrhoweverenteredintocontractswhichwassimilartotheonemadewithCAVwiththeBancoParaelComerciodeCuba,whichwasaninstrumentalityofthegovernment.ThiswasdonebyFarrinordertoobtainconsentfromtheCubangovernmentbeforeashipcarryingsugarcouldleaveCuba.AbillofladingwhichwasalsoaninstrumentalityoftheCubangovernmentwasassignedbythebanktoBancoParaelComerciodeCuba,whopresentedthebillsandasightdraftasrequiredunderthecontracttoFarrinNewYorkinreturnforpayment.AfterCAVnotifiedFarrofitsclaimtotheproceedsasrightfulownerofthesugar,Farrrefusedthedocuments.
ThisactionofFarrresultedinacourtorderwhichappointedSabbatino(D)asreceiverofCAVsNewYorkassetsandenjoineditfromremovingthepaymentsfromthestate.BasedontheallegationoftheconversionofthebillsofladingseekingtorecovertheproceedsthereoffromFarrandtoenjoinSabbatino(D),thereceiverfromexercisingdominionoversuchproceeds,theBancoNacional(P)institutedthisaction.AsummaryjudgmentwasgrantedagainstBancoNacional(P)bythedistrictcourtonthegroundsthattheActofStateDoctrinedoesnotapplywhentheforeignactinquestionisinviolationofinternationallaw.Thecourtofappealsalsoupheldthisjudgment.

Issue.Doesthejudiciaryhavetheauthoritytoexaminethevalidityofatakingofpropertywithinitsownterritorybyaforeignsovereignevenifthetakingviolatedinternationallaw?Held.(Harlan,J).No.Thejudiciary,inlinewiththeActofStateDoctrinewillnotexaminethevalidityofatakingofpropertywithinitsownterritorybyaforeignsovereigngovernmentrecognizedbythiscountryintheabsenceofinternationalagreementstothecontrary,evenifthetakingviolatescustomaryinternationallaw.Eveninasituationwherebyinternationallawhasbeenviolated,theclearimplicationofpastcasesisthattheActofStateDoctrineisapplicablebecausetheActofStatedoctrinedoesnotdeprivethecourtsofjurisdictiononceacquireoveracase.Thedamagesofadjudicatingtheproprietyofsuchexpropriationacts,regardlessofwhethertheStateDepartmenthasitdidinthiscase,assertedthattheactviolatedinternationallawaretoofar-reachingforthejudicialbranchtoattempt.Hencethejudgmentofthecourtofappealsisreverseandthecaseremandedbacktothedistrictcourt.
Dissent.(White,J).AmericancourtsarenotrequiredbytheActofStateDoctrinetodecidecasesindisregardofinternationallawandoftherightsoflitigantstoafulldeterminationonthemerits.Discussion.Eveninthediversityofcitizenshipcases,theCourtconcludedthattheActofStateDoctrinemustbedeterminedaccordingtofederalratherthanstatelaw.Thecourtalsomadeitclearthatitisconstrainedtomakeitclearthatanissueconcernedwithabasicchoiceregardingthecompetenceandfunctionofthejudiciaryandnationalexecutiveinorderingourrelationshipswithothermembersoftheinternationalcommunitymustbetreatedexclusivelyasanaspectoffederallaw.