By Timothy S. Donahue

Top Takeaways:

• Court backs Imperial: The Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of a Helms-Burton lawsuit against Imperial Brands and WPP, ruling that U.S. courts lack personal jurisdiction over the British companies.
• Cigar industry precedent: The case is believed to be the only Helms-Burton Title III lawsuit directly involving the premium cigar industry and Habanos S.A., a Cuban state-owned company.
• Legal road remains open: Plaintiffs could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision, given the appellate court’s heavy reliance on the Court’s 2025 Fuld ruling.

Imperial Brands has secured a significant appellate victory in one of the cigar industry’s most closely watched Cuba-related lawsuits, as a federal appeals court ruled that U.S. courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over the British tobacco company in a Helms-Burton Act case involving property confiscated during the Cuban Revolution.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims against Imperial Brands plc and advertising firm WPP plc, concluding that neither company has sufficient contacts with the United States to be sued under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act.

The lawsuit was brought by descendants of Ramón Rodriguez Gutiérrez, who claimed ownership of the former Partagás cigarette factory in Havana before its nationalization following Cuba’s 1959 revolution. The plaintiffs alleged that Habanos S.A., Imperial, and several advertising agencies knowingly benefited from the confiscated property through promotional activities and commercial use.

The decision marks another setback for plaintiffs pursuing claims under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Helms-Burton) Act, enacted in 1996 and allowing eligible U.S. nationals to seek damages from companies alleged to have trafficked in confiscated Cuban property. Although Congress created the private right of action in 1996, successive administrations suspended it until 2019, when the Trump administration allowed the provision to take effect, triggering a wave of litigation.

The appellate court did not rule on whether Imperial trafficked in confiscated property. Instead, the three-judge panel held that the threshold issue was whether the British companies could be sued in a U.S. court.

Writing for the panel, Judge Kevin Newsom stated that the court was guided by the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, which clarified when Congress may authorize personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants. Under that framework, the Eleventh Circuit found that exercising jurisdiction over Imperial and WPP would be unreasonable.

The opinion noted that U.K. law restricts British companies’ compliance with Title III and found that neither defendant had sufficiently meaningful contacts with the United States to justify being haled into federal court. The panel also rejected arguments that the companies should have anticipated litigation in the United States or that their American subsidiaries established jurisdiction over the parent companies.

The ruling preserves earlier district court decisions dismissing claims against Habanos S.A. under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which protects certain foreign state-owned entities from suit in U.S. courts. Habanos, Cuba’s premium cigar export company, was previously dismissed due to its relationship with Cuba’s state tobacco enterprise.

For the premium cigar industry, the case has drawn particular attention because it is believed to be the only Helms-Burton Title III action directly tied to the Cuban cigar business. At the time the lawsuit was filed in 2020, Imperial owned a 50% stake in Habanos S.A. through its premium cigar division. Later that year, Imperial sold the division—including its Habanos interest—for approximately €1.04 billion, ending its decades-long ownership.

The decision continues a mixed record in Helms-Burton litigation. While plaintiffs have recently secured favorable outcomes in other Title III cases—including settlements and Supreme Court victories involving airlines and cruise operators—the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling underscores that personal jurisdiction remains a significant hurdle for claims targeting foreign companies with limited U.S. connections.

The Rodriguez family may still ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, even though the appellate ruling marks another significant victory for Imperial Brands in litigation stemming from its former investment in Cuba’s premium cigar industry.