Pujol Moreira v. Societe Generale, S.A.

Background

The plaintiffs are heirs of former owners of Banco Pujol, a Cuban bank that the Castro regime confiscated in 1960 and that was absorbed into Banco Nacional de Cuba (BNC). They sued Société Générale, S.A. (SG) and BNP Paribas, S.A. (Paribas), alleging that the banks trafficked the confiscated assets by doing business with BNC in violation of Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, commonly called the Helms-Burton Act.

In an earlier round of this case, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims because the Act’s two-year filing deadline had expired. The court had found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged pre-2010 conduct but had not adequately alleged that the banks’ conduct continued after 2010. The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Complaint, and the defendants again moved to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Claims Against Société Générale

The Second Amended Complaint alleged that SG trafficked the plaintiffs’ assets until at least 2019 by giving Cuban entities access to foreign currency. The plaintiffs alleged, based on information and belief, that the money flowed through BNC because BNC was the primary financial institution used by foreign companies doing business in or with Cuba.

The court held that this allegation was conclusory and not adequately pleaded. It explained that adding the phrase “upon information and belief” does not make a conclusory allegation sufficient. The plaintiffs had access to a whistleblower who allegedly had knowledge of SG’s Cuba-related business, but they did not provide factual information supporting the inference that SG’s foreign-currency transactions flowed through BNC. The court also found that BNC’s alleged importance in Cuba’s banking market did not establish that SG’s funds went through BNC.

Because the new allegations did not adequately show trafficking during the relevant two-year period, the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims against SG remained untimely. The court granted the motion to dismiss those claims and declined to give the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend because they did not identify additional facts or request further leave to amend. The clerk was directed to terminate SG as a party.

Claims Against BNP Paribas

The plaintiffs made some allegations against Paribas that the court found conclusory for reasons similar to those concerning SG. But the plaintiffs also alleged that, according to a former Paribas compliance officer, Paribas routinely provided parcels of U.S. currency to BNC in Switzerland, including in 2020, and that there was no reason to believe it had stopped.

The court did not decide whether those allegations were sufficient to allow the claims against Paribas to proceed. It requested further briefing on two issues. First, the parties were to address whether giving cash to BNC in Switzerland, without more, qualifies as “trafficking” under the Helms-Burton Act. Second, they were to address whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Paribas under New York law and the Constitution, given that the alleged recent conduct occurred in Switzerland and the only alleged conduct in New York or the United States occurred before the relevant filing period.

The court reserved judgment on Paribas’s motion to dismiss pending supplemental briefs from the plaintiffs and Paribas, limited to fifteen pages and due February 6, 2023. Judge Jesse M. Furman also reserved judgment on Paribas’s other dismissal arguments until the court determined whether exercising personal jurisdiction was proper.