Did the Cuban government act ethically when it expropriated the Glens property? Did Club Med act ethically when it entered into a joint venture with the Cuban government to develop the property that had been expropriated from the Glens?
Glen v. Club Mediterranee, S.A. 450 F.3d 1251, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 13400 (2006) Upited States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District The doctrine prevents any court in the United property without paying the Glens. Also in 1959, the States from declaring that an official act of a foreign sovereign performed within its own territory is invalid." -Cox, Circuit Judpo Facts Prior to the communist revolution in Cuba, Elvira de la Vega Glen and her sister, Ana Maria de la Vega Glen, were Cuban eitizens and residents who jointly owned benchifront property on the Peninsula de Hicacos in Varadero, Cuba. On or about January 1, 1959 , in conjunction with Fidel Castro's communist revolution, the Cuban government expropriated the sisters fled Cuba. Ana Maria de la Vega Glen died and passed any interest she had in the Varadero beach property to her nephew, Robert M. Glen. Approximately 40 years after the property was taken by Cuba, Club Mediterranee, S.A., and Club Mediterranee Group (Club Med) entered a joint venture with the Cuban sovernment to develop the property. Club Med constructed and operated a 5-star luxury hotel on the property that the Glens had owned. The Glens sued Club Med in a U.S. dis. triet court located in the state of Florida. The Glens alleged that the original expropriation of their property by the Cuban government was illegal and that Club Med had trespassed on their property and had been unduly enriched by its joint venture with the Guban sovernmeat to operate a hotel on their expropriated property. The Glens sought to recover the millions of dollars in profits earned by Club Med from its alleged wrongful occupation and use of the Glens' expropriated property. The U.S, district eourt held that the act of state doctrine barred recovery by the Glens and dismissed the Glens' elaims against Club Med. The Glens appealed. Issue Does the act of state doetrine batkrecovery by the Glens? Language of the Court The doctrine precents any court in the United States from declaring that an efficial act of a forcisn sovereign performed weithin iss own territory is inealid. It requires that the acts of foreign socereigns taken teithin their oten jurisdictions shall be deemed exalid. Becrause the act of state docerine requires the courts decm exalid the Cuban Goternment sexpro. priation of the ncal property at issue in this case, the Glens camnot maintain their claims for trespass and unjust enrichment against Club Med. Decision The U.S. court of appeals applied the not of state doetrine and affirmed the judgment of the U.S. distriet oourt that dismissed the Glens' elaim abainst Club Aled. Critical Legal Thinking Questions Did the Cuban government act ethically when it expropriated the Glens' property? Did Club Med act ethically when it entered into a joint venture with the Cuban sovernment to develop the property that had been expropriated from the Glens
