This included the seizure of sugar owned by a Cuban company called Compania Azucarera Vertientes-Camaguey de Cuba (C.A.V.

[2] An American commodity broker, Farr, Whitlock & Co. had contracted to buy this sugar from C.A.V., but after it was seized, they bought it directly from the Cuban government.

Finally, the Court found no bar to application of the doctrine should be imposed by the fact that Cuba had brought the suit, comparing this to the sovereign immunity enjoyed by U.S. states which can sue, but can not be sued.

The court also raised and dismissed a potential Erie doctrine problem, noting that although this suit was brought under diversity jurisdiction, federal interests so outweighed that of the state that federal common law must apply, instead of the law of the state where the suit was filed.

The Amendment was retroactive and subsequently found constitutional by the district court and the Cuban bank's complaint was dismissed.