The U.S. Supreme Court is set to explore legal questions arising from the fraught history of U.S.-Cuban relations when it considers the scope of a 1996 law that lets U.S. nationals seek compensation for property confiscated by the communist-led Cuban government. The justices hear arguments on Feb. 23 in two cases centered on the federal law called the Helms-Burton Act, one involving U.S. oil major ExxonMobil and the other involving the cruise lines Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line and MSC Cruises. One of the law's provisions, called Title III, allows for lawsuits in U.S. courts against entities that "traffic" in property confiscated by the Cuban government after the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power in 1959. While the two cases focus on distinct legal issues, both raise the question of just how powerful a remedy Congress intended Title III to be. In both cases, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to eliminate barriers that claimants face in bringing Helms-Burton Act lawsuits. The justices have never before interpreted Title III, which Congress authorized the U.S. president to suspend if deemed "necessary to the national interests of the United States." Title III was long dormant due to presidential decisions to suspend it. But President Donald Trump, who has taken a hard line toward Cuba, lifted that suspension during his first term in office, unleashing a wave of about 40 lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 that have slowly made their way through the courts. Trump's administration has declared Cuba "an unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security, cutting off the flow of Venezuelan oil to the Caribbean island nation and threatening to slap tariffs on any country supplying it with fuel. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CLAIMS Following the revolution, Cuba's new communist government nationalized U.S. property that now is worth billions of dollars, including factories, sugar mills, oil refineries and power plants. The Helms-Burton Act formalized the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba that had been in effect by presidential order since President John Kennedy's administration in the 1960s. Title III created a legal remedy for U.S. nationals whose property was confiscated. Such plaintiffs can seek enhanced damages in federal courts from entities that knowingly use the property, including both Cuban state-owned entities and multinational companies. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all suspended Title III, seeking to avoid diplomatic conflicts with allies like Canada and Spain whose companies have invested in Cuba, before Trump lifted the suspension in 2019. The State Department said at the time that Trump's move would "ratchet up pressure on the Cuban government" and "penalize those who benefit from the rightful property of Americans." In one of the Supreme Court cases, Exxon is seeking more than $1 billion in compensation from CIMEX, a Cuban state-owned firm, for oil and gas assets seized in 1960. In the other case, a small company that built docks in Havana's port prior to the revolution is seeking compensation from the four cruise lines, whose ships have used the terminal. Exxon, which filed its suit in Washington in 2019, has asked the justices to reverse a lower court's 2024 decision finding that Cuban state-owned enterprises facing Helms-Burton Act claims can raise the defense of foreign sovereign immunity. That legal doctrine generally shields foreign governments and their agents from being sued in U.S. courts. The lower court's decision "imposes yet another in a long line of barriers to recovery for victims of the Castro government's illegal confiscations," Exxon's lawyers said in a 2024 court filing. CIMEX has argued in court filings that the 2024 decision should be upheld because it "both respects and safeguards congressional judgment in this sensitive area." Legal experts said the 2024 decision and other rulings interpreting Helms-Burton have made it costly and time-consuming for U.S. businesses to seek compensation from Cuban entities. "The amount of time and resources that has been required is overwhelming for a lot of claimants," said Washington lawyer Jared Butcher, who represents clients in commercial litigation. CRUISE SHIP DISPUTE The other case being argued on Feb. 23 does not implicate sovereign immunity because the cruise company defendants are private companies, rather than state-owned entities. At issue in that case is whether a Helms-Burton Act claimant must establish that it would have a present-day property interest in the assets at issue if they had not been nationalized. Havana Docks Corporation, a U.S. firm that built docks in Havana's port prior to the revolution, sued the cruise lines in federal court in Florida in 2019. Castro revoked the company's legal right to the docks shortly after coming to power. The four cruise operators used the docks from 2016 to 2019, after Obama eased travel restrictions on Cuba. In a joint court filing, the companies said it defies common sense that they "should pay hundreds of millions of dollars for following the executive branch's lead in reopening travel to Cuba." A federal judge found the cruise companies liable for a combined $440 million, saying they had trafficked in confiscated property. An appeals court threw out those judgments last year, highlighting the difficulties Helms-Burton Act claimants face. "Plaintiffs are having a hard time recovering under the Helms-Burton Act for a wide variety of reasons, and it's probably more difficult to recover than Congress had anticipated when it passed the act in 1996," said Vanderbilt Law School professor Ingrid Brunk. "But that's not an argument that means every plaintiff should win."

A federal judge on Feb. 18 rejected Live Nation Entertainment's bid to dismiss a lawsuit by the federal government and many U.S. states accusing the company of illegally trying to dominate the live concert industry. The decision by U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian cleared the way for a possible antitrust trial in Manhattan federal court, with jury selection scheduled to begin on March 2. While dismissing some claims, Subramanian said "there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Live Nation has used monopoly power to foreclose competition." Shares of the Beverly Hills, California-based company traded 1.9% lower in after-hours trading following the decision, recouping much of an earlier 7% decline. The May 2024 lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice, 39 states and Washington, D.C. accused Live Nation of monopolizing markets for ticketing, concert-booking, venues and promotions, harming fans as well as performers. Fans and politicians had long urged regulators to reexamine Live Nation's 2010 purchase of Ticketmaster. They intensified their demands after Ticketmaster subjected Taylor Swift fans to high prices and hours-long online queues for her 2022 "Eras" tour. Subramanian said the government plaintiffs can try to prove that Live Nation improperly tied use of its amphitheaters to concert promotion services, and illegally dominated the market for ticketing services to major concert venues. He also said states can try to seek damages for ticket-buying fans, saying it was "reasonably foreseeable" that fans might have been harmed and that Live Nation's antitrust-injury challenge "falls flat." Subramanian dismissed claims related to concert promotions, and concert-booking services at major venues. "With those claims gone, we see no possible basis for breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster," Dan Wall, Live Nation's executive vice president for corporate and regulatory affairs, said in a statement. "We look forward to addressing the remaining claims at trial." In seeking a dismissal, Live Nation denied exercising monopoly power and said there was no evidence its conduct harmed "consumer welfare," such as by raising prices or reducing quality. It also said states lacked legal authority to sue on behalf of fans. Live Nation has separately requested that Subramanian limit next month's trial to claims by the state plaintiffs, and address Justice Department claims separately. The judge has yet to rule on that request.

Bayer said on Feb. 17 its Monsanto unit had reached an agreement worth as much as $7.25 billion to resolve tens of thousands of current and future lawsuits claiming that its Roundup weedkiller caused cancer. The move marks a major step for the German firm, which has spent years tackling legal risks tied to Roundup, acquired as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. The German company said the proposed nationwide settlement, filed on Feb. 17 in state court in St. Louis, Missouri, would establish a long-term claims program funded by capped annual payments over up to 21 years. The company is facing claims over Roundup from approximately 65,000 plaintiffs in U.S. state and federal courts. The plaintiffs say they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer after using the weedkiller, either at home or on the job. Following the announcement, Bayer shares rose as much as 7.7% to reach their highest level since September 12, 2023. "Bayer's move will significantly reduce the legal risks. Although the settlement is very costly, it is to be welcomed as it covers future claims," Ingo Speich of Bayer investor Deka Investment said. Bayer said it expects its provisions and litigation liabilities to rise from 7.8 billion euros ($9.24 billion) to 11.8 billion euros. It anticipates around 5 billion euros in litigation-related payouts in 2026, and now expects negative free cash flow for the year. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AIMED AT HEADING OFF FUTURE LAWSUITS Roundup is among the most widely used weedkillers in the United States. Bayer has said decades of studies have shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use. The deal covers the bulk of the lawsuits, but requires a judge's approval and a minimum number of plaintiffs to opt in. It does not require Bayer to admit liability or wrongdoing and allows the company to back out if too many plaintiffs decline to participate. It is also designed to head off future lawsuits, and allows people who can prove they have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and were exposed to Roundup prior to Feb. 17 to file claims to receive a portion of the settlement up to 21 years from now. The agreement was negotiated with Motley Rice, Seeger Weiss and other law firms that would represent a nationwide class of plaintiffs, if the court allows the deal to proceed. Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said on a call with investors and reporters that he is confident the proposed class action settlement will resolve the vast majority of the claims. Attorneys who negotiated on behalf of the plaintiffs said the deal represents the best path forward. Payouts will be determined by a tiered system that considers exposure, age at diagnosis and cancer type. Individuals could receive up to $198,000 or more, according to attorney Eric Holland. The company said it had separately reached confidential settlements to resolve other Roundup cases with specific law firms, although the company would not name the firms or specify the amount of those deals. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR APPEAL The Feb. 17 proposed settlement comes after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in a case that Bayer argues will sharply limit its liability in the litigation. The company said the Supreme Court case, scheduled for oral arguments at the end of April, remains essential to resolving the Roundup litigation. Bayer is arguing that consumers should not be able to sue it under state law for failing to warn that Roundup increases cancer risk because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found no such risk and requires no such warning. Bayer argued that federal law does not allow it to add any warning to the product beyond the EPA-approved label. Markus Manns, portfolio manager at Bayer shareholder Union Investment, cautioned the Feb. 17 proposal was "not yet the breakthrough that many investors had hoped for." "The settlement buys Bayer time, but without a win in the Supreme Court, a new wave of lawsuits could roll over Bayer in a few years," he said. COMPANY PAID OUT $10 BILLION TO SETTLE PREVIOUS LAWSUITS The company had previously paid about $10 billion to settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but failed to get a settlement then covering future cases. It has had a mixed record with cases that have gone to trial. It prevailed in a series of Roundup trials, but has been hit with large jury awards in the past few years, including a $2.1 billion verdict in a case in the U.S. state of Georgia in March. The verdicts shattered both investor confidence and company hopes that the worst of the Roundup litigation was over, and put pressure on Bayer to find a comprehensive solution to the lawsuits.