In the case of Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba et al., 1975, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dunhill. The dispute arose when the Cuban government nationalized all private businesses on its soil without compensating foreign owners, including a tobacco enterprise that had outstanding debts to Dunhill for cigars already sold and delivered prior to nationalization. When Cuba later tried to collect these unpaid bills from customers in America, Dunhill sued arguing that by taking over the company's assets without compensation (a violation under international law), Cuba also assumed its liabilities - thus it was owed nothing further by American customers who'd bought those cigars pre-nationalization. The court agreed with this argument and held that while sovereign immunity protected nations from most lawsuits in other countries' courts; it did not apply here because commercial activities were involved which is an exception under US law (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act). Therefore, any profits made off those cigar sales belonged rightfully to Dunhill as they were part of their original contract with the now-nationalized firm.

In the dissenting opinion for Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba et al., Justice Brennan argued that the Court's majority had misinterpreted both international law and U.S. policy regarding acts by foreign sovereigns within their own territories. He contended that there was no clear evidence to suggest Congress intended to alter traditional principles of international law when it passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). According to these principles, a nation is immune from jurisdiction in another country’s courts unless it has explicitly waived this immunity or engaged in commercial activity outside its borders which gives rise to a claim. In this case, he believed neither condition applied since Cuba's nationalization act took place entirely within its own territory and did not involve any explicit waiver of immunity.