The Cuban insurance cases support the thesis that if a country withdraws from the Fund it loses the benefit of Article VIII, Section 2(b), even in respect of contracts that were entered into when it was a member. This had already been held by the New York Supreme Court in Stephen v. Zivnostenska Banka, National Corporation.63 In the Ugalde case, the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the case because Cuba had withdrawn from the Fund was dismissed, but no reason was given by the court. The defendant had opposed the motion on the ground that there was an alternative basis for the verdict, the determination that Cuban law governed the contract under private international law. In the Varas case, after the withdrawal of Cuba the defendant company asked the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to disregard the defendant’s argument based on the Articles, and the court said that, as a result of the withdrawal, a new look had to be taken at the cases that had been based on the Articles when both Cuba and the United States were members.