## Facts

- John Paul DeJoria, an American citizen and Texas resident, invested with others in a Morocco-based project associated with the Moroccan royal family to develop Morocco’s oil resources.
- The project failed, creating political embarrassment. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration, S.A. (MPE), a Moroccan company involved in the venture, blamed DeJoria for the failure.
- MPE sued DeJoria in a Moroccan commercial court, asserting fraud and related misconduct arising out of the oil venture.
- The Moroccan court entered a substantial money judgment in MPE’s favor—reported as nearly $123 million in damages.
- MPE then filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to recognize and enforce the Moroccan money judgment against DeJoria’s U.S. assets under Texas’s version of the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act (Texas Recognition Act).
- In the first round of U.S. proceedings, the district court received evidence that the Moroccan royal family’s agents interfered with the litigation, including intimidation of judges, suppression of public support for DeJoria, threats to DeJoria’s safety if he appeared in Morocco, and conditions that made it effectively impossible for DeJoria to retain local counsel and present a defense.
- Based on that record, the district court refused recognition and entered judgment for DeJoria. MPE appealed.
- In 2015, the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that under the then-existing Texas statute the key due-process inquiry required proof that Morocco’s judiciary as a whole lacked impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process; case-specific unfairness alone did not satisfy that standard.
- After the remand, Texas amended the Recognition Act to allow nonrecognition when the particular foreign proceeding that produced the judgment was not compatible with due process, and the amendment was made applicable to pending matters.
- On remand, the magistrate judge considered the amended statute, heard additional evidence that expanded on and generally confirmed the earlier findings about threats, intimidation, and inability to obtain representation, and recommended denying recognition under the amended, case-focused standard.

## Issues

1. Whether the amended Texas Recognition Act applied to this pending recognition action and could be applied to events predating the amendment without violating Texas’s constitutional limits on retroactive laws.
2. Whether, under the amended Act, the Moroccan proceeding that produced MPE’s money judgment against DeJoria was not compatible with the requirements of due process, allowing the Texas federal court to deny recognition.

## Decision

- The court applied the amended Texas Recognition Act to the pending case.
- The court concluded that applying the amendment in this case did not violate the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on unconstitutional retroactive laws.
- The court found that the Moroccan proceeding producing the judgment was not compatible with due process, based on evidence of intimidation and threats connected to the Moroccan royal family and the resulting impairment of DeJoria’s ability to appear, secure counsel, and defend.
- The court exercised its authority under the amended Act to deny recognition and enforcement of the Moroccan money judgment and entered judgment for DeJoria.

## Legal Principles

- Under the amended Texas Recognition Act, a Texas court may deny recognition of a foreign-country money judgment when the specific foreign proceeding that produced the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process.
- Texas’s constitutional ban on retroactive laws does not bar every law with backward-looking effect; courts examine whether retroactive application is unreasonable in light of settled expectations and the nature of the right affected.
- In foreign-judgment recognition, due-process compatibility focuses on whether the judgment debtor had a fair chance to appear and defend with meaningful access to counsel and an impartial tribunal; credible evidence of intimidation, threats to personal safety, and interference with representation may support nonrecognition.
- Even when a judgment creditor is permitted to seek recognition, recognition may be denied when statutory grounds for nonrecognition are shown under the governing recognition statute.

## Conclusion

In DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration, the Western District of Texas, on remand after an earlier Fifth Circuit reversal, held that Texas’s amended Recognition Act applied to the case and permitted a case-specific due-process inquiry into the Moroccan litigation that produced a large fraud judgment against DeJoria. Crediting evidence that the proceeding was affected by threats, intimidation tied to the Moroccan royal family, and barriers that prevented DeJoria from safely appearing and effectively obtaining local counsel, the court found the Moroccan proceeding incompatible with due process and denied recognition and enforcement of the judgment in Texas.


DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration, 2018 WL 1057029 (2018)