## Facts

- Nelson Bunker Hunt (a Texas resident) and BP Exploration Company (Libya) Ltd. (an English company) entered into agreements concerning exploration and development of a Libyan oil concession.
- After production began, Libya expropriated BP’s interest, and the parties litigated related disputes in England.
- The English Commercial Court entered a money judgment against Hunt, and English appellate review (including the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords) left the judgment in place subject only to limited modification affecting the amount.
- BP collected approximately $40,833,000 plus interest by drawing on a standby letter of credit provided by Hunt in connection with the English judgment.
- Hunt filed this diversity action in the Northern District of Texas seeking declarations that the English judgment was unenforceable and that he was not indebted to BP, and seeking restitution of amounts collected under the English judgment; in the alternative, he sought a declaration that the dispute was subject to arbitration under the parties’ agreement.
- In an earlier decision in the same federal case (*Hunt v. BP Exploration Co. (Libya) Ltd.*, 492 F. Supp. 885 (N.D. Tex. 1980)), the court had concluded the English judgment was entitled to recognition and that recognition would bar most, if not all, of Hunt’s claims, but the court deferred final relief until the English appellate process ended.
- After all English appeals were exhausted, BP filed a renewed motion for summary judgment, arguing the English judgment was final, entitled to recognition under the Texas Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgment Recognition Act, and preclusive of Hunt’s claims.
- Hunt did not contest the English judgment’s finality, but argued recognition should be denied under the Texas Act on two grounds: (1) alleged lack of reciprocity (English courts allegedly did not recognize Texas judgments), and (2) an alleged agreement to arbitrate rather than litigate in court.

## Issues

1. Whether the English money judgment was entitled to recognition in Texas under the Texas Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgment Recognition Act, including whether the court should decline recognition based on alleged non-reciprocity.
2. Whether recognition should be refused, or arbitration compelled instead, because the parties allegedly agreed to arbitrate the dispute rather than litigate it in England.
3. Whether, once recognized, the English judgment barred Hunt’s declaratory and restitution claims in this federal action, making summary judgment proper.

## Decision

- The court granted BP’s renewed motion for summary judgment.
- The court held the English judgment was final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered, and fell within the Texas Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgment Recognition Act.
- The court rejected Hunt’s reciprocity objection, finding BP made a prima facie showing (through submitted materials on English law) that English courts recognize and enforce U.S. money judgments, including Texas judgments, and Hunt failed to rebut that showing with contrary authority.
- The court rejected Hunt’s arbitration contention, concluding the agreements did not require arbitration of the dispute that was litigated to judgment in England and, in any event, arbitration did not provide a basis to deny recognition or avoid the English judgment’s effect.
- Because the English judgment was recognized, the court held it barred Hunt’s claims for declarations of nonliability and unenforceability and his request for repayment of the sums collected.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign-country money judgment that is final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered is generally entitled to recognition under the Texas Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgment Recognition Act unless a statutory ground for nonrecognition is shown.
- The Act’s reciprocity provision permits (but does not require) a Texas court to deny recognition if the foreign country does not recognize judgments of Texas courts; a party resisting recognition must support that claim with competent authority.
- A party seeking recognition can satisfy a prima facie showing on reciprocity through proof of the foreign jurisdiction’s general rules and examples regarding recognition of U.S. judgments; unsupported assertions are not enough to defeat recognition.
- Differences between foreign law and Texas law, standing alone, do not justify nonrecognition on public-policy grounds.
- Once a foreign-country money judgment is recognized, it can have claim-preclusive effect and bar later domestic litigation that would negate the foreign judgment or recover amounts paid under it.
- An asserted arbitration provision does not defeat recognition where the parties were not bound to arbitrate the dispute that resulted in the foreign judgment, or where arbitration does not displace the final judgment’s preclusive force.

## Conclusion

The Northern District of Texas recognized BP’s final English money judgment under the Texas Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgment Recognition Act, rejected Hunt’s objections based on alleged non-reciprocity and arbitration, and held that recognition of the English judgment barred all of Hunt’s requested declaratory and restitutionary relief, warranting summary judgment for BP.


Hunt v. BP Exploration Co. (Libya) Ltd., 580 F. Supp. 304 (N.D. Tex. 1984)