## Facts

- Society of Lloyd’s regulates the Lloyd’s insurance market in London; the defendants were U.S. investors (“Names”) who underwrote insurance risks through Lloyd’s.
- To participate, the Names executed standard-form agreements requiring compliance with Lloyd’s governing framework and providing for exclusive jurisdiction in English courts under English law.
- After substantial underwriting losses, Lloyd’s implemented a Reconstruction and Renewal plan that included reinsurance arrangements intended to close older underwriting years’ liabilities.
- The Names refused to pay amounts Lloyd’s claimed were due under the reinsurance and related obligations.
- Lloyd’s sued the Names in the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) and obtained money judgments for unpaid obligations.
- Lloyd’s then filed actions in federal district courts in New Mexico and Utah seeking recognition and enforcement of the English money judgments.
- The district courts granted summary judgment to Lloyd’s and enforced the English judgments.
- The Names appealed, arguing that the English proceedings were not compatible with “due process” as required for recognition under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA), and that they did not receive a full and fair trial.

## Issues

1. Whether England’s judicial system provides procedures “compatible with the requirements of due process of law” under the UFMJRA.
2. Whether the Names were denied a full and fair trial in the English proceedings because English law and procedure limited certain defenses, discovery, and damages challenges.
3. Whether recognition should be denied on public-policy grounds based on asserted conflicts with U.S. state securities and regulatory laws.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment enforcing the English money judgments.
- The court held that English courts and procedures satisfy the UFMJRA’s due-process compatibility requirement.
- The court held that the Names had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in England; differences from U.S. practice (including narrower discovery and different available defenses) did not establish a denial of due process.
- The court rejected public-policy objections based on asserted securities-law violations, finding no basis for the narrow nonrecognition exception.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UFMJRA, a foreign money judgment is generally recognized unless a statutory ground for nonrecognition is shown, including lack of system-wide procedures compatible with due process or denial of a full and fair trial in the particular case.
- “Due process” in this context requires fundamental fairness; the foreign forum’s procedures need not mirror U.S. procedural or remedial rules.
- Judgments from established common-law judicial systems such as England are strongly presumed to satisfy due-process compatibility, and the resisting party bears the burden of showing otherwise.
- Contractual selection of English law and exclusive English jurisdiction weighs against claims that due process requires access to U.S. substantive defenses or U.S.-style procedures.
- Procedural differences, including more limited discovery and evidentiary constraints, do not alone establish that a party lacked a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- Public-policy nonrecognition is narrowly applied; differences between foreign law and forum law, including regulatory policy differences, ordinarily do not bar recognition absent a fundamental offense to forum policy.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit enforced the English High Court’s money judgments against U.S. Lloyd’s Names, concluding that England’s judicial system is compatible with due process under the UFMJRA, the Names received a full and fair opportunity to litigate, and public-policy objections grounded in U.S. securities law did not justify nonrecognition.


Soc'y of Lloyd's v. Reinhart, 402 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 2005)