## Facts

- Somportex, Ltd., a British corporation, sued Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp. (PCG), a Pennsylvania corporation, in the Queen’s Bench Division for alleged breach of contract.
- The English court granted leave to serve PCG outside England at its Pennsylvania offices.
- After service, PCG consulted U.S. counsel and English solicitors and entered a conditional appearance to contest jurisdiction.
- PCG moved to set aside the writ for lack of jurisdiction, asserting no contract existed or, alternatively, that any agreement was not made in Great Britain and was not governed by English law.
- During delay caused by the English court recess, PCG changed strategy and sought to avoid any action that could be treated as submission to English jurisdiction; its jurisdictional application was dismissed by default.
- PCG sought to withdraw its conditional appearance as mistaken; the English master denied withdrawal, set a schedule to file a defense, and provided notice and time for possible appeal.
- PCG did not appeal and did not file a defense; Somportex obtained a default judgment in England.
- Somportex filed a federal action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to enforce the English default judgment and moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court applying Pennsylvania law should recognize and enforce an English default money judgment against a U.S. defendant.
2. Whether the English court had a proper jurisdictional basis and whether PCG received notice and a fair opportunity to be heard consistent with due process standards relevant to recognition.
3. Whether enforcement should be denied absent reciprocity (i.e., proof that English courts would enforce comparable American judgments).
4. Whether enforcement would violate Pennsylvania or U.S. public policy because the judgment was entered by default or due to the manner of the English proceedings.

## Decision

- The court granted Somportex’s motion for summary judgment and enforced the English default judgment.
- The court found the English proceedings provided PCG notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend, which PCG declined as a litigation choice.
- The court rejected lack of reciprocity as a bar to recognition under Pennsylvania law.
- The court found no public policy reason to deny enforcement of the foreign judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Foreign money judgments may be recognized and enforced under comity when rendered by a competent court using procedures compatible with fundamental fairness, and when the defendant had notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- A foreign default judgment is not categorically unenforceable; the key questions are jurisdiction, notice, and fairness rather than whether the merits were actually litigated.
- A defendant’s deliberate decision not to defend in the foreign forum, after receiving notice and access to counsel and process, generally defeats claims that the foreign judgment is unfair.
- Reciprocity is not a mandatory condition for enforcement of a foreign-country judgment under the governing Pennsylvania approach in this case.
- Recognition may be denied on public policy grounds only where enforcement would be repugnant to fundamental justice; routine commercial disputes adjudicated in a respected foreign legal system do not meet that standard.

## Conclusion

The court enforced an English default judgment because the English court had an acceptable jurisdictional basis, PCG had notice and a fair chance to defend but chose not to, and neither reciprocity nor public policy justified refusing recognition.


Somportex, Ltd. v. Phila. Chewing Gum Corp., 318 F. Supp. 161 (E.D. Pa. 1970)