## Facts

- Somportex Ltd., a British corporation, arranged to merchandise “Tarzan Bubble Gum” in Great Britain using gum manufactured by Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp., a Pennsylvania company.
- Related entities participated in arranging supply and licensing of the “Tarzan” name, but the merchandising transaction did not reach completion.
- Somportex sued Philadelphia in the Queen’s Bench Division (England) for breach of contract.
- With court permission, Somportex served notice of the English writ on Philadelphia in Pennsylvania under English long-arm procedures.
- Philadelphia retained counsel and entered an appearance in England labeled “conditional” to contest jurisdiction and service, asserting that no contract existed or, alternatively, that any contract lacked sufficient English connections.
- The English master treated Philadelphia’s appearance as general and concluded that Philadelphia’s jurisdictional objections were waived under English procedure.
- Philadelphia elected not to submit further evidence or defend on jurisdiction or the merits, and the English court entered a default judgment for Somportex (about $94,000 plus costs).
- Somportex sued in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to enforce the English judgment; the district court enforced it on summary judgment and dismissed Philadelphia’s third-party complaints.

## Issues

1. Whether a U.S. federal court should recognize and enforce an English default judgment under principles of international comity.
2. Whether the English court had personal jurisdiction over Philadelphia consistent with due process, given long-arm service and the English treatment of Philadelphia’s appearance as general.
3. Whether differences between English law and Pennsylvania/U.S. law (including waiver of jurisdictional objections and damages rules) made enforcement contrary to Pennsylvania public policy.
4. Whether the default nature of the judgment or alleged shortcomings in the English court’s jurisdictional analysis justified non-recognition.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment enforcing the English default judgment.
- The court held that recognition was governed by comity, not full faith and credit, and the English judgment met the comity requirements.
- The court accepted the English tribunal’s determination that Philadelphia’s actions constituted a submission to jurisdiction under English procedure.
- The court concluded Philadelphia had notice and an opportunity to be heard and that the default resulted from Philadelphia’s choice not to proceed.
- The court rejected public-policy objections based on substantive and procedural differences between English and Pennsylvania law.
- Certiorari was denied.

## Legal Principles

- Foreign-country judgments may be recognized and enforced as a matter of comity when rendered by a competent court with jurisdiction, after proceedings consistent with basic due process, and absent fraud.
- Due process for recognition purposes focuses on notice and a fair opportunity to be heard; a default judgment is not invalid merely because it was entered by default when the defendant deliberately declined to participate.
- A forum may refuse enforcement only when recognition would be fundamentally offensive to the forum’s public policy; differences in legal rules or remedies do not, by themselves, bar enforcement.
- In judgment-recognition cases, U.S. courts generally defer to the foreign court’s interpretation and application of its own procedural rules bearing on jurisdiction and waiver.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit enforced an English default judgment against a Pennsylvania defendant, holding that comity supported recognition because the English court’s jurisdictional basis was acceptable, the defendant received notice and had an opportunity to be heard, and enforcement was not barred by fraud or a fundamental Pennsylvania public-policy conflict.


Somportex Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp., 453 F.2d 435 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1017 (1972)