Hunt v. BP Exploration Co.(Libya) Ltd.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Nelson Bunker Hunt (“Hunt”), an American citizen, asks this court to declare that British Petroleum Exploration Company (Libya) Ltd. (“BP”), an English company, is indebted to him and that he owes BP nothing. BP has moved for summary judgment, asserting that Hunt’s requested declaration cannot be granted because of a judgment entered in England by the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, Cause 1975 B No. 4490 on June 30, 1978 (first part) and on March 26, 1979 (second part). Hunt replies that the English judgment is not entitled to recognition.

The court finds that the English judgment is entitled to recognition and that such recognition would bar most if not all of Hunt’s claims in this litigation, but because the English judgment is on appeal the court cannot grant partial or complete summary judgment in favor of BP. The court stays proceedings in this case until appeals of the English judgment have been exhausted.

I. Background of This Litigation

This parallel London/Dallas litigation stems from a relationship between BP and Hunt with respect to an oil field located in Concession No. 65 in Libya. In 1957, Libya granted Hunt Concession No. 65 in the province of Cyrenaica. In June, 1960, Hunt entered into a letter agreement as to Concession No. 65 with BP accompanied by an Operating Agreement, a proposed form of Assignment, and a specification of accounting procedures. The 1960 Agreement provided that Hunt would convey to BP an undivided one-half interest in Concession No. 65, plus a production payment, in return for BP making certain initial payments and being initially responsible for costs of exploration and development on Concession No. 65. BP was entitled to reimbursement of % of Hunt’s V2 of the production payment. Clause 6 of the Letter Agreement provided that:

It is specifically understood and agreed that Hunt shall have no personal liability to repay the sums required in the Operating Agreement and this letter agreement to be advanced by BP for Hunt’s account or paid to Hunt, but BP’s right to recover any such sums which BP is required to pay or advance for Hunt’s account shall be limited to recovery solely out of three-eighths (%) of Hunt’s half of the production, and in the manner specified under Section 9 of the Operating Agreement, if, as and when provided, saved and delivered at the Libyan sea terminal.

As contemplated, Hunt in November, 1960, assigned the half interest and the production payment to BP. The Assignment provided, in part:

*889 . Hunt hereby assigns to BP an undivided one-half (Vi) interest and title in and to the Concession, subject to the rights and obligations contained in the Concession.

BP shall be entitled to take and receive three-eighths (%) of Hunt’s share of the oil production from the Concession delivered f. o. b. Libyan seaboard until BP has received a quantity of crude oil equal in value to one hundred and twenty-five per cent (125%) of all costs and expenses advanced by BP for Hunt’s account on exploration, development or any other work performed in or in connection with the Concession.

BP struck oil in the conceded land, and developed what came to be known as “Sarir field.” The exploration and development phases of the field were completed by the end of 1966, and export of oil began in January 1967. BP then received the first “reimbursement” oil toward repayment of the “farm-in” payments and of the expenses incurred on Hunt’s behalf in the development stage 1960-1966.

In June 1967, the parties by a “Memorandum of Agreement” noted that “[t]he Letter Agreement dated 24th June 1960 and draft Operating Agreement between Nelson Bunker Hunt (“Hunt”) and BP Exploration Company (Libya) Ltd. (“BP”) are agreed to be amended as set out below with effect from 1st July 1967.” It provided for certain reductions in BP’s obligations and, in lieu of the 125% formula, set the total amount of oil that BP was entitled to under the production payment at 50 million barrels limited to 18,750 barrels per day of “reimbursement oil,” or % of Hunt’s share of daily production, whichever was less.

In December, 1971, the Libyan government nationalized BP’s interest in Concession No. 65 and announced its proposed transfer to the Arabian Gulf Exploration Company (AGECO). AGECO is a joint stock company whose company was to be wholly owned by (Libya’s) National Oil Corporation.

On May 24, 1973, Libya informed Hunt’s representative in Benghazi, Libya, that no further oil would be delivered to Hunt’s account. On June 11, 1973, the Libyan government passed a law purporting to nationalize all of Hunt’s rights in Concession No. 65 and to transfer them to AGECO.

On November 20, 1974, BP reached an agreement with the Libyan government concerning the expropriation of BP’s interests and other legal disputes between them. On May 19, 1975, Hunt and Libya entered into a similar settlement agreement. The Hunt-Libya agreement provided, among other things, that “[Libya] acknowledges full and final settlement of all claims it may have as successor in interest to BP Exploration Company (Libya) Limited.”

On May 2, 1975, BP instituted suit in England, relying primarily on Section 1(3) of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act, 1943 (“Act”). BP’s claim under the Act was that its contract with Hunt was frustrated when BP’s interest in the concession was expropriated, and that, because of BP’s contractual performance before expropriation, Hunt obtained a valuable benefit. Hunt declined to accept service of the writ issued on May 2, 1975 through agents and solicitors in the U.K. and attempts to serve him personally during a short visit also provided unsuccessful. On June 19, 1975, the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, granted BP’s request for service by mail.

On July 23, 1975, Hunt sought dismissal of BP’s suit on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction. On November 4, 1975, Mr. Justice Kerr overruled the objection, concluding that the leave to serve out of the jurisdiction was properly given and Hunt’s application to set aside service of notice of the writ and of all subsequent proceedings failed. Hunt filed a Notice of Appeal but did not pursue it further.

After filing of the English action but before service of process, Hunt filed this suit. Hunt sought “a declaration, based upon his contracts with BP that provided for ‘no personal liability’, that he owes no monies to BP, and that neither the Libyan *890 expropriation of BP’s interests nor any other claims by BP abrogated this contractual protection.” Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, at 5-6. BP moved to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative to stay the proceedings. Judge Hill of this Court overruled BP’s motion on March 17, 1976. After further pretrial maneuverings, Hunt filed an amended complaint seeking a declaratory judgment limiting the liability of Hunt to BP and affirmative claims (i) under the Act (paragraphs 24, 25, and 26 of the Amended Complaint), (ii) that BP did not diligently develop the field or produce the field at its maximum efficient rate (paragraphs 28 and 29) “due diligence,” (iii) that BP wrongly refused to seek resolütion of its differences with Libya (paragraph 30), (iv) that BP breached its obligation to provide oil under clause 10 of the Letter Agreement (paragraph 31), and (v) that BP’s mode of settlement with Libya was a breach of clause 22 of the operating agreement (paragraph 32).

Meanwhile in London, trial on the merits began on October 24, 1977 before Mr. Justice Goff of the Queen’s Bench Division. On June 30, 1978, Mr. Justice Goff entered judgment against Hunt, and held that the counterclaim under the Act failed. He held that BP was entitled to recover approximately $35 million from Hunt under the Act, plus approximately 120,000 pounds on a related claim. Judgment (June 30, 1978), at 191 and 226. This was amended on March 26, 1979, to award BP $15,575,823 and £ 8,922,060. Both Hunt and BP appealed but the Court of Appeals in England has not yet decided the appeals.

II. Relation of Recognition to Bar of the Present Litigation

“Res judicata” is often used to denote two things in respect to the effect of a valid final judgment:

(1) that such a judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the same parties or those in privity with them, upon the same claim or demand; and (2) that such a judgment constitutes an estoppel between the same parties or those in privity with them, as to matters that were necessarily litigated or determined although the claim or demand in the subsequent action is different.

IB Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.405[1] at 621 (2d ed. 1974). The first concept is often called res judicata, strictly defined, and the second concept, collateral estoppel. Under res judicata, strictly defined, the judgment applies as a bar, preventing relitigation of all grounds for recovery or defenses available in relation to the same “claims” before the judgment court regardless of whether all grounds for recovery or defenses were judicially determined. Moore, supra, at 622-23; see also Stevenson v. International Paper Co., Mobile, Alabama, 516 F.2d 103, 109 (5th Cir. 1975).

Defining precisely the dimension of a “claim” or a single “cause of action” is difficult. Moore, supra, ¶ 0410[1] at 1154. The Fifth Circuit in Kemp v. Birmingham News Co., 608 F.2d 1049, 1052 (5th Cir. 1979) stated:

Various tests have been advanced to determine whether the substance of two actions is the same for res judicata purposes: Is the same right infringed by the same wrong? Would a different judgment obtained in the second action impair right under the first judgment? Would the same evidence sustain both judgments? . . . This Court has recognized that the principal test for comparing causes of action is whether the primary right and duty or wrong are the same in each action. .

In applying the doctrine of res judicata, it is also important to keep in mind that res judicata is a principle of peace. .

Under its influence an end in part to controversies. Parties and their privies are made to abide definitive and final judgments and litigations are concluded.

“When a defendant is accused of successive but nearly simultaneous acts, or acts which though occurring over a period of time were substantially of the same sort and similarly motivated, fairness to the de *891 fendant as well as the public convenience may require that they be dealt with in the same action.” Restatement of Judgments Second ¶ 61, Comment d (Tent. Draft No. 5, 1978).

In cases involving contracts:

[A] plaintiff is . . . generally required to include in a simple action all breaches that have occurred before the beginning of the suit. If he fails to do so, judgment will bar any later recovery for breaches which had occurred before the action began, if the defendant has not waived the point, and subject to one exception. If the contract is regarded as separable or divisible, then the breaches of one part may be sued on separately from the breaches of the other part. Contracts are rarely treated as separable or divisible for this purpose, and the concept of divisibility is not clearly defined. . [T]he only safe guide is to assume that the obligations under a single contractual transaction are not divisible unless some concrete fact points affirmatively and fairly unequivocably to the unusual intent to have divisibility.

P. James & G. Hazard, Civil Procedure 551-52 (2d ed. 1977). See also Nager Electric Co. v. United States, 368 F.2d 847, 861 (Ct.Cl.1966).

There is a range of issues Hunt may not here litigate. That range of precluded issues spans not only those precluded by collateral estoppel but those precluded by res judicata as well. Many of the legal issues raised here were also raised in the English action. One of the two declarations Hunt prays for is that Hunt had no personal liability to repay any sums expended by BP. By awarding judgment against Hunt, the English court decided the issue of personal liability; in using the costs and expenses incurred by BP as an element of the judgment, that Court decided that Hunt was liable for these sums expended. Judgment, June 30,1978, at 191. And with one exception; Hunt’s assertions of how BP may owe certain sums to Hunt appear to have been raised in the English action. Hunt litigated his affirmative claim under the Act (compare'paragraphs 25 and 26 with Judgment, June 30, 1978, at 220), his “due diligence” allegations 1 (compare paragraphs 28 and 29 with Judgment, June 30, 1978, at 48, 48-123, 58, 83-85, 88, 92, 95, 112, 123, 148-49), his clause 10 allegations 1 (compare paragraph 31 with paragraph 25 of Hunt’s “Re-Amended Points of Defense”), and his clause 22 allegation (compare paragraph 32 with paragraph 26 of Hunt’s “Re-Amended Points of Defence”). 2

Thus even under the narrow reach of collateral estoppel, many issues are barred from relitigation here if the British judgment is recognized. The lines of the zone of preclusion by prior litigation, however, cannot now be precisely drawn. Their location has not been sufficiently explored. And because for unrelated reasons it is necessary to stay proceedings until appeals have been exhausted, it is unnecessary to now define the extent of preclusion mandated by collateral estoppel and res judicata.

In deciding to stay these proceedings, we are perforce deciding that the English judgment has a preclusive effect, albeit of an unmeasured reach. If the English judgment were not entitled to recognition, then Hunt would be free to proceed to trial on the merits here without preclusion of any issue. In staying the proceedings, society’s interest in preventing relitigation, stability in legal relationships, and an end to litigation can be furthered without infringing Hunt’s right to litigate any matters not precluded by the English litigation. Cf. Peterson, Foreign County Judgments and *892 the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws, 72 Colum.L.Rev. 220, 240 (1972). The court now turns to the question of why on the one hand the English judgment is entitled to recognition — and hence that Hunt cannot proceed — and why on the other hand, there is a present necessity for a stay. That is, the court cannot now grant BP’s motion for summary judgment, either in part or in full. 3

III. The Elements of a Prima Facie Case for Recognition

A. Choice of Law.

In this diversity action, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), requires that a federal district court apply the law of the forum state. In Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941), the Supreme Court held that Erie required that the conflict of laws rules to be applied in a federal court must conform to those that would be applied in the courts of the forum state. Id., at 496, 61 S.Ct. at 1021. Courts, both federal and state, in the absence of federal preemptive actions, have held that state law governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign-country judgments. R. von Mehren, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the United States, 17 Va. J. Int’l L. 401, 407 (1977). See also Somportex Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp., 318 F.Supp. 161 (D.C.), 453 F.2d 435, 440 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1017, 92 S.Ct. 1294, 31 L.Ed.2d 479 (1972); Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Hall, 367 F.Supp. 1009, 1011-12 (E.D.Ark.1973).

By these principles this case should be decided under the law of Texas, but Texas law is uncertain as to the recognition of foreign country judgments. See, e. g., Carl, Recognition of Texas Judgments in Courts of Foreign Nations and Vice Versa, 13 Hous.L.Rev. 680, 681-86 (1976). This uncertainty gives pause, and coupled with the realization that recognition of foreign judgments is an element of United States foreign policy, the law of Texas is not the sole referent. 4 Cf. Her Majesty v. Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161, 1163 (9th Cir. 1979); R. von Mehren, supra, at 407-08.

B. The Case Law of Recognition.

Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95 (1895), a pre-Erie case, is the leading American decision on the recognition and enforcement of foreign country judgments. R. von Mehren, supra, at 402; Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Hall, supra, at 1012. The Supreme Court held that:

[WJhere there has been opportunity for a full and fair trial abroad before a court of competent jurisdiction, conducting the trial upon regular proceedings, after due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant, and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice between the citi *893 zens of its own country and those of other countries, and there is nothing to show either prejudice in the court, or in the system of laws under which it is sitting, or fraud in the procuring of the judgment, or any other special reason why the comity of this nation should not allow it full effect, the merits of the case should not, in an action brought in this country upon the judgment, be tried afresh, as oh new trial or an appeal, upon the mere assertion of the party that the judgment was erroneous in law or in fact.

Id. at 202-203. Despite this deferential language, the Supreme Court rejected enforcement of the French judgment on the ground that there was lack of “reciprocity” —because a French court which rendered the verdict would not give conclusive effect to that of an American court, the American court should not do so for a French judgment. Id. at 228.

Phillips v. Lyons, 1 Tex. 392 (1847), was the first Texas case to deal with recognition of foreign judgments. Carl, supra, at 681. Unfortunately, it is also one of the few to do so. Suit was brought in the Republic of Texas on the judgment of a Louisiana court. Justice Lipscomb noted that judgments of foreign countries, in the absence of legislative enactments, are held in most of the states “to be only prima facie evidence and will admit of almost every defense that could have been set up to the original action.” Id. at 396. The Texas court was “inclined to yield to the authority of the generality of American decision” and granted the foreign judgment only a' prima facie, not conclusive, effect. Id. at 397. Later the same year, Justice Lipscomb granted conclusive effect to an Alabama judgment. Wellborn v. Carr, 1 Tex. 463 (1847). Limiting Phillips to in personam judgments, id. at 468, he reasoned that foreign in rem judgments are conclusive, except where “the foreign court pronouncing the judgment or decree had no jurisdiction, or that it was fraudulently obtained.” Id. at 468-69.

The distinction between in personam and in rem jurisdiction is more of a label than a test. The reality is that there is an element of artifice in using this conceptualization to grant or deny conclusive effect to foreign judgments. “[Vjirtually every kind of legal relationship is susceptible of either conceptualization.” James & Hazard, supra, at 637-38. Moreover, Phillips was decided nearly a half-century before Hilton v. Guyot and before the shift from prima facie to conclusive effect for foreign judgments which took place from the middle of the 19th century onwards. See Peterson, supra, at 229; R. von Mehren & Patterson, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign-Country Judgments in the United States, 6 L. & Pol’y in Int’l Bus. 37, 44 (1974). In Phillips, the court was “inclined to yield to the authority of the generality of American decisions” and so granted only a prima facie effect; id. at 397; but its case support has now shifted and were it to follow the majority of the decisions today, conclusive effect would be granted. Indeed, the federal district court in Companía Mexicana Radiofusora Fronteriza v. Spann, 41 F.Supp. 907 (N.D.Tex.1941), aff’d, 131 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1942) purporting to apply Texas law, gave conclusive effect to a Mexican judgment.

Despite Phillips’ direct confrontation of the recognition question, in light of Hilton v. Guyot, the case law shift to conclusive effect, and its limitation by Wellborn, it is of little precedential value. See Carl, supra, at 682-83. The closest thing to a modern Texas formulation of recognition 5 appears as dicta in Banco Minero v. Ross, 138 S.W. 224 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1911), aff’d 172 S.W. 711 (1915). The Texas Supreme Court paraphrased the Hilton v. Guyot standard, stating:

There is no difficulty, we think, in determining the general principles of law which govern the standing of a judgment of a foreign country in our courts. Where there is a competent court, jurisdiction of the parties and the cause, an opportunity for a full and fair trial, regu *894 lar proceedings according to a system of civilized jurisprudence, likely to secure an impartial administration of notice between the citizens of its own country and those of other countries, with nothing to show either prejudice in the court or in the system of laws, or fraud in the procurement of the judgment, and there is no special reason why the country of the United States should not allow it effect, the merits of the case, in an action in this country, are not subject to retrial on account of errors of law or fact in the rendition of the judgment. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95.

In Banco Minero, the Hilton v. Guyot principles were applied as to one defendant, denying recognition on the ground that he had not received an “opportunity for a full and fair trial.” Id. at 714.

Its requirement of reciprocity aside, Hilton v. Guyot has a substantial following by courts in this country with respect to the recognition and enforcement of foreign-country judgments. R. von Mehren & Patterson, supra, at 45. See also Restatement, Second, Conflict of Laws § 98, Comment c. Its application is, however, unlike the relatively ministerial task of applying the constitutional requirements of full faith and credit in recognition of sister state judgments. Applying the Hilton v. Guyot principles of comity instead of a constitutional requirement in order to determine whether a foreign country judgment should be recognized presents difficult social and public policy judgments:

Comity is a recognition which one nation extends within its own territory as the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another. It is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience, and expediency. Although more than mere courtesy and accommodation, comity does not achieve the force of an imperative or obligation. Rather, it is a nation’s expression of understanding which demonstrates due regard both to international duty and convenience and the rights of persons protected by its own laws. Comity should be withheld only when its acceptance would be contrary or prejudicial to the interest of the nation called upon to give it effect.

Somportex Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp., supra, at 440.

Where, as here, the rendering forum’s system of jurisprudence has been a model for other countries in the free world, and whose judges are of unquestioned integrity independent of the political winds of the moment, the judgment rendered is entitled to a more ministerial, less technocratic, recognition decisional process. 6 The basic elements needed to establish a prima facie case under a Hilton v. Guyot standard that conclusive effect should be given to a foreign country judgment — that the rendering court had jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, that there was timely notice and an opportunity to present a defense, that no fraud was involved, that the proceedings were according to a civilized jurisprudence — are the same for both favored and nonfavored systems. Cf. R. von Mehren, supra, at 403; Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Hall, supra, at 1014. 7 But the elements *895 of the prima facie case are more likely to be met and it is less likely that such prima facie cases would be rebutted for judgments from favored systems.

C. Application of the Prima Facie Case.

In this case, Hunt cannot seriously assert that there was not timely notice and opportunity to defend, that fraud was involved or that the proceedings were not rendered according to a civilized jurisprudence. The only elements of the prima facie case seriously challenged by Hunt are as to the rendering court’s jurisdiction over him and over the subject matter.

Hunt asserts, correctly, that if the English court had no personal jurisdiction over him, the judgment should not be recognized. The record reflects, however, that the English court did have jurisdiction over Hunt, certainly as measured by British law. But as the court in Cherun v. Frishman, 236 F.Supp. 292, 296 (D.D.C.1964) noted:

American writers agree that our own courts “require for recognition of the legal effect of foreign judicial proceedings that the foreign courts have jurisdiction, not as measured by the standards abroad but as measured by their own conception of what falls within the scope of permissible exercise of judicial power.” Stumberg, Conflicts of Law 66-67 (3d ed.); Reese, The Status in This Country of Judgments Rendered Abroad, 50 Colum. L.Rev. 783, 789; 3 Freeman on Judgments, ¶ 1484. . . . [T]his Court feels that in the interest of affording United States citizens a reasonable degree of certainty as to when our own courts will, under principles of comity, enforce a judgment rendered against such citizens in foreign countries, the issue of whether the foreign country had jurisdiction over the United States national should be determined by our own standards of judicial power as promulgated by the Supreme Court under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

See also R. von Mehren & Patterson, supra, at 48-49. We turn now to the jurisdiction of the EnglisTi court over Hunt measured by our standards of judicial power under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the subsidiary question of waiver.

Hunt appeared in the English action and litigated the merits after losing his jurisdictional challenge. Hunt even litigated his counterclaims. But trying the merits of the British suit after losing the jurisdictional argument is not a consent to the jurisdiction of the English court and a waiver of his due process rights to an appropriate forum. This is true despite the equitable appeal of Lord Denning’s argument on behalf of waiver of jurisdictional objections upon contest on the merits that the defendant “cannot be allowed, at one and the same time, to say that he will accept the decision on the merits if it is favorable to him and will not submit to it if it is unfavorable.” In re Dulles’ Settlement, [1952] Ch. 842, 850, quoted in, A. von Mehren & Trautman, Recognition of Foreign Adjudications: A Survey and A Suggested Approach, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 1601,1669 (1968). This court is part of a jurisprudential system which observes the limitations of the exercise of power by a court: in federal court, it is well established that a party who loses a timely challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court and proceeds to litigate on the merits, can attack that judgment on appeal both-on-the .merits and on jurisdictional grounds. 2A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 12.12'at'2322 (2d ed. 1979); Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1351 at 568 (1969). See also Tex.R.Civ.P. 120a(3) (Vernon). Litigating on the merits after loss on a jurisdictional challenge is thus not considered to be consent to jurisdiction.

The litigation of counterclaims by Hunt in the English action does not constitute a waiver of jurisdictional objections either, at least in the absence of proof or allegation that any of them were permissive counterclaims. Older cases have held that *896 by counterclaiming, a defendant “actively presses his claim thereby invokes the court’s jurisdiction in the case so that he cannot therefore question the authority - of the court to pass upon all questions raised between himself and his adversary.” Kincade v. Jeffery-Dewitt Insulator Corp., 242 F.2d 328, 332 (5th Cir. 1957). See also Merchants Heat and Light Co. v. J. B. Clow & Sons, 204 U.S. 286, 27 S.Ct. 285, 51 L.Ed. 488 (1907). However, this rule has been found by a number of modern courts to be unduly harsh. While waiver may be a reasonable result when the counterclaim raised is permissive, such waiver does not seem appropriate when a defendant is obliged to counterclaim. See Wright & Miller, supra, at § 1397; Dragor Shipping Corp. v. Union Tank Co., 378 F.2d 241 (9th Cir. 1967).

Finding that Hunt cannot be said to have consented to jurisdiction on the record before it, the court turns to a minimum contacts analysis in order to determine if the English court’s exercise of jurisdiction comports with our own notions expressed in due process terms. As the Supreme Court recently noted:

In Shaffer v. Heitner [433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683], we held that “all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny.” 433 U.S., at 212, 97 S.Ct., at 2584. That is, a State may exercise jurisdiction over an absent defendant only if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). In determining whether a particular exercise of state-court jurisdiction is consistent with due process, the inquiry must focus on “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S., at 204, 97 S.Ct., at 2580.

Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 327, 100 S.Ct. 571, 577 (1980).

Hunt’s contacts with England are of such an extent and of such nature that the maintenance of this suit does not offend fair play and substantial justice. Moreover, it is not unfair or unreasonable to require Hunt to defend the suit in England. See Product Promotions, Inc. v. Cousteau, 495 F.2d 483, 497-98 (5th Cir. 1974); 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 4.25[5] at 4-262.

Hunt has engaged in much purposeful activity in England directly related to Hunt and BP’s cooperative venture in Libya. Indeed, the contract which brought BP and Hunt into a working relationship on the concession whose expropriation is at the root of this litigation was executed in England. Earlier orders have found that there were more contacts with England than with Texas. On November 4, 1975, in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Branch Division, Commercial Court, Mr. Justice Kerr noted in his opinion that “as between England and Texas the former was clearly intended to be the centre of gravity of the contractual arrangements and the primary place of business.” Id. at 18. And in the Northern District of Texas, Judge Hill recognized that “London appears to have been more the focus of the parties’ activities than Texas.” Order Overruling Motion to Dismiss, March 17, 1976, at 4.

Hunt has personally traveled to England to participate in meetings with BP. Hunt states in his September 4, 1975, affidavit that:

I have in the past and do presently visit England from time to time for various reasons. My trips there are not regular in nature, but are generally related to some specific event.

On a number of occasions, since 1960, I have visited with officials of or representing BP Exploration Company (Libya) Limited or its parent, the British Petroleum Corporation Limited, both in London and in Dallas.

Hunt attached, among others, an affidavit of Jim Osborne (Hunt’s Manager of Libyan Operations and Representative to BP) in support of the “Memorandum of Plaintiff Nelson Bunker Hunt in Opposition to De *897 fendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings.” Osborne’s affidavit attached as exhibits the minutes of “two fairly typical quarterly meetings.” Exhibit A clearly indicates that there were representatives of both BP and Hunt present at the “BP/Bunker Hunt Quarterly Meeting” held in London on January 18, 1968. Discussions were detailed, dealing with such issues as the handling facilities at Tobruk, the results of a hydrogeological survey in Concession 65, and reservoir pressure changes in the Sarir field. Also attached were the minutes of the quarterly meeting held in London on October 19, 1967, indicating similarly detailed discussions. Hunt himself attended this October 19 meeting.

Second, while Hunt in his name might not have maintained an office in England, 8 he had agents resident in England to represent his interest. The fourth interrogatory in the defendants’ first set of interrogatories in Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corp., 75 Civ. 1160 EW (S.D.N.Y.) asked:

4. Describe the organizational structure for all of your past or present business activities pertaining to the exploration or production of crude oil in Libya or marketing of such crude oil, including, but not limited to, the identity of each division, department, section or similar unit, and describe for each such unit its functions and responsibilities and identify the person in charge thereof.

In his answer, dated July 16, 1975, Hunt stated in pertinent part:

Up until the nationalization in June 1973, Sarir fields operation headquarters were located at N.B. Hunt, Box 20, Benghazi, Libya. .

A London office at 192 Sloane Street, London, England, was responsible for liaison with BP, the marketing of crude oil and the supervision of the Libyan office

and operations. The following individuals, for the time periods indicated, were in charge of that office:

Additional Information