Opinion ID: 1667169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Corporate mergers convenience of the parties

Text: ¶ 53. HICO and Hood also argue that since Titan  which had its corporate headquarters in Texas  is now owned by St. Paul, whose corporate headquarters is in Minnesota, the factors that may have made Texas a plausible forum as between Plaintiffs and Titan no longer existed, and Texas has no identifiable interest in the controversy. In their brief, HICO/Hood state: Certainly at no time in 1994 could those involved in the negotiation of the representative agreement have contemplated that Hood or HICO would be forced to submit to jurisdiction of Texas courts in litigation against St. Paul, a twice-removed acquirer of Titan. ¶ 54. We find this argument to be disingenuous. For purposes of liability, HICO/Hood had no trouble pursuing Titan (whose offices are still in Texas) and St. Paul, claiming that St. Paul stands in the shoes of Titan. However, when it comes to the forum selection clause, St. Paul is suddenly relegated to a twice-removed acquirer of Titan. If HICO/Hood wish to pursue litigation against St. Paul based upon its alleged responsibility under the Representative Agreement, they are estopped from denying St. Paul the right to claim the benefit of the forum selection clause. ¶ 55. As previously stated, the law will not permit a party, when suing or being sued on a written contract, to admit signing the contract, but then to deny that the contract expresses the agreement made. Busching, 542 So.2d at 865. ¶ 56. HICO/Hood claim that the clause fails to enhance contract predictability, and that St. Paul really did not care whether the matter was litigated in Texas or not. They submit that Mississippi's interest in the litigation is great because the cause of action arose in Mississippi; Hood is a Mississippi citizen; HICO is a Mississippi corporation; most of the witnesses reside in Mississippi; St. Paul has a substantial business presence in Mississippi; and the subject of the litigation  public entity insurance  pertains only to Mississippi governmental entities. ¶ 57. To these claims, St. Paul responds that (1) its public entity business continues to be headquartered in Bexar County, Texas; (2) negotiations took place in Bexar County; (3) at trial (as opposed to pretrial representations to the trial court), HICO called only one witness from Mississippi who was not a HICO employee or expert, called four such witnesses from Texas, and called seven from other states; and (4) of the 103 trial exhibits, 43 originated in Texas, while only 23 exhibits originated in Mississippi. ¶ 58. The time for consideration of these factors was prior to the execution of the contract. We will not attempt to divine or factor in what could have been or what should have been. The contract states: For any litigation arising out or [sic] relating to this Agreement, the parties consent to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts located in Bexar County, Texas, and hereby stipulate to the convenience of those forums. (Emphasis added). The causes of action listed in the complaint, the amended complaint, and cross  claim arise out of  or are related to-the Representative Agreement, and we are presented with no argument or reason which persuades us that the forum selection clause contained therein should not be fully enforced.