California Case Summaries

Devas Multimedia v. Antrix — Foreign Sovereign Cannot Avoid Arbitral Award on Forum Grounds

Reported / Citable

Case
Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.
Court
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Judge
MILLER (Donald J. Trump, 2019); KOH (Joseph R. Biden, 2021); Molloy (appointment info not available)
Date Decided
2026-08-12
Docket No.
22-35103
Status
Reported / Citable
Topics
international arbitration, FSIA, foreign sovereign immunity, personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens

Background

Devas sought to enforce an international arbitral award against Antrix, a corporation owned by India. After the Ninth Circuit initially required conventional minimum contacts, the Supreme Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not impose an additional minimum-contacts requirement beyond the statute’s immunity exceptions and returned the case for remaining issues.

The appeal addressed sovereign immunity, constitutional reasonableness, forum non conveniens, confirmation, and which intervening shareholders could register the judgment.

The Court’s Holding

The Ninth Circuit held that the FSIA arbitration exception supplied subject-matter jurisdiction and that exercising personal jurisdiction was reasonable even assuming Antrix could invoke Fifth Amendment protections. It also held that forum non conveniens does not defeat an action to confirm a Convention award because contracting nations must recognize covered awards and a foreign court cannot attach assets in the United States.

The published opinion left the jurisdictional and forum rulings intact. A companion memorandum affirmed confirmation and registration for the U.S. intervenor, but required further proceedings concerning other shareholders and the effect of later Indian decisions setting aside the award.

Key Takeaways

  • The FSIA arbitration exception can open U.S. courts to award-enforcement suits against foreign state-owned entities.
  • No separate traditional minimum-contacts test is embedded in the FSIA.
  • Forum non conveniens generally cannot substitute a foreign proceeding for U.S. confirmation under the New York Convention.
  • Standing and later foreign set-aside rulings can still limit who may register and collect a judgment.

Why It Matters

California companies negotiating with state-owned counterparties should treat arbitration clauses and asset location as central enforcement tools. The decision strengthens access to U.S. confirmation proceedings while warning award creditors to establish their own standing and track foreign annulment litigation.

Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket

Scroll to Top