Ninth Circuit Upholds Arbitral Award Against Antrix
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has confirmed the enforcement of a substantial $562.5 million arbitral award in favor of Devas Multimedia, against Antrix Corporation, a commercial entity under the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). The ruling was delivered by a panel comprising Circuit Judges Eric D. Miller and Lucy H. Koh, alongside District Judge Donald W. Molloy, with Judge Koh authoring the opinion.
Background of the Dispute
This legal battle traces its origins to a 2005 agreement where Antrix was to construct, launch, and operate two satellites, leasing 70 MHz of the S-band spectrum to Devas. However, as a result of the Indian government’s decision against commercial S-band orbital slots, Antrix terminated the contract in 2011. Subsequently, Devas initiated arbitration proceedings under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), leading to a 2015 tribunal decision that awarded Devas $562.5 million, including interest, for wrongful repudiation.
Judicial Journey in the US Courts
In 2018, Devas sought confirmation of this award from a federal district court in Washington under the New York Convention, which the court affirmed. Antrix appealed, resulting in an initial Ninth Circuit decision in Antrix’s favor due to perceived insufficient U.S. contacts. However, the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned this decision in 2025, clarifying that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not necessitate “minimum contacts” beyond what is outlined in its exceptions.
Key Legal Determinations
Upon remand, the Ninth Circuit asserted that the FSIA’s arbitration exception furnished the district court with subject-matter jurisdiction. It dismissed Antrix’s argument for a U.S. commercial connection requirement, noting, “The arbitration exception contains no comparable language requiring a commercial nexus with the United States, and we will not supply it.” The court further deemed its jurisdiction over Antrix as reasonable and compliant with the Fifth Amendment.
Forum Non Conveniens and Other Considerations
Addressing a novel question for the Ninth Circuit, the judges determined that the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply to enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention. The court emphasized that inconvenience is not a valid refusal ground under the Convention, alongside noting that only a U.S. court can attach domestic assets.
More Read
Despite upholding the arbitral award, the court instructed the district court to consider the implications of Indian courts setting aside the award. It also reversed a prior ruling authorizing three Mauritian shareholders of Devas to register the judgment, citing a lack of standing, but upheld the registration for Devas Multimedia America Inc.
Legal representation for Devas was provided by Baker Botts attorneys Christopher Tutunjian and Aaron Streett. Antrix was represented by legal teams from Crowell & Moring, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle, and Sidley Austin.
