Case Explained: DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. V. ANTRIX CORP. LTD.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-12 Docket: 2:18-cv-01360- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment confirming an international arbitral award against Antrix Corp. Ltd., a wholly owned corporation of India, while reversing and vacating in part regarding the standing of shareholder intervenors to register the judgment and remanding for the district court to address the effect of a subsequent Indian court set-aside of the award. The panel held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) arbitration exception supplies subject matter jurisdiction because the action seeks to confirm an award governed by the New York Convention, a treaty in force for the United States, and the statute does not require a commercial nexus between the underlying dispute and the United States. Regarding personal jurisdiction, the court ruled that even assuming Antrix is a “person” entitled to Fifth Amendment Due Process protections, exercising jurisdiction was reasonable under the standard set forth in *Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization*, weighing the United States’ interest in enforcing treaty obligations, the manageable burden on the sophisticated foreign state defendant, and the plaintiff’s lack of an alternative forum capable of attaching Antrix’s U.S. assets. The court further held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply to actions confirming awards under the New York Convention because the Convention mandates recognition and enforcement absent specific enumerated defenses, and no adequate alternative forum exists since only U.S. courts can attach a foreign sovereign’s commercial assets located within the United States. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed as to jurisdictional issues, while the portion regarding shareholder intervenors’ standing and the impact of the Indian set-aside is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.