Devas v. Antrix: Ninth Circuit Rejects Forum Non Conveniens and Applies Fuld v. PLO Reasonableness Factors in $1.3B Arbitral Award Enforcement

On August 12, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the enforcement of a $1.3 billion arbitral award against Antrix Corporation (“Antrix”), the state-owned commercial arm of India’s space agency.  The Ninth Circuit’s decision makes it significantly easier to enforce arbitral awards in the United States by concluding that (i) an award debtor need not have minimum contacts with the United States, so long as the exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable; and (ii) forum non conveniens is not a defense in an action to enforce an arbitral award. 

Key Takeaways

• The Ninth Circuit applied the reasonableness factors weighed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization to find the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Antrix reasonable and constitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
• Forum non conveniens is not available as a defense to an award enforcement action in the Ninth Circuit. This holding aligns the Ninth Circuit with the DC Circuit and deepens a circuit split, as the Second Circuit has previously held that forum non conveniens can apply to actions to enforce an arbitral award.

Background

As previously reported, Antrix and Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. (“Devas”), which was an Indian satellite communications company, entered into an agreement under which Antrix would provide satellites and S-band spectrum technology to Devas. In 2011, Antrix terminated the agreement, citing a policy decision by the Indian government. That termination led Devas to commence ICC arbitration seated in Delhi (amongst other actions). The tribunal awarded Devas $562.5 million plus interest in September 2015. 

In 2018, Devas petitioned to confirm the award in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The district court held that it had personal jurisdiction over Antrix under the arbitration exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that, as a statutory matter, the FSIA required a minimum contacts analysis. The Ninth Circuit went on to find that Antrix lacked sufficient contacts with the United States, and so the district court had erred in exercising personal jurisdiction over Antrix. 

In 2025, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, finding that the FSIA does not require minimum contacts with the United States. The Supreme Court remanded for the Ninth Circuit to address the alternative arguments Antrix had raised, which included that (i) minimum contacts are required by the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and (ii) the case should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision

In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Koh, the three-judge panel ruled that personal jurisdiction over Antrix was constitutional.  The Court also held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply in actions to enforce an arbitral award under the New York Convention. 

Reasonableness of Personal Jurisdiction under Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization

Before the Court, Antrix argued that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it would be unconstitutional because it is an independent, state-owned corporation and thus a legal “person” with due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. 

In considering this argument, the Ninth Circuit looked to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 606 U.S. 1 (2025), in which the Supreme Court ruled that the traditional minimum contacts test for personal jurisdiction is not required to establish personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit thus relied only on the three traditional “reasonableness” factors: (i) the interests of the forum state, (ii) the burden on the defendant, and (iii) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief. 

Applying these factors, the Ninth Circuit found that the United States, as the forum, held a substantial interest in fulfilling its treaty obligation to enforce arbitral awards under the New York Convention. It also determined that the burden on Antrix—a sophisticated party with substantial resources through its parent, the government of India—was reasonable and did not impose any undue hardship. Lastly, the Court found that Devas had a substantial interest in obtaining relief, because no forum outside of the United States could attach Antrix’s assets located in the United States. Notably, in conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Ninth Circuit did not consider any contact that Antrix did or did not have with the forum.

Finding the “reasonableness” factors satisfied, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Antrix was reasonable and therefore comported with the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. It did not, however, reach the question of whether Antrix is in fact a “person” entitled to such due process protections.

Forum Non Conveniens

Next, the Court rejected Antrix’s argument that the doctrine of forum non conveniens required dismissal of the enforcement action in favor of litigation in India. The Ninth Circuit concluded that forum non conveniens does not apply to an action to confirm an arbitral award under the New York Convention, which requires the recognition and enforcement of an eligible award. Further, because only a U.S. court can attach a foreign sovereign’s assets that are located within the United States, there is no adequate alternative forum for an action to enforce an arbitral award.  

Notably, this ruling deepens a pre-existing circuit split. The Ninth Circuit is now aligned with the DC Circuit, which similarly held in NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, 112 F.4th 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2024), that forum non conveniens does not apply in actions to enforce foreign arbitral awards. But this conflicts with the law in the Second Circuit, which held in In re Arbitration between Monegasque de Reassurances SAM v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukraine, 311 F.3d 488 (2d Cir. 2002), that the dismissal of an action to enforce a foreign arbitral award could be proper under forum non conveniens, based on a weighing of public and private interest factors. 

Looking Ahead

This case is likely to involve further litigation of significant issues.  First, the Ninth Circuit remanded the action to the district court for further proceedings, to consider whether the award should be enforced in light of proceedings at the seat of the arbitration, India. In 2021, Devas was liquidated by the National Company Law Tribunal in India, and the Delhi High Court set aside the arbitral award on the ground that it was procured by fraud, a decision that was later upheld by the Supreme Court of India. Given the complexities of enforcing an award that has been set aside at the seat, it appears that substantial litigation may lie ahead before Devas is able to successfully enforce the award. 

Second, the Supreme Court recently declined to resolve the circuit split on forum non conveniens when it denied certiorari in NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain.  The Ninth Circuit’s decision here deepens the circuit split, which may encourage the Supreme Court to consider the question when it is next asked to do so. 

To receive the latest insights on US legal developments, subscribe to the Freshfields A Fresh Take Blog.