Ninth Circuit Holds FSIA Gives U.S. Courts Jurisdiction to Confirm Arbitral Awards Against Foreign Sovereigns Without U.S. Nexus

Summary

On August 12, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. affirmed in part confirmation of a $562.5 million international arbitral award against Antrix Corp. Ltd. (“Antrix”), an Indian state-owned company. In a matter of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the Court joined the D.C. Circuit to rule that forum non conveniens does not apply in an action to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention” or the “Convention”). The Ninth Circuit also held that regardless of whether the claims or parties in the underlying arbitration have a U.S. nexus, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award under the arbitration exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) and had personal jurisdiction over Antrix based on a Fifth Amendment reasonableness assessment. The decision may make it easier for award creditors to pursue confirmation of foreign arbitral awards against sovereigns and state-owned entities under the New York Convention within the Ninth Circuit.

Background

Antrix is wholly owned by the state of India and functions as the commercial arm of the Indian Department of Space and the Indian Space Research Organisation.[1] In 2005, Antrix entered into an agreement with Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. (“Devas”) to build and operate two satellites and lease S-band spectrum capacity to Devas.[2] Antrix terminated the agreement in 2011 after the Indian government made a policy decision not to allocate the relevant S-band capacity for commercial use.[3] Devas commenced arbitration before an ICC tribunal seated in New Delhi and was awarded $562.5 million in damages in 2015.[4] 

Devas petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to confirm the award under the Convention. The district court confirmed the award, and Antrix appealed.[5] In 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that Antrix lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the United States.[6] The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in 2025, holding that the FSIA does not impose a minimum-contacts requirement when an immunity exception applies.[7]

The Ninth Circuit Decision

On remand from the Supreme Court, Antrix raised three arguments, all predicated on the lack of U.S. connections to the dispute and the parties. These arguments included that: (1) the doctrine of forum non conveniens warranted dismissal; (2) the arbitral exception to the FSIA did not apply because the underlying dispute involved “purely foreign commerce”; and (3) the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over Antrix under the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit rejected all three arguments.

Forum Non Conveniens Does Not Apply to Confirmation Proceedings Under the New York Convention

In a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit held that forum non conveniens is unavailable in an action to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention.[8] The doctrine allows courts to dismiss an action where an adequate alternative forum exists in a foreign jurisdiction.

The Court relied principally on Articles III and V of the Convention, which require contracting states to recognize covered awards as binding and to enforce them, except in enumerated instances. Because forum non conveniens is not among those exceptions, the Ninth Circuit held that allowing dismissal on such grounds would add a discretionary defense not contained in the Convention.[9] The Court also recognized that a U.S. federal court may be the only forum that would allow seizure of assets in the United States to satisfy an award.[10] The Ninth Circuit thus aligned itself with the D.C. Circuit in holding that forum non conveniens does not apply in actions to confirm arbitral awards under the New York Convention.[11]

The FSIA Arbitration Exception Does Not Require a U.S. Commercial Nexus

The FSIA generally provides immunity to foreign states and their agencies or instrumentalities, subject to enumerated exceptions.[12] The “arbitration exception” applies to actions brought to confirm arbitral awards where, inter alia, the subject matter is one “capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of the United States,” and the agreement or award is governed by a treaty in force for the United States.[13]

Antrix argued that the arbitration exception did not apply because the underlying transaction involved “purely foreign commerce” and did not concern a subject matter “capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of the United States.”[14] The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument and held that the FSIA’s arbitral exception does not require the commerce underlying the award to have a U.S. nexus.[15] By comparison, the FSIA’s separate commercial-activity exception expressly requires specified connections to the United States.[16] The Court concluded that an award governed by the New York Convention concerns a subject matter capable of settlement by arbitration under U.S. law and gave the district court subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception.[17]

The Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction was Reasonable Under the Fifth Amendment

In its 2025 decision, the Supreme Court held that no traditional minimum contacts analysis was required for claims falling under an FSIA exception.[18] Antrix nonetheless argued that exercising personal jurisdiction would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Assuming that Antrix was a “person” protected by the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth Circuit applied a reasonableness inquiry following the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization.[19] In doing so, the Court held that personal jurisdiction over Antrix was reasonable, finding that (1) the U.S. had a substantial interest in carrying out its New York Convention obligations and in enforcing Congress’s judgment to withdraw foreign sovereign immunity in defined arbitration cases;[20] (2) Antrix would not face any undue burden, since it is a sophisticated entity backed by a government with substantial resources and India is a party to the New York Convention;[21] and (3) Devas had a substantial enforcement interest because only a U.S. court can reach assets located within the United States.[22]

The decision does not end the case. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court to consider whether a subsequent decision by an Indian court annulling the underlying ICC award provides grounds to decline confirmation.[23]

Implications

Together with the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision, the Ninth Circuit’s latest opinion in the Antrix litigation may make it easier for arbitral award creditors to enforce foreign arbitral awards against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities in U.S. courts. Where the award is governed by the New York Convention, the FSIA arbitration exception may provide subject matter and personal jurisdiction even if the underlying dispute has no meaningful connection to the United States. In the Ninth and D.C. Circuits at least, defendants will also not be able to argue for dismissal based on the availability of an adequate alternative forum for enforcement outside the United States.

This decision does not expand the universe of sovereign assets in the United States available for execution to satisfy any arbitral award. The FSIA separately immunizes foreign-state property from attachment and execution unless a statutory exception applies.