A dispute that began with a satellite deal gone wrong in the early 2000s just produced a legal precedent that could shape how billion-dollar arbitration awards get enforced going forward.

The Ninth Circuit ruled Wednesday to enforce a $1.3 billion arbitral award issued against Indian state-owned Antrix Corp. Ltd., setting new precedent along the way: for the first time, the circuit court held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens — the legal principle that a case might be better heard in a different court — simply doesn't apply when a party is trying to enforce an international arbitral award.

Why Antrix's Core Argument Failed

Antrix had argued the district court should have dismissed the case in favor of litigation in India, invoking forum non conveniens. A three-judge panel unanimously rejected that argument, ruling the doctrine doesn't apply to actions confirming foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention — the treaty under which signatory nations, including the U.S., agree to enforce international arbitration agreements and awards.

The panel's reasoning went beyond just the treaty's language. The judges explained that the very structure of an enforcement action under the convention rules out a forum non conveniens defense on its own terms — the doctrine presupposes an adequate alternative forum, but an action to confirm a foreign award specifically seeks to reach a sovereign's commercial assets located in the United States, and only a U.S. court has the power to attach assets located here. A court in another country simply isn't equipped to provide the relief this type of action is seeking in the first place.

Two More Arguments, Two More Losses for Antrix

The forum non conveniens ruling wasn't the only setback for Antrix. The panel also rejected two additional arguments that had remained unresolved after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an earlier Ninth Circuit decision last year that had refused to enforce the award.

First, the panel found that the arbitration exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to this case, rejecting Antrix's position that the dispute needed a direct connection to U.S. commerce for that exception to apply.

Second, the panel wasn't persuaded by Antrix's argument that it lacks personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, a claim Antrix raised in light of the Supreme Court's decision last year in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization.

What Still Needs to Be Decided

Not everything was resolved in Antrix's loss column. In a separate memorandum, the panel sent one significant question back to the district court: what effect, if any, an Indian court's decision to set aside the award should have — a ruling that became final while this very appeal was still pending.

The panel also vacated a lower court order that had granted Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. shareholders' motion to register the district court's judgment confirming the award in the Eastern District of Virginia, finding the shareholders lacked standing to make that request.

How the Case Got Here

This isn't the first time the Ninth Circuit has weighed in on this dispute. The case returned to the circuit court after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned an earlier Ninth Circuit decision that had refused to enforce the award. In that ruling, the justices concluded personal jurisdiction exists under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act whenever an exception to immunity applies and the defendant has been properly served — meaning courts aren't required to conduct the traditional "minimum contacts" jurisdictional test typically used to determine whether a nonresident defendant has sufficient ties to the United States.

Where the Dispute Started

The underlying conflict traces back to the early 2000s, when Antrix was searching for a commercial partner to deliver communications services across India through a hybrid satellite-terrestrial system. According to Devas, the arrangement fell apart after the Antrix-Devas deal came under mounting political scrutiny, eventually prompting Antrix to terminate the agreement altogether.

Devas responded by initiating arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in 2011, ultimately winning an award of $562.5 million in damages plus interest in 2015 — a figure that has since grown substantially with accumulated interest to reach the $1.3 billion now at the center of this enforcement fight.

Who Decided the Case

U.S. Circuit Judges Eric D. Miller and Lucy Koh, along with U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy sitting by designation, made up the three-judge panel.

The Devas shareholders and Devas Multimedia America are represented by Matthew D. McGill, Amy R. Upshaw, Nicholas A. Mecsas-Faxon and Arka Gupta of King & Spalding LLP. Antrix is represented by Amanda Shafer Berman, T. Michael Guiffre and Neil G. Nandi of Crowell & Moring LLP. Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. is represented separately by Aaron M. Streett and Christopher E. Tutunjian of Baker Botts LLP.

What Happens Next

With the Ninth Circuit's enforcement ruling now standing as binding precedent for how forum non conveniens applies to international arbitration awards, the case still isn't fully resolved. The district court must now determine what weight, if any, to give the Indian court's decision setting aside the original award — a question that could ultimately determine whether Devas's shareholders actually see any of the $1.3 billion the courts have now twice confirmed they're owed.