FOLLOW US

The Republic of India has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a Ninth Circuit ruling that denied enforcement of a $1.3 billion telecom award against the commercial arm of its space agency, Antrix Corp. In a Friday brief, India argued that the lower court wrongly asserted that the government controlled Antrix, leading to a baseless legal ruling.

The dispute stems from a failed satellite lease agreement between Antrix and Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. India emphasized that the contract never involved the United States but warned that the case could set a troubling precedent regarding due process for foreign states in U.S. courts.

India Challenges Lower Court’s Jurisdiction

A Washington federal judge had previously ruled in favor of Devas, allowing it to enforce the $1.3 billion telecom award against Antrix and seize assets in Virginia. However, the Ninth Circuit overturned that decision in 2023, ruling that the lower court lacked jurisdiction since Antrix had not purposefully engaged in business within the United States.

India contended that U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly improperly "pierced the corporate veil" between Antrix and the government, stripping the entity of its due-process protections.

"The theory goes that, by piercing the veil, courts can jettison the Constitution and subject foreign entities to in personam judgments and intrusive discovery without regard to the personal jurisdiction requirements that protect all other defendants in U.S. civil litigation," India stated in its brief.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Focus

India further argued that an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) requires a "substantial" connection between the dispute and the United States—an element lacking in this case. The republic asserted that the Constitution, U.S. legal precedent, and international treaties, including the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, support its position.

Zimbabwe and Legal Scholars Weigh In

India’s position was bolstered by a brief from the Republic of Zimbabwe, which urged the justices to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Zimbabwe argued that the appellate panel correctly applied the New York Convention, which allows signatory nations to enforce arbitral awards within their own domestic limitations.

"Contracting states are thus permitted to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards in a manner consistent with their domestic limitations," Zimbabwe stated.

Additionally, University of Virginia School of Law professor Paul Stephan supported Antrix, emphasizing that FSIA requires courts to establish "minimum contacts" before asserting jurisdiction over foreign entities.

Antrix Defends Ninth Circuit Ruling

Antrix filed a Jan. 22 brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit's decision, arguing that U.S. arbitration law was never intended to apply to "purely foreign commerce." The dispute originated in the early 2000s when Antrix sought a partner to develop a hybrid satellite-terrestrial communication system for India. Devas was established following discussions with Virginia-based Forge Advisors LLC, which was encouraged by Antrix to set up an India-based entity. However, political scrutiny led to the deal’s termination, prompting Devas to initiate arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in 2011.

Legal Representation

• Devas shareholders: Represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and McNaul Ebel Nawrot & Helgren PLLC.
• Devas Multimedia Private Ltd.: Represented by Baker Botts LLP.
• Antrix Corp.: Represented by Sidley Austin LLP and Crowell & Moring LLP.
• India: Represented by White & Case LLP.
• Zimbabwe: Represented by GST LLP.
• Paul Stephan: Represented by Green Lauerman Chartered PLLC.

An attorney for Antrix declined to comment, stating that the briefs "speak for themselves." Counsel for the remaining parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.