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.
