“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.
