Enforcing Arbitral Awards in U.S. Courts: Minimum Contacts, Reasonableness, and Forum Non Conveniens
International arbitration is only as valuable as the ability to enforce the award.
That is a simple point, but it is easy to lose sight of it. Parties may spend years arbitrating a complex cross-border dispute, obtain an award, and still face another round of litigation over whether, where, and how that award can be reduced to judgment. In that second phase, the losing party often has strong incentives to resist enforcement anywhere assets may be found.
A Ninth Circuit decision from last week (Devas Multimedia Private Ltd v Antrix Corp Ltd - United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 20-36024, August 12, 2026) is an important reminder that confirmation of an international arbitral award is not ordinary civil litigation. It sits at the intersection of the New York Convention, the Federal Arbitration Act, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and federal due process principles.
Two practical lessons stand out.
First, an award creditor seeking to enforce an arbitral award against a foreign sovereign or sovereign-owned entity does not necessarily have to show that the award debtor has traditional “minimum contacts” with the United States. The question, at least after recent Supreme Court guidance, is more flexible. Where the FSIA provides jurisdiction and the exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable, enforcement may proceed.
Second, forum non conveniens is not a defense to an action to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention. A court may not decline recognition and enforcement simply because another country might be a more convenient place to litigate. The Convention provides specific defenses to enforcement. General inconvenience is not one of them.
The Award and the Enforcement Fight
The dispute arose from a satellite and spectrum-leasing agreement between Devas Multimedia, an Indian company, and Antrix Corporation, a company wholly owned by India. Antrix served as the commercial arm of Indian space agencies. After the agreement was terminated, Devas commenced an ICC arbitration. The tribunal found that Antrix had wrongfully repudiated the agreement and awarded Devas $562.5 million.
Devas then sought to confirm the award in federal court in the Western District of Washington under the New York Convention. The district court confirmed the award. Antrix challenged jurisdiction and argued, among other things, that it lacked sufficient contacts with the United States and that the case should be dismissed in favor of litigation in India.
The case took an unusual path. In an earlier decision, the Ninth Circuit applied then-controlling circuit precedent and held that the FSIA required a traditional minimum-contacts analysis. Because Antrix lacked sufficient contacts with the United States, the Ninth Circuit reversed.
The Supreme Court later reversed that decision. It held that the FSIA does not require a plaintiff to establish minimum contacts beyond those already required by the FSIA’s enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity. The case returned to the Ninth Circuit to address Antrix’s remaining arguments.
On remand, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court on subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens.
The FSIA Opened the Courthouse Door
Because Antrix was wholly owned by India, it qualified as a foreign state under the FSIA. That meant the court could exercise jurisdiction only if an FSIA exception applied.
The relevant exception was the FSIA’s arbitration exception. That exception withdraws immunity in actions to confirm an arbitral award made pursuant to an arbitration agreement with a foreign state, where the award is or may be governed by a treaty calling for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.
That was enough.
The award was governed by the New York Convention. Both the United States and India are Convention signatories. The Ninth Circuit rejected Antrix’s argument that the arbitration exception required an additional commercial nexus to the United States. The statutory text did not impose that requirement, and the court declined to add one.
That conclusion is important for enforcement practice. The New York Convention is designed to permit award creditors to seek recognition and enforcement in contracting states where enforcement may be useful, often because assets are located there. Requiring an additional commercial nexus between the underlying dispute and the United States would narrow the enforcement mechanism in a way the statute does not require.
Minimum Contacts Were Not Required
The personal-jurisdiction issue is the part of the decision likely to draw the most attention.
The FSIA provides that personal jurisdiction over a foreign state exists where an exception to immunity applies and proper service has been made. Antrix argued that even if the FSIA was satisfied, the Fifth Amendment still required a minimum-contacts analysis. It claimed that the district court could not exercise personal jurisdiction because Antrix lacked sufficient contacts with the United States.
The Ninth Circuit rejected that position.
The court assumed, without deciding, that Antrix was a “person” protected by the Fifth Amendment and that some reasonableness inquiry was required. Even with those assumptions, the court held that personal jurisdiction was reasonable.
That analysis was informed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. In Fuld, the Supreme Court declined to import the Fourteenth Amendment minimum-contacts test into the Fifth Amendment context. The Court explained that Fifth Amendment due process allows a more flexible inquiry because the federal government has broader sovereign authority than any individual state.
The Ninth Circuit applied that broader framework to arbitral award enforcement.
It focused on three factors: the United States’ interest as the forum sovereign, the burden on the defendant, and the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief.
The United States had a substantial interest because the case involved enforcement of treaty obligations under the New York Convention and the FSIA’s carefully drawn exceptions to sovereign immunity. That was not a random assertion of power over a foreign entity. It reflected congressional and executive judgment about when foreign sovereign immunity should give way.
The burden on Antrix was also reasonable. Antrix was a sophisticated entity, wholly owned by India, and it did not show that litigating in the United States imposed undue hardship.
Finally, Devas had a substantial interest in obtaining relief in the United States because only a U.S. court could reach assets located in the United States. A foreign court could not attach those assets. Nor was Antrix unfairly surprised. India is a signatory to the New York Convention, and the arbitration agreement contemplated that an award could be entered in a court of competent jurisdiction.
The result was straightforward: no traditional minimum-contacts showing was required, and the exercise of personal jurisdiction was reasonable.
Why That Matters for Award Creditors
For award creditors, the decision matters because it reinforces the practical structure of international award enforcement.
A prevailing party may need to pursue enforcement where assets are located. That is not unusual; it is the point. If an award debtor has commercial property in the United States, the award creditor may need a U.S. judgment to reach it. The losing party should not be able to defeat enforcement merely by arguing that the underlying transaction, arbitration, or business relationship lacked traditional minimum contacts with the United States.
That does not mean U.S. courts have unlimited authority. The FSIA still controls jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities. The New York Convention still governs recognition and enforcement. Due process may still require reasonableness. But the decision confirms that the jurisdictional inquiry in this context is not the same as the ordinary minimum-contacts analysis used in state-court personal-jurisdiction cases.
That distinction is critical.
Forum Non Conveniens Does Not Fit Convention Enforcement
The second major holding may be even more practical: forum non conveniens does not apply to an action to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention.
Forum non conveniens is a discretionary doctrine that allows courts, in appropriate cases, to dismiss in favor of litigation in a more convenient foreign forum. It can be important in ordinary transnational litigation. But the Ninth Circuit held that it has no place in Convention award-confirmation proceedings.
The reason is grounded in the treaty itself.
The New York Convention says that contracting states shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them. It also lists the grounds on which recognition and enforcement may be refused. Those defenses are exclusive. Forum inconvenience is not on the list.
Allowing a court to decline enforcement because another forum might be more convenient would add a defense that the Convention does not provide. It would also undermine the Convention’s goal of uniform enforcement standards across contracting states.
The court also rejected the argument that forum non conveniens could be treated merely as a procedural rule. The Convention allows contracting states to enforce awards in accordance with local procedural rules, but that language concerns how enforcement occurs. It does not allow a court to refuse enforcement altogether on a ground not found in the Convention.
That distinction matters. Procedure may govern the mechanics. It does not create new defenses.
No Adequate Alternative Forum
The Ninth Circuit also explained that forum non conveniens would fail even on its own terms.
The doctrine assumes that there is an adequate alternative forum. But in an action to enforce an award against assets in the United States, a foreign court cannot provide the same relief. A court in India cannot attach assets located in the United States. Only a U.S. court can do that.
That point makes forum non conveniens especially ill-suited to award enforcement. The award creditor is not merely looking for a convenient location to relitigate the merits. The award creditor is seeking to convert an award into a judgment that can be enforced against assets in a particular jurisdiction.
If the assets are in the United States, a U.S. court is not an inconvenient detour. It is the forum capable of providing the relief sought.
The Broader Takeaway
The decision reinforces a basic distinction between litigating a dispute and enforcing an award.
Before arbitration, parties may fight over forum, jurisdiction, convenience, applicable law, and the best place to adjudicate the merits. After arbitration, the posture changes. The merits have been decided. The award creditor is seeking recognition and enforcement. The New York Convention is designed to make that process predictable and internationally effective.
That does not mean award debtors have no defenses. The Convention provides defenses. The FSIA provides protections for foreign sovereigns. Courts must still respect statutory limits, treaty requirements, service rules, sovereign immunity, and due process.
But award enforcement is not supposed to become a second full-scale merits proceeding or a discretionary forum-selection contest.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision makes two important points clear. A foreign sovereign-owned award debtor need not have traditional minimum contacts with the United States if the FSIA supplies jurisdiction and the exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable. And forum non conveniens is not a defense to confirmation under the New York Convention.
For businesses, sovereign entities, and counsel involved in international arbitration, the message is practical. Arbitration clauses and awards travel across borders. So do enforcement risks. A party that agrees to international arbitration should understand that an award may be enforced wherever the Convention permits enforcement and assets may be found.
That is not an accident of the system. It is part of the system.
Nationwide ADR® provides arbitration, mediation, and other dispute-resolution services designed to bring structure, judgment, and clarity to demanding disputes. Unlocking Solutions for Demanding Cases®.