How a Landmark 9th Circuit Ruling on the New York Convention Rewrites the Rules for Enforcing Foreign Arbitration Awards in the US

People often assume that winning an international arbitration award is the finish line. In reality, it is just the starting gun for a grueling, multi-jurisdictional scavenger hunt to actually collect the money. For years, foreign state-owned companies have successfully used a legal doctrine called forum non conveniens—arguing that U.S. courts are an inconvenient venue—to block the seizure of their U.S.-based assets. [6]

But a landmark August 2026 ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just dismantled that defense, fundamentally rewiring how the New York Convention is enforced in the United States. [1] In Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., a three-judge panel held that forum non conveniens simply does not apply to proceedings seeking confirmation of foreign arbitration awards under the treaty. [1]

The ruling stems from a two-decade saga. In 2005, Devas Multimedia, a private Indian company, signed a satellite-leasing agreement with Antrix Corporation, the commercial arm of India's space agency. [1] When the Indian government later canceled the contract, Devas initiated arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce. In 2015, the tribunal awarded Devas $562.5 million for wrongful repudiation—a figure that has since ballooned past $2 billion with accrued interest. [1][2]

Armed with the award, Devas sought to enforce it in the United States, where Antrix holds attachable assets. [1] The legal foundation for this effort is the 1958 New York Convention, a foundational treaty adopted by over 170 countries, including the U.S., designed to ensure that international arbitration awards are recognized and enforced across borders. [3][4]

Antrix fought the enforcement on multiple fronts. Initially, the 9th Circuit agreed with Antrix, ruling in 2023 that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) required Devas to prove Antrix had "minimum contacts" with the United States. [1][5] Because the underlying satellite dispute had nothing to do with U.S. commerce, the court dismissed the case. [1]

However, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened. In a unanimous 2025 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit, holding that the FSIA's arbitration exception does not require a separate "minimum contacts" analysis to establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign state. [2][5] The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit to address Antrix's remaining defenses. [2]

That set the stage for the August 2026 decision. Antrix argued that even if the court had jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed under forum non conveniens, asserting that India was the more appropriate venue to litigate the dispute. [1]

The 9th Circuit rejected this argument entirely. Circuit Judge Lucy H. Koh, writing for the panel, noted that the New York Convention mandates the recognition and enforcement of covered awards unless one of the treaty's specific, enumerated defenses applies. [1][3] "Inconvenience of the forum" is not on that list. [1]

Furthermore, the court pointed out a practical reality of international asset recovery: a foreign court cannot attach assets located in the United States. [1] Therefore, an Indian court could never serve as an "adequate alternative forum" for Devas's specific goal of seizing Antrix's U.S. property. [1]

The implications of this ruling extend far beyond this single $2 billion dispute. By eliminating the forum non conveniens defense and confirming the Supreme Court's relaxed jurisdictional requirements under the FSIA, the 9th Circuit has effectively lowered the drawbridge for arbitration creditors worldwide. [6]

For multinational corporations and investors, the decision provides a clearer, more predictable path to monetizing arbitral awards against sovereign entities. [6] If a foreign state-owned company has assets in the U.S., those assets are now significantly more vulnerable to seizure, regardless of where the underlying contract was signed or breached. [1][6]

Conversely, foreign sovereigns and their commercial instrumentalities face a heightened risk profile. [6] The traditional playbook of dragging out enforcement through procedural and jurisdictional challenges in U.S. federal courts has lost one of its most effective chapters. [1][2]

While the 9th Circuit's decision establishes a binding precedent in the western United States, it also signals a broader judicial trend toward strict adherence to the New York Convention's pro-enforcement mandate. [3][6] As global commerce increasingly relies on arbitration to resolve cross-border disputes, U.S. courts are signaling that they will serve as reliable collection venues, not procedural roadblocks. [6]