Devas Multimedia and its Mauritian shareholders seek to enforce arbitral awards against Antrix and India over India’s 2011 cancellation of a satellite spectrum deal. On August 12, 2026, the Ninth Circuit upheld U.S. jurisdiction over Antrix and remanded for the district court to weigh the award’s annulment in India. On October 16, 2026, the Ninth Circuit denied Antrix’s petition for rehearing en banc.
Latest development Oct 16, 2026
On October 16, 2026, the Ninth Circuit denied Antrix’s petition for rehearing en banc of the August 12, 2026, panel decision. The denial leaves in place the panel’s ruling upholding U.S. jurisdiction over Antrix and remanding the case for consideration of the Indian courts’ set-aside of the award. The court also directed that it would not entertain further rehearing petitions.
9th Circ. Won't Rethink $2B Devas Arbitral Award Confirmation9th Circuit Denies Indian State-Owned Company's Bid For Rehearing In $1.29B Row
Why it matters
For states and award creditors, the case tests whether an arbitral award annulled at its seat can still be enforced abroad. Parallel English and Australian rulings address whether ratifying the New York Convention waives a state’s immunity from enforcement.
Background
In 2005, Antrix Corporation Ltd, the commercial arm of India’s space agency, leased S-band satellite spectrum to Devas Multimedia Private Ltd for a nationwide mobile-multimedia venture. In 2011, India annulled the contract, citing national needs. On September 14, 2015, an ICC tribunal seated in New Delhi found that Antrix had wrongfully terminated the agreement and awarded Devas $562.5M plus interest. In October 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington confirmed the award and entered judgment of about $1.29B.
India then unwound the deal at home. In 2022, India’s Supreme Court upheld Devas’s winding-up on fraud findings, and the Delhi High Court set the award aside on fraud and public-policy grounds. In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the confirmation for lack of “minimum contacts,” and it amended its opinion in February 2024. The shareholders sought review, and on June 5, 2025, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court reversed in an opinion by Justice Alito. It held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) requires no minimum-contacts showing and that personal jurisdiction exists whenever an immunity exception applies and service is proper.
Parallel enforcement proceedings have produced a split. In December 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal allowed enforcement of the ICC award despite the Indian annulment. It refused to recognize the Indian fraud and liquidation rulings for lack of due process, and the Dutch Supreme Court upheld that decision on March 6, 2026. India has prevailed on immunity against enforcement of the related awards under the India-Mauritius bilateral investment treaty (BIT), worth roughly $111M plus interest. On April 8, 2026, the High Court of Australia held that ratifying the New York Convention is not a waiver of immunity ([2026] HCA 9). The Court of Appeal of England and Wales reached the same conclusion on July 7, 2026 ([2026] EWCA Civ 797), but other waiver arguments remain live in the English proceedings.
The Ninth Circuit heard argument on remand on March 10, 2026. On August 12, 2026, it held that the FSIA arbitration exception supplies subject-matter jurisdiction and that personal jurisdiction over Antrix is reasonable. It also held that forum non conveniens does not apply to New York Convention confirmation actions, and it remanded for the district court to consider the Indian set-aside. On September 24, 2026, Antrix petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the ruling raises constitutional limits on jurisdiction over foreign disputes with no U.S. connection. On October 16, 2026, the court denied the petition and directed that it would not entertain further rehearing petitions, leaving the remand in place.
Timeline 11 events
-
AppealNinth Circuit denies en banc rehearing for Antrix
The Ninth Circuit denied Antrix’s petition for rehearing en banc of the August 12, 2026, panel ruling upholding jurisdiction over Antrix and remanding on the Indian set-aside question. The court directed that no further rehearing petitions would be entertained.
9th Circ. Won't Rethink $2B Devas Arbitral Award Confirmation9th Circuit Denies Indian State-Owned Company's Bid For Rehearing In $1.29B Row
-
AppealAntrix asks full Ninth Circuit to rehear case en banc
Antrix petitioned for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit panel’s August 12, 2026, decision, arguing the ruling raises constitutional limits on jurisdiction over foreign disputes with no U.S. connection.
-
JudgmentNinth Circuit upholds jurisdiction over Antrix and remands on Indian set-aside
On remand, the panel held the FSIA arbitration exception supplied subject-matter jurisdiction and that personal jurisdiction over Antrix was reasonable. It ruled forum non conveniens did not apply to New York Convention confirmation actions and remanded for the district court to consider the Indian annulment.
DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. V. ANTRIX CORP. LTD., No. 20-36024 (9th Cir. 2026)$1.3 Billion, Confirmed: Ninth Circuit Sets New Precedent in Antrix-Devas Satellite DisputeUS appeals court rules anew on enforcement of billion-dollar Devas v. Antrix award
-
AppealEnglish Court of Appeal rules for India on treaty-waiver point
The court held that ratifying the New York Convention did not by itself waive immunity under the State Immunity Act ([2026] EWCA Civ 797). The claimants’ remaining waiver arguments continue.
-
JudgmentHigh Court of Australia upholds India’s immunity ([2026] HCA 9)
The court held that ratifying the New York Convention was not a clear and unequivocal waiver of immunity. The ruling blocked enforcement of the roughly $111M BIT award in Australia.
-
JudgmentDutch Supreme Court upholds enforcement despite Indian annulment
The court left standing the Hague Court of Appeal’s December 2024 ruling that the Indian fraud and liquidation judgments could not be recognized for lack of procedural safeguards.
-
JudgmentU.S. Supreme Court holds FSIA requires no minimum contacts
A unanimous Court (Alito, J.) held that personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper. The ruling revived the confirmation case, and the Ninth Circuit heard argument on remand on March 10, 2026.
-
AppealNinth Circuit vacates U.S. confirmation for lack of minimum contacts
The court amended its opinion in February 2024, and the shareholders sought Supreme Court review.
-
JudgmentIndian courts order Devas liquidated and set the award aside
India’s Supreme Court upheld Devas’s winding-up on fraud findings. The Delhi High Court annulled the ICC award on fraud and public-policy grounds.
-
JudgmentWestern District of Washington confirms award at about $1.29B
-
AwardICC tribunal awards Devas $562.5M plus interest
The tribunal found Antrix wrongfully terminated the 2005 satellite spectrum agreement.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the Western District of Washington rule on confirming the Devas ICC award after its annulment in India, by September 30, 2028?
- Court refuses to enforce annulled award38%
- Still pending on September 30, 202835%
- Court confirms award despite annulment21%
- Devas and Antrix settle6%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2028in 23 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The district court is more likely to refuse than to confirm the annulled Devas award, at 38% versus 21%, by September 30, 2028. U.S. courts generally defer to seat annulments unless they offend basic fairness. A likely Antrix cert petition and remand briefing leave a 35% chance the ruling is still pending.
How it resolves. Resolves on the first merits ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, on remand, on whether to confirm or enforce the September 14, 2015, ICC award given the Delhi High Court’s set-aside. “Refuses” means the court denies confirmation or vacates the 2020 judgment because of the annulment. “Confirms” means it confirms or reinstates judgment despite the annulment. “Settle” means a publicly reported settlement or dismissal by agreement before any such ruling. If none occurs by September 30, 2028, including where a cert petition or stay delays the remand, the question resolves as still pending.
Reasoning
Starting point. U.S. court decisions on enforcing New York Convention awards set aside at the seat: U.S. courts usually defer to seat annulments. Enforcement despite annulment is rare, roughly one in four or five reported cases (Pemex as the main exception, TermoRio and Thai-Lao Lignite refusing).
U.S. courts applying the New York Convention usually respect a set-aside at the seat and enforce only where the annulment violates fundamental notions of what is decent and just. That standard yields refusal in most reported cases. Devas has a stronger than usual exception argument because the Dutch Supreme Court let stand a ruling that the Indian fraud and liquidation judgments lacked due process. That foreign finding gives the district court a concrete basis to depart from comity, which lifts the confirmation outcome above the base rate. Against that, the Indian rulings rest on fraud findings by India’s highest court, and U.S. courts are reluctant to second-guess such findings. Timing is the main uncertainty. Antrix can seek certiorari within 90 days of the October 16, 2026, en banc denial and may seek a stay of the mandate, which could push remand proceedings into mid-2027 before full briefing. Settlement remains unlikely given India’s consistent refusal to pay and its immunity wins in Australia and England. Nothing in the record since the October 17, 2026, forecast moved any outcome, so the numbers are unchanged.
U.S. comity deference to seat annulments · Dutch courts’ due-process findings against the Indian judgments · Possible Antrix cert petition delaying remand · Indian fraud findings upheld by India’s Supreme Court · India’s consistent refusal to settle or pay
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 22, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made