Updated: Jun 1, 2024
In Deutsche Telekom AG v. Republic of India, No. CV 21-1070 (RJL), 2024 WL 1299344 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2024), Judge Leon of the District Court for the District of Columbia sent a strong message to sovereign states looking to delay the confirmation of arbitration awards.
Judge Leon confirmed Deutsche Telekom's award, denying India's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens and because India is immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The forum non conveniens argument was "dispatched with alacrity"--as the D.C. Circuit has “squarely held ‘that forum non conveniens is not available in proceedings to confirm a foreign arbitral award because only U.S. courts can attach foreign commercial assets found within the United States.’ ” Id. at *2.
The court gave more time to the sovereign immunity argument, but nevertheless rejected it, finding that the FSIA's "arbitration exception" applies. Id. The Court explained that "the arbitration exception requires establishing three 'jurisdictional facts': 'the existence of an arbitration agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award.'” Id. at *3. India attempted to rebut Deutsche Telekom's clear establishment of these three requirements by arguing that "its offer to arbitrate in ... the BIT did not encompass [Deutsche Telekom's]'s claims—first because '[it]had not made any ‘investment’ in India and was not an ‘investor’ as defined in the BIT,' and second because [its] activities through a subsidiary were not protected by the BIT." Id. The court explained, however, that such arguments "about whether a sovereign's offer to arbitrate covers 'this particular dispute' concern 'the arbitrability of a dispute[, which] is not a jurisdictional question under the FSIA., [but] are 'properly considered as part of [merits] review under the New York Convention.'” Id. Finding that India is not immune from suit, the court moved on to consider --and reject--India's argument as part of its analysis under the New York Convention.
Lastly, the court strongly rejected India's argument that confirmation proceedings in U.S. courts have evolved to comprise two separate stages when sovereigns are involved: one where arguments regarding immunity are heard; and one where defenses under the New York convention are considered. The court explained that not only need confirmation proceedings need to be summary in nature, but proceeding as requested by India would give sovereigns another bite at the apple after it raised the same arbitrability arguments--to no avail--before "the arbitral panel, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, and the [District of Columbia] court." "Enough is enough!" the Court concluded.
