USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: John Curley and Milan Sova, Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) allow a judgment creditor to obtain discovery from the judg - ment debtor or third parties in aid of execution, using either the FRCP or procedures of the state where the court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 (a)(2). In New York, CPLR § 5223 provides a broad mechanism for post- judgment discovery, allowing judgment creditors to “compel disclosure of all matter relevant to the satis - faction of the judgment”. These rules, and other state analogues, empower creditors to compel disclosure of information related to digital assets, including cryp - tocurrency wallets and transactions, whether held directly by the debtor or by third-party custodians such as cryptocurrency exchanges. Emerging trends Looking ahead, the role of digital asset tracing, injunc - tive relief, expedited discovery and pre-judgment attachment will likely grow as courts seem increas - ingly comfortable with expedited subpoenas, ex parte injunctions and forensic analysis of blockchain data as a standard part of judgment collection strategy. Devas v Antrix: Arbitration Awards Against Foreign Sovereigns A second development worth highlighting here is the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Devas Multi- media Pvt. Ltd. v Antrix Corporation Ltd. , which pre - sented a closely-watched issue of whether claimants seeking to enforce an arbitral award against a foreign state must show that the respondent has “minimum contacts” with the US forum before a US court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the respondent under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Background In January 2005, Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. (“Devas”), an Indian telecommunications start-up, entered into a lease agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd. (“Antrix”), the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation. The agreement gave Devas access to capacity on a new satellite network being launched by Antrix, which Devas planned to use for a nationwide mobile multimedia service. 145 S. Ct. 1572 (2025). In 2011, the Indian Government annulled the deal, stating that it required the network capacity Antrix
was going to lease to Devas. Antrix claimed that it was released under the lease agreement’s force majeure clause. Devas responded by initiating arbi - tration under the rules of the ICC, alleging that the Indian Government’s intervention was a self-induced breach of contract. The arbitral panel found that Antrix had wrongfully terminated the contract and awarded Devas USD562.5 million in damages. Devas’s efforts to locate and reach assets Following its arbitration victory, Devas took steps to enforce the award in several jurisdictions. After securing recognition of the award in France and the UK, Devas sought to confirm the award in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wash - ington. The District Court entered judgment in favour of Devas in the amount of USD1.29 billion, which included the award amount and post-award interest. But enforcement efforts did not proceed smoothly. Before Devas could collect the award, an Indian tri - bunal found that Devas had obtained the contract with Antrix by fraud and ordered its assets to be seized and its affairs wound down. During this time, a group of intervenors, comprising US-based shareholders of Devas and its American subsidiary (the “Intervenors”), joined the lawsuit. The Intervenors argued that Antrix had been attempting to transfer or hide assets to avoid enforcement, particu - larly by shifting commercial functions to a new state- owned company called NewSpace India Ltd. (“NewS - pace”), which was fully owned and operated by India’s Department of Space. Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v Antrix Corp. Ltd. , C18-1360 TSZ (D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021) (ECF. No. 133). The Intervenors invoked FRCP 69 (a)(2) to obtain post-judgment discovery, including subpoenas and interrogatories directed at Antrix and affiliated third parties. The court granted the motion in part, allow - ing discovery “related to Respondent’s assets and asset transfers, both within and outside of the United States, and related to Respondent’s relationship to the Government of India and NewSpace...” This allowed the Intervenors to investigate whether NewSpace was serving as a vehicle for removing Antrix’s assets in order to avoid enforcement of the arbitral award.
526 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook