Court Hits Brakes on Fast-Track Appeal in $1.2B Venezuela Arbitration Dispute
A federal appeals court orders a normal schedule in a mining company's attempt to speed up its arbitration award against Venezuela's state-owned oil company, which operates Citgo station in the United States.
January 03, 2019 at 04:39 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Business Court Insider
A federal appeals court denied a motion by a Canadian mining company to expedite an appeal of an order allowing it to seize shares of Citgo Petroleum's parent company to enforce a $1.2 billion award against Venezuela.
Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that oral argument on the Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. appeal would proceed normally. Crystallex International Corp.. claimed the state-owned oil company was helping the Venezuelan government avoid the judgment.
Venezuela was accused of improperly terminating Crystallex's rights to an untapped gold reserve during a push to nationalize its gold mines.
Crystallex said in a Dec. 21 court filing that PDVSA breached a settlement agreement required it to stay the appeal. PDVSA, however, countered it was not a party to the settlement and accused Crystallex of trying to mislead the court.
Restrepo's one-page order denied Crystallex's motion without addressing the parties' contentions.
Venezuela is appealing multiple decisions by U.S. Chief District Judge Leonard P. Stark, which paved the way for Crystallex to seize Citgo shares to satisfy a 2016 arbitration award over lost mineral rights. In August, Stark ruled PDVSA, the state-owned oil company, was an alter ego of the Venezuelan government, which exerted extensive control over its business operations. The ruling authorized a writ of attachment for shares of PDVSA, which owns Citgo operations in the United States.
Crystallex revealed its settlement in court filings last month, saying it established a framework for resolving the dispute. According to court papers, Venezuela completed an up-front payment of $425 million Nov. 23 on top of $75 million paid earlier.
In its motion with the Third Circuit, Crystallex said the agreement obligated PDVSA to stay its appeal to give Venezuela more time to gather collateral to secure the balance.
“PDVSA's actions constitute a clear breach of the Settlement Agreement and make it urgent that Crystallex immediately resume its enforcement efforts against Venezuela's property in Delaware and elsewhere,” argued Crystallex's attorneys at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Richards, Layton & Finger.
PDVSA, in its response, questioned Crystallex's motives for expedited review filed at 10 p.m. Dec. 21 heading into the four-day Christmas break. The company denied signing the settlement agreement between Crystallex and Venezuela and accused Crystallex of misrepresenting the basis for its argument.
“The primary basis for Crystallex's argument is the text of a document appended to the declaration of Crystallex's counsel that is represented to be a true and correct copy of the Agreement,” PDVSA said. “It is not the agreement. Crystallex knows it is not the agreement, and its attempt to mislead this court is nothing less than sanctionable.”
Briefing on PDVSA's appeal is scheduled to conclude Jan. 30. A date for oral arguments has not yet been set.
Crystallex is represented by Robert L. Weigel, Jason W. Myatt, Rahim Moloo and Miguel A. Estrada of Gibson Dunn's New York and Washington offices. Raymond J. DiCamillo, Jeffrey L. Moyer and Travis S. Hunter of Richards Layton are acting as local counsel.
PDVSA is represented by Joseph D. Pizzurro, Kevin A. Meehan, Julia B. Mosse and Juan Perla of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle in New York and Samuel T. Hirzel II of Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel in Wilmington, Delaware.
The case is captioned Crystallex International v. Venezuela.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBrazil Is Quickly Becoming a Vital LatAm Market for Greenberg Traurig, Other US Law Firms
5 minute read'Would've Been Snoring Without Ya': Fort Lauderdale Jury Awards $4.5 Million in Condo Investment Spat
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250