Citgo gas station. Photo: Ken Wolter/Shutterstock.com

A federal appeals court has denied a motion by a Canadian mining company to expedite an appeal of a district court 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 on Wednesday ruled that oral argument on Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. appeal in the case would proceed normally. Crystallex International Corp.. had claimed that the firm was helping the Venezuelan government avoid the judgment.

Crystallex said in a Dec. 21 court filing that PDVSA had breached a settlement agreement that required it to stay the appeal. PDVSA, however, countered last week that it was not a party to the settlement and accused Crystallex of trying to mislead the court.

Restrepo's one-page order Wednesday refused Crystallex' motion but did not specifically address the parties' contentions.

Venezuela is appealing multiple decisions by U.S. Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark, which paved the way for Crystallex to seize Citgo's shares in order to satisfy a 2016 arbitration awards over lost mineral rights. In August, Stark ruled that PDVSA was an alter ego of the Venezuelan government, which had exerted extensive control over the company's business operations. The ruling entered a writ of attachment for shares of PDVSA, which owns Citgo in the United States.

Last month, Crystallex revealed in court filings that it had reached a settlement with Venezuela, establishing 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 that it had already turned over.

In its motion before the Third Circuit, Crystallex said that the settlement agreement obligated PDVSA to to stay its appeal to give Venezuela more time to gather collateral to secure the remainder of the payment.

“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,” Crystallex' Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Richards, Layton & Finger attorneys argued.

PDVSA, in its response, questioned Crystallex' motives in filing its motion for expedition at 10 p.m. Dec. 21, just ahead of the four-day Christmas holiday. The firm said that had never signed the settlement agreement between Crystallex and Venezuela, and accused Crystallex of misrepresenting the basis of 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 [settlement] agreement. Crystallex knows it is not the [settlement] 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, D.C., 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.

The case is captioned Crystallex International v. Venezuela.