[FOOTNOTES OMITTED]
Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Much has happened in this long-running litigation.1 Much more remains to be done. As the Third Circuit expressly stated just weeks ago, "the District Court’s judicial role in this civil action is far from over." Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 24 F.4th 242, 255 (3d Cir. 2022) (Crystallex II).2
In this Opinion, the Court addresses, and rejects, what the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. ("PDVSA"), PDV Holding, Inc. ("PDVH"), and CITGO Petroleum Corporation (collectively, the "Venezuela Parties") describe as "the fundamental problems" with the Proposed Sale Procedures Order ("Proposed Order")3 submitted by the Special Master. (D.I. 423 at 1) These objections have been the subject of extensive briefing (see, e.g., D.I. 316, 317, 319, 339, 340, 341, 343, 385, 406, 408, 418, 419, 421, 423) and nearly a full day of oral argument...
Notes:
1) This opinion, issued on March 2, 2022, addresses a number of consequential issues as they relate to the ability of courts to make rulings and issue orders involving blocked property that fall short of effecting a “transfer” of such property. The opinion also addresses key procedural issues, such as the binding nature (or lack thereof) of OFAC’s FAQs. See section 0.1 of Consolidated Comment on Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (D. Del, 2017 - ), and Selected Documents Associated with the Litigation, for discussion of the USG's view on this and related opinions. In short, OFAC does not appear to believe that this was consistent with OFAC’s regulations when it is was issued, but OFAC is not “contesting” it.