The CITGO auction is set to begin on July 18, 2025, following the decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The Venezuelan parties—CITGO Petroleum Corporation and PDV Holding Inc.—requested the presiding judge to reconsider the deadlines for filing motions and discovery.
On June 11 and 12, 2025, a series of actions related to the sale of Venezuela’s main overseas asset, as mandated by the Delaware Court, took place in court.
Judge Leonard P. Stark granted one day—until June 12, 2025—for any parties that might have objections to notify the court by letter, including a proposed schedule for filing briefs addressing those objections.
Special Magistrate Robert B. Pincus also presented his status report covering the period from February 1 to February 28, 2025.
Court Approves CITGO Auction Schedule
On June 11, 2025, Leonard P. Stark, judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, approved the timeline and discovery schedule presented by a special master in the case of Crystallex International Corp. against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The CITGO auction commencement hearing is set for July 18, 2025. The schedule outlines proposed deadlines for various key events, including the special master’s final recommendation, evidence discovery, submission of expert reports, objections to the recommendation, and the sale hearing.
Discovery requests have already been filed prior to this final recommendation. The deadline for producing documents in response to these discovery requests is July 22, 2025. The discovery period will conclude on July 31.
EventProposed Deadline by the Special MasterDeadline for the Special Master to present his Final RecommendationWednesday, July 2 (“Rec”)Deadline to provide written discovery to the party (or parties) whose bid is selected as Final RecommendationMonday, July 7 (Rec + 5 days)Opening expert reports dueMonday, July 7 (Rec + 5 days)Deadline for any objections to the Special Master’s Final RecommendationWednesday, July 9 (Rec + 7 days)Deadline for any competing objector to disclose its own bidding materials (such materials must be proportional to those disclosed by the Special Master of the recommended bid)Wednesday, July 9 (Rec + 7 days)Deadline to provide written discovery to a concurrent objectorFriday, July 11 (Rec + 9 days)Deadline to respond to discovery requests made after the Final RecommendationTuesday, July 15 (Rec + 13 days)Deadline to meet and deliberate on the scope of discovery to be produced in response to discovery requests submitted after the Final RecommendationTuesday, July 16 (Rec + 14 days)Deadline to provide witness statements in accordance with FRCP 26(a)(3)Friday, July 18 (Rec + 16 days)Deadline to notify witness statementsMonday, July 21 (Rec + 19 days)Deadline to deliver corresponding expert reportsMonday, July 21 (Rec + 19 days)Deadline to complete document production in response to discovery requests submitted before the Final Recommendation and to substantially complete document production in response to discovery requests submitted after the Final RecommendationTuesday, July 22 (Rec + 20 days)Deadline for providing response expert reports, if anyFriday, July 25 (Rec + 23 days)Conclusion of the discovery periodThursday, July 31 (Rec + 29 days)Deadline for submitting responses to objections to the Special Master’s Final RecommendationFriday, August 1 (Rec + 30 days)Deadline for submitting responses to any objection to the Special Master’s Final RecommendationFriday, August 8 (Rec + 37 days)Deadline for submitting rebuttals to responses regarding any objection to the Special Master’s Final Recommendation (only to the extent new arguments are raised in the response)Tuesday, August 12 (Rec + 41 days)Deadline for the Special Master to present the Joint Status ReportWednesday, August 13 (Rec + 42 days)Deadline for disclosing exhibits in accordance with FRCP 26(a)(3)Wednesday, August 13 (Rec + 42 days)Deadline to present objections to the FRCP section 26(a)(3) statementsFriday, August 15 (Rec + 44 days)Hearing to commence the saleMonday, August 18 (Rec + 47 days)
Venezuela Requests Reconsideration of Deadlines
On June 12, 2025, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), PDV Holding Inc., and CITGO Petroleum Corporation filed a motion before the Delaware Court requesting reconsideration of the order setting deadlines for report submissions and discovery.
This action by Venezuela seeks the Court to rethink its June 11, 2025 order, which established deadlines for the submission of reports and discovery, arguing that the parties did not have the opportunity to object to the proposal of Special Master Robert B. Pincus before it was adopted.
The Venezuelan parties argue that the adopted timeline is illogical and unfair, as it requires objections to be submitted prior to the conclusion of the discovery process. They requested Judge Stark to adopt an alternative timeline and also modify the Scheduling Order.
PDV Holding Inc., CITGO Petroleum Corporation, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela emphasize that the schedule proposed by Robert B. Pincus was presented at 4:55 p.m. on June 10, and the court adopted it at 9:06 a.m. on June 11, “six minutes after the start of business.” This prevented timely objections from being made.
They argue that “The Venezuelan Parties nor any other party was given the opportunity to oppose the Proposed Schedule” and, therefore, invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which allows for the review of interlocutory orders.
They also appeal to the principle of “good cause” for reconsideration, citing jurisprudence that establishes that a court “may allow reconsideration [of an interlocutory order] as long as it is compatible with justice to do so.”
Illogical and Unfair Schedule
The Venezuelan parties maintain that the adopted timeline requires them to submit initial objection briefs by July 9, 2025. This date is only “seven days after the Special Master presents his Final Recommendation on July 2, 2025” and “nearly two weeks before the deadline for document production related to the cutoff period proposed by Pincus for July 22 or any depositions to occur.”
For Venezuela, this makes no sense and “will compel opposing parties to present their initial briefs without the benefit of discovery.” They believe that information obtained through discovery cannot be substantially introduced until the reply brief, effectively “transforming their reply into an initial brief.”
Likewise, Venezuela warns that Pincus did not incorporate the concerns expressed during meetings to discuss and agree on timelines. At that time, they proposed an “alternative approach” allowing discovery before filing objection briefs, but the Special Master ignored this.
They assert that Robert Pincus’ proposal not only maintained the order prioritizing written submissions over discovery but “in fact, shortened the time for the submission of objection briefs by two days, from July 11 to July 9.”
Unequal Treatment and Unjust Advantage
The Venezuelan motion points out that the schedule grants Pincus and supporting parties—Crystallex, ConocoPhillips, and Red Tree—”twenty-three days from the initial submission of objections and the benefit of complete discovery before their response briefs are due (on August 1, after discovery closes).”
According to their perception, this disparity “seems designed solely to limit the ability of parties to significantly oppose the Recommended Offer and to unfairly advantage the parties planning to support the offer.”
If the court does not fully reconsider Pincus’ timeline, the Venezuelan parties request three modifications:
Move up the deadline for document requests before and after the Recommendation to July 15 and July 18, respectively (the current deadline is July 22 for both).
Postpone the deadline for objection briefs to July 22 (instead of July 9), with corresponding adjustments for response briefs (August 6) and reply briefs (August 13). This would allow objecting parties to review and incorporate relevant documents.
Increase the page limit for reply briefs from objectors to “at least 20 pages (preferably 25)” due to the need to address both responses to opposing briefs and new evidence obtained through discovery.
Require the Special Master to present any supporting witness statement he intends to use in his Final Recommendation by July 2, so the objecting parties can review and respond to them in their initial expert reports.
Robert Pincus’ Status Report
On June 11, 2025, Robert B. Pincus, Special Master of the CITGO auction process designated by the Delaware Court, submitted to Judge Leonard P. Stark the status report corresponding to the period from February 1 to February 28, 2025.
Pincus details his actions and efforts in the case of Crystallex International Corp. against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, specifically concerning the sale of shares of PDV Holding Inc.
He also includes a status of fees and incurred expenses, which amount to USD 1,911,055.09, and requested court approval for these expenses.
The breakdown of expenses is as follows:
Magistrate Special: USD 25,080
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP: USD 1,567,334.57
Evercore: USD 309,045.56
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP: USD 8,306
Santora CPA Group: USD 1,288.96
Total: USD 1,911,055.09
See in Sin Filtros “NGOs UNDER ATTACK: Maduro and Diosdado Declare War on Civil Society”: