In the CITGO auction process, Crystallex International Corporation expressed its objection to the Delaware Court regarding the court expert Robert B. Pincus responding to the dismissed PDVSA workers about how their rights would be upheld during the sale of the Venezuelan refinery’s assets.
The mining company Crystallex —central to this process initiated when it sought compensation for the illegal expropriation of its assets in Venezuela by Hugo Chávez— believes Pincus should not respond to the questions presented by Leroy Garrett, arguing that he is not a party in the case against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
In Crystallex’s view, Garrett’s motions should be dismissed or registered as correspondence. The company urges the court that future submissions from him or other non-parties attempting to interfere with the sale process be treated as simple mail.
Crystallex International Corporation believes that interruptions from non-parties in the ongoing litigation must be avoided.
Response from Crystallex to the dismissed PDVSA workers
On June 30, 2025, Crystallex International Corporation responded to the motion that Leroy Garrett filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of the dismissed PDVSA workers, requesting that the court expert be compelled to explain how their rights would be upheld in the asset sale process.
Crystallex argues that Garrett is not a party to the proceedings and therefore lacks the legal standing to present substantive motions. The mining company’s position is that these motions are untimely and meritless.
In this sense, Crystallex seeks for the court to deny Leroy Garrett’s motions or reclassify them as correspondence, preventing future submissions that interfere with the CITGO auction process.
Court precedent on non-parties interfering
Crystallex supports its stance with previous court decisions that have dismissed similar attempts by non-parties to interfere in the sale process. It cites jurisprudence and requests that the court’s clerk be instructed not to register any future submission from Leroy Garrett as ‘motions’ that require a response from the parties in these proceedings without court permission.
In any case, to avoid these submissions generating mandatory responses from the parties in the litigation, any future submissions from Garrett —or any other non-party— should be processed as simple correspondence.
If the court accepts Crystallex’s objection, Leroy Garrett will lose any avenue to directly influence the CITGO auction process through formal court filings, limiting his future communications to the category of correspondence.