Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Mobil and others v. Venezuela, Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Granting Stay, June 30, 2026

30 Jun 2026
Venezuela Holdings, B.V., et al (case formerly known as Mobil Corporation, Venezuela Holdings, B.V., et al.) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27
View case details
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Granting Stay
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Granting Stay
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Royce C. Lamberth
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Venezuela Holdings B.V., Venezuela
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Granting Stay
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This document is an Order Granting Stay issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the proceedings between Mobil Cerro Negro and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The principal procedural issue before the Court was the Respondent State's unopposed motion requesting an additional 30-day stay of the case. The stated purpose of the requested stay was to provide Venezuela with sufficient time to formally designate permanent counsel to represent its interests in the litigation.

Upon consideration of the unopposed nature of the motion, the Court granted the request without further substantive legal analysis. As operative relief, the Court ordered that all proceedings in the matter be stayed for an additional period of 30 days.