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

Air Canada v. Venezuela, Petitioner’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, January 19, 2026

19 Jan 2026
Air Canada v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/17/1
View case details
Petitioner’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Petitioner’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
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
Deva Villanúa Gómez
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Deva Villanúa Gómez
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Thomas C.C. Childs, Mark McLennan, Vivasvat Dadwal
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Reinaldo Enrique Muñoz Pedroza, Alfredo De Jesus O., Eloisa Falcon Lopez, Marie-Therese Hervella
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
José Luis Gómara Hernández
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
Air Canada, King & Spalding, De Jesús & De Jesús, Alfredó De Jesús O. – Transnational Arbitration & Litigation, Venezuela
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Petitioner’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is Petitioner Air Canada’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Respondent the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition to Confirm an Arbitral Award. The filing was submitted before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Air Canada seeks the confirmation of an award rendered under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, while Venezuela opposes confirmation by invoking defenses under Article V of the New York Convention.

Principal Legal Issues and Parties' Positions

The opposition addresses two primary defenses raised by Venezuela: a public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) and a due process defense under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention. Venezuela contends that confirming the award would violate United States public policy by contradicting the Executive Branch’s recognition of the 2015 National Assembly and its policy of safeguarding Venezuelan assets from the Maduro regime. In response, Air Canada argues that foreign policy objectives and recognition powers do not constitute the "most basic notions of morality and justice" required to establish a public policy defense. Relying on D.C. Circuit precedent, including Valores and VUS, Air Canada asserts that confirming the award against the State of Venezuela does not equate to recognizing the Maduro regime.

Regarding the due process defense, Venezuela alleges it was unable to present its case because the arbitral tribunal refused to allow the Special Attorney General appointed by the 2015 National Assembly to replace the Maduro regime’s counsel of record late in the proceedings. Air Canada counters that the tribunal possessed the requisite jurisdiction under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules to resolve the procedural impediment concerning legal representation. Air Canada emphasizes that the tribunal afforded the 2015 National Assembly an opportunity to be heard through written submissions before issuing Procedural Order No. 7, which maintained the existing counsel of record to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings.

Relief Requested

Air Canada requests that the District Court deny Venezuela’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, grant the underlying Petition to Confirm the Arbitral Award, and enter judgment in favor of Air Canada.