Procedural Background

This document is an Addendum to a First Partial Award, issued by the Sole Arbitrator pursuant to an application by the Claimant under Section 57(3) of the English Arbitration Act 1996. The Claimant sought a correction of the First Partial Award, asserting that the tribunal had erroneously applied an interest rate of 5% rather than 7% and had failed to address the claim for post-award interest. The Respondent, PDVSA Petroleo, did not file any submissions in response to the application despite being invited to do so by the tribunal.

Tribunal's Analysis and Decision

The Sole Arbitrator determined that the Claimant's application was well-founded. The tribunal acknowledged that it had committed a clerical error by inadvertently copying a 5% interest rate when it had intended to award interest at 7%. Furthermore, the tribunal recognized its omission in failing to provide for post-award interest to continue accruing on the substantive sums awarded, consistent with its treatment of the reimbursable tribunal fees.

Consequently, the Sole Arbitrator issued this Addendum to formally correct paragraphs 32, 41, and 42 of the First Partial Award. The operative corrections stipulate that the total sum payable by the Respondent shall bear interest at the rate of 7% per annum, compounded every three months, from the date of the First Partial Award until the date of full payment. The tribunal reserved its jurisdiction over all other outstanding issues between the parties, including the final allocation of costs.

Procedural Posture and Purpose

This document is a Memorandum of Law submitted by Petitioner Union Glory Limited in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in support of a Motion for a Conditional Writ of Attachment Fieri Facias. The Petitioner seeks to attach the shares of PDV Holding, Inc. (PDVH)—a Delaware corporation wholly owned by Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA)—in aid of executing a London arbitral award rendered against PDVSA’s wholly-owned subsidiary, PDVSA Petroleo, S.A. The motion is filed conditionally, pending the Court’s confirmation of the underlying arbitral award and the formal entry of judgment.

Principal Legal Issues and Petitioner's Position

The principal legal issue addressed is whether PDVSA can be held liable for the arbitral debt of its subsidiary, PDVSA Petroleo, under an alter ego theory, thereby permitting the attachment of PDVSA’s assets (the PDVH shares) under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Petitioner argues that PDVSA exercises absolute dominance and economic control over PDVSA Petroleo, routinely disregarding corporate formalities. In support of this veil-piercing argument, the Petitioner highlights that PDVSA commingled funds by paying over $30 million in charter hire obligations on behalf of its subsidiary, utilized indirect subsidiary funds to satisfy debts, and shared headquarters, legal counsel, and administrative personnel with PDVSA Petroleo.

Furthermore, the Petitioner contends that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c) have been satisfied, as a "reasonable period of time" has elapsed since the issuance of the arbitral award and the subsequent notice to the Respondent. The Petitioner asserts that PDVSA has demonstrated no intention of satisfying the debt voluntarily, justifying immediate post-judgment execution measures.

Sanctions Compliance and Requested Relief

Addressing regulatory constraints, the Petitioner maintains that the requested relief does not conflict with the U.S. sanctions regime against Venezuela. Relying on guidance and specific licenses issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Petitioner notes that prefatory steps toward attachment, including obtaining a conditional writ and being designated as an Additional Judgment Creditor under the Court's established sale procedures, are permissible without a specific enforcement license.

Ultimately, the Petitioner requests that the Court authorize the issuance of a conditional writ of attachment against the PDVH shares and formally name Union Glory Limited as an Additional Judgment Creditor, enabling its participation in the ongoing judicial sale process of PDVH assets.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, recognizing and enforcing a foreign arbitral award pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. The Petitioner sought to confirm a First Partial Award and an Addendum thereto rendered against the Respondent, PDVSA Petroleo S.A.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The Court noted that the Respondent failed to appear, respond to the petition, or comply with a prior order to show cause why the petition should not be granted as unopposed. Exercising subject matter jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 203 and 28 U.S.C. § 1333, the Court evaluated the unopposed record. The Court concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied its burden for relief under 9 U.S.C. § 207 and determined that none of the enumerated defenses to enforcement under 9 U.S.C. §§ 10–11 were applicable to preclude recognition of the arbitral awards.

Decision and Operative Relief

The Court ordered that the pecuniary obligations established in the First Partial Award and its Addendum be recognized, confirmed, and entered as a judgment of the Court, carrying the same force and effect as a final judgment of a United States court of general jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court awarded the Petitioner the principal sum of US$ 3,368,320.76, alongside post-award interest accruing at a rate of 7% per annum, compounded every three months from April 14, 2023, until the date of full payment.

Procedural Posture and Purpose

This document is an answering and reply brief filed by the Petitioners (Ostrider Limited, UML Blandford Limited, Union Glory Limited, and Clion Limited) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The brief is submitted in opposition to a motion to dismiss filed by Intervenor-Garnishee Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) and in further support of the Petitioners' motion for a conditional writ of attachment fieri facias. The Petitioners seek to attach shares of PDV Holding, Inc. (PDVH) owned by PDVSA to satisfy judgments confirming London arbitration awards against PDVSA's wholly-owned subsidiary, PDVSA Petroleo S.A.

Principal Legal Issues and Parties' Positions

The central legal issue is whether PDVSA constitutes the alter ego of the judgment debtor, PDVSA Petroleo S.A., thereby permitting the attachment of PDVSA's assets under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Petitioners argue that PDVSA exercises extensive domination and control over PDVSA Petroleo S.A., disregarding corporate formalities and utilizing the subsidiary as an agent to advance its own interests. Relying on the Bancec factors and Third Circuit precedent, the Petitioners assert that recognizing the corporate separateness of the entities would result in manifest injustice and facilitate the evasion of the confirmed arbitral awards.

In response to PDVSA's motion to dismiss, the Petitioners contend that the motion is procedurally improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, as it targets a post-judgment enforcement motion rather than a pleading. Furthermore, the Petitioners maintain that service of process upon PDVSA Petroleo S.A. was properly effectuated in accordance with the special arrangement provisions of the FSIA and the underlying London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) Rules. Finally, the Petitioners argue that venue is proper in the District of Delaware because the specific property subject to attachment—the PDVH shares—is located within the district and is utilized for commercial activity in the United States, satisfying the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a)(6).

Procedural Background

This document is an Order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, addressing five consolidated appeals brought by various corporate appellants against PDVSA Petróleo S.A., with Petróleos De Venezuela S.A. participating as an intervenor. The appellants sought appellate review following a district court's denial of their motions for writs of attachment and its subsequent decision to transfer the underlying proceedings to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Jurisdictional Analysis

The Third Circuit conducted a sua sponte review of its appellate jurisdiction following a Clerk's submission regarding a potential jurisdictional defect. The core legal issue was whether a district court's order transferring venue to another district constitutes an appealable order. Applying established statutory frameworks and precedent, the Court determined that venue transfer orders do not qualify as appealable final decisions or collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Furthermore, the Court concluded that such orders are not subject to interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3).

Decision

Addressing the earlier denial of the writs of attachment, the Court noted that to the extent those constituted prior appealable orders, the present appeals were filed out of time and were thus barred under the strict jurisdictional deadlines articulated by the Supreme Court in Bowles v. Russell. Consequently, the Third Circuit dismissed the consolidated appeals in their entirety for lack of appellate jurisdiction.