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

Union Glory v. PDVSA , Answering Brief in Opposition, February 14, 2024

16 Feb 2024
Union Glory Limited v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A. 
View case details
Answering Brief in Opposition
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Answering Brief in Opposition
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
Claimant's counsel
John R. Keough, Scott Leonhardt
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
Clyde & Co., Rosner Law Group, PDVSA Petroleo, Petróleos de Venezuela, Union Glory Limited
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Answering Brief in Opposition
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

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).