This HTML version is machine-generated. Always consult the original document.

[Page 1]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

[Page 2]

[Page 3]

[Page 4]

[Page 5]

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this 21st day of June, 2023:

Having reviewed the briefing submitted in connection with the issues outlined in the May 10, 2023 order relating to whether any Additional Judgments should be added to the sale process,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following questions shall be answered by the parties noted in the question(s) – and may be answered by any other interested entity – in letter briefs not to exceed five pages¹ that shall be filed no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, June 23:

1. What is the Special Master’s view of whether, pursuant to paragraph 49 of the Sale Procedures Order, the Court should order proceedings that would result in the issuance of a replacement certificate of the PDVH shares owned by PDVSA? Would the failure to have a replacement certificate issued tend to make it more difficult to achieve a value-maximizing sale transaction?
2. What is the Venezuela Parties’ view as to whether the share certificate is already effectively in the possession of the U.S. Marshals as a result of the writ of attachment issued to Crystallex and served on PDVSA in 2018? Do the Venezuela Parties agree that any additional writs would need to be served on Crystallex?
3. Should the Court certify to the Delaware Supreme Court the question of whether, notwithstanding the 1998 amendment of 8 Del. C. § 324 to add reference to Del. C. § 8-112, the Court retains authority under the circumstances presented here to order PDVH to reissue the share certificate or, alternatively, to waive the physical seizure requirement?

¹ To be clear, no party or entity may submit a letter brief that exceeds five pages. This limitation applies no matter how many questions to which any party or entity responds.

[Page 6]

4. What is the Special Master’s view as to the latest possible date in the process (e.g., Launch Date, Date of Sale, some other date) he can know with certainty which judgments are Additional Judgments being added to the sale process – and which judgments or Additional Judgments have perfected attachments – without the uncertainty prior to that date adversely affecting his ability to obtain a value-maximizing transaction?
5. Do paragraphs 15 and/or 47 and/or any other part of the Sale Procedures Order resolve whether a party whose judgment is added as an Additional Judgment must pay (i) pro rata (i.e., a percentage equal to the ratio of its judgment to the total judgments at issue in the sale) or per capita (i.e., each party with a judgment pays a percentage equal to 1 divided by the number of parties with a judgment that is at issue in the sale), and (ii) fees and expenses retroactive to the beginning of the Special Master’s work or only fees and expenses incurred beginning on the date the party’s judgment is made an Additional Judgment? If these matters are not viewed as already resolved by the Sale Procedures Order, what should the Court’s answers to them be?
6. Does any party dispute RDK’s representation that it has a license from OFAC that authorized it to engage in activities incident and necessary to the settlement of claims by RDK against PDVSA and to obtain the writ of attachment fieri facias it received from the Superior Court of Delaware? Does any party dispute that the Venezuela Parties waived any sovereign immunity argument they might otherwise have been able to raise against RDK?

Signature

HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT