The Delaware District Court partially granted a motion filed by Gold Reserve and the Venezuela Parties, seeking to compel a statement from an ad hoc group of PDVSA 2020 Bondholders, which will be significant for the CITGO auction, as it addresses matters related to the updated recommendation made by the court-appointed expert to accept an offer from Amber Energy.
The Amber offer has the backing of the 2020 Bondholders and is viewed as superior to a prior offer. However, the court excluded one specific topic from the statement concerning the economic relationship between the Bondholders and the court-appointed expert, deeming it disproportionate to the needs of the case.
This order emphasizes the critical importance of the 2020 Bondholders and their perspective in assessing the offers in the CITGO auction, particularly regarding Amber Energy’s proposal and its Transaction Support Agreement.
The Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is considered essential for the Court to better understand the key elements supporting the expert’s recommendation. The limitation on the scope and duration of the deposition reflects a balance between the need for discovery and the efficiency of the expedited legal process.
The Court Order
On September 9, 2025, Judge Leonard P. Stark, of the Delaware District Court, issued an order concerning the motion to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition from an ad hoc group of 2020 Bondholders in the context of the CITGO auction.
The motion was filed by Gold Reserve and the Venezuela Parties in an effort to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition from an ad hoc group of 2020 Bondholders. The bondholders opposed the motion, and the applicants responded.
The Court determined that nearly all topics the applicants wish to depose the bondholders about are relevant to the matters to be addressed at the CITGO auction.
Relevance of the PDVSA 2020 Bondholders
The current updated final recommendation from the court-appointed expert, Robert B. Pincus, asserts that Amber Energy’s offer is superior to the previously recommended Dalinar offer in which Gold Reserve is involved. This Amber offer includes a Transaction Support Agreement (TSA) whereby the 2020 Bondholders propose to resolve a pending lawsuit in the Southern District of New York and support Amber Energy’s offer.
The 2020 Bondholders are a substantial party in the case, and their consideration is the reason for the expert’s recent shift in support toward Amber Energy’s offer.
The bondholders from 2020 argued that the information had already been covered by the individual deposition of Xiao Song, which was dismissed by the Court, noting that such a deposition does not necessarily reflect the opinions of other bondholders and does not bind the 2020 bondholders as an ad hoc entity.
The objection that the requested discovery exceeded the scope ordered by the Court was also denied.
The Court concurred with the 2020 bondholders that the topic “The economic or commercial relationship, if any, between the PDVSA 2020 Bondholders and the court-appointed expert and/or their principal advisors would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, given its ‘tangential’ evidentiary value and the ‘highly expedited’ nature of the proceedings.
The Court instructed the 2020 bondholders to, no later than September 13, present one or more “adequately prepared” Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses to testify on all topics notified by the requesting parties.
Gold Reserve’s Request
On September 9, 2025, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, on behalf of Gold Reserve, filed a motion with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to compel the PDVSA 2020 Bondholders to appear for deposition to state their position concerning the CITGO auction.
Gold Reserve seeks to compel the PDVSA 2020 bondholders to testify, arguing that they are an integral part of a central settlement agreement (TSA) for the updated final recommendation of the special expert. They rebut the bondholders’ objections and emphasize that the information is new and critical for understanding the TSA, which, they argue, is not self-explanatory.
The Venezuela Parties’ Request
On September 9, 2025, the Venezuela Parties—Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., PDV Holding Inc., and CITGO Petroleum Corporation—responded to the objection from the PDVSA 2020 Bondholders against their motion to compel them to appear for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition concerning the CITGO auction.
The Venezuela Parties argue that the participation of the 2020 Bondholders is crucial for the judicial process, especially regarding the court-appointed expert, Robert B. Pincus’s decision to review his auction recommendation in favor of Amber Energy, resulting in an offer with $2 billion less in consideration compared to the Dalinar offer.
The 2020 Bondholders oppose the deposition, claiming that their testimony is irrelevant and that the documents at issue “speak for themselves.”
The Venezuela Parties maintain that it is “difficult to understand… how the 2020 Bondholders can now argue that they are somehow irrelevant to the process.”
In response to the bondholders’ argument that the TSA “cannot be subject to deposition because it is a document that speaks for itself,” the Venezuela Parties contradict this, noting that “numerous terms and provisions that are integral to determining whether the TSA enhances the certainty of closing are undefined and ambiguous.” They assert that they have the right to know if the bondholders “plan to take additional steps to suspend” the New York litigation, especially since the special expert’s recommendation is partly based on the outcome of such litigation.
The Venezuela Parties counter this by stating that the Court must determine whether “diverting over $2 billion from the creditors before it is justified to address the claims of the 2020 Bondholders in question and their threats to seek an injunction in that litigation.”
The New York District Court “confirmed that its decision on the validity of the 2020 Bonds will be published before the end of September, despite the bondholders’ repeated efforts to avoid it.”
The PDVSA 2020 Bondholders’ Objection
On September 9, 2025, the PDVSA 2020 Bondholders responded to the deposition request from Gold Reserve and the Venezuela Parties concerning an ad hoc group of PDVSA 2020 bondholders. They argue that the requested deposition is unnecessary, duplicative, overly burdensome, and inconsistent with previous court orders that strictly limit discovery due to the expedited nature of the litigation.
They highlight that information regarding the Transaction Support Agreement (TSA) is already public and that the issues related to the economic relationship with the court-appointed expert are a “fishing expedition” without merit. Additionally, they note that the PDVSA 2020 bondholders are neither party nor witness according to the court’s definitions for depositions, and that document requests overlap with deposition notices, many of which were filed untimely.