Through an oral order, the Delaware Court warned that the final recommendation from the court-appointed expert in the CITGO auction does not automatically reject all objections raised by the parties from Venezuela regarding specific clauses of the proposed sale order.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that it has not committed to a specific date to rule on these particular objections. However, in order to expedite the process if the recommendation is accepted, it urged the involved parties—including the court-appointed expert, Amber Energy, and the CITGO auction parties—to meet and jointly present a detailed table of disputes along with a version of the sale order that clearly indicates, using color coding, the conflicting provisions and the proposed alternative text. This must be submitted by November 20 at the latest.
The Venezuelan parties urged the court to rule on their objections exclusively based on the legal and factual merits of such objections, “without succumbing to undue pressure from the Court-Appointed Expert and Amber.”
The Order
On November 18, 2025, Judge Leonard P. Stark of the United States District Court for Delaware issued an oral order aimed at clarifying his previous statements regarding the Updated Final Recommendation from the court-appointed expert in the CITGO auction.
The judge corrected the interpretation made by court-appointed expert Robert Pincus and Amber Energy, indicating that his intention to decide on accepting the recommendation by November 30 does not imply the automatic rejection of all objections raised by the Venezuelan parties regarding specific clauses of the proposed sale order.
The court is also not committed to ruling on these objections regarding specific provisions of the proposed sale order by a certain date. The only way Amber Energy can ensure that the court quickly signs a sale order upon issuing its decision is by presenting a proposal for a sale order without objections (apart from those raised to preserve appeal rights).
Nevertheless, the court-appointed expert, Amber Energy, and the parties in the CITGO auction process can assist the court in resolving any objections to the proposed sale order by meeting, deliberating, and presenting, no later than 5:00 PM on Thursday, November 20, the following:
- A jointly prepared table identifying, as clearly and concisely as possible, (i) the disputed provision and its location in the proposed order, a brief description of the exact parameters of the dispute regarding that provision, and an argument of no more than 250 words per party for each position on the dispute;
- A version of the proposed sale order that shows, as clearly as possible, where the disputed provisions are located and includes, in different colors, the alternative text proposed by Amber Energy and the opposing parties.
Response from Venezuela’s Parties to the Court-Appointed Expert
On November 17, 2025, the legal representation of the Venezuelan parties accused the court-appointed expert of the CITGO auction and Amber Energy of using undue pressure tactics to influence a judicial decision by Judge Leonard P. Stark.
Venezuela believes that the court-appointed expert and Amber are threatening the potential failure of the CITGO auction if the court modifies the Proposed Sale Order (PSO) and the Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA) submitted. They warn that the holders of PDVSA 2020 bonds might rescind a key agreement after December 1, 2025, eliminating a significant discount of about USD 735 million.
Venezuela characterized this warning as a “transparent and inappropriate attempt” to coerce the court. It argues that any issue related to the December 1 deadline is a situation “created by Amber.” Furthermore, it states that there is no evidence that the clauses objected to by Venezuela are essential requirements for Amber’s financers or bondholders.
In this regard, it refers that the contractual agreements stipulate that the consent of these parties is subject to a “reasonableness” standard and cannot be arbitrarily denied. It urges the court to assess the Venezuelan objections strictly based on their merits, without yielding to external pressure.