The CITGO auction is progressing towards the sale hearing scheduled for September 2025, based on a proposed timeline by the court-appointed expert, Robert B. Pincus, who largely has the support of most stakeholders.
However, any eventual recommendation he makes regarding a specific bidder—whether Dalinar or an alternative—will be a determining factor in the viability of the timeline for Gold Reserve and Valores, as well as for the Venezuelan Parties.
Disagreements about response times and the need for reply briefs persist, but Pincus asserts that the timeline is manageable and that rebuttals can be presented during the sale hearing.
The Venezuelan parties clarify that their involvement does not imply a waiver of their pending appeals or their intention to modify the amount of the Gold Reserve embargo.
Court Expert’s Report on CITGO Auction Timeline
The court expert for the CITGO auction, Robert B. Pincus, submitted a joint status report that includes a Proposed Scheduling Order for the sale process, discovery, and draft submissions prior to the Sale Hearing.
This schedule sets September 15, 2025, as the restart date, with all written submissions to be completed by September 11, 2025. Most stakeholders believe this timeline is feasible, allowing all issues to be addressed and witnesses to appear.
Nonetheless, there are significant differences regarding the feasibility of the timeline, particularly if the court expert recommends a different bidder than Dalinar.
Disagreements and Positions of the Parties
There are major disagreements concerning the proposed scheduling, especially in alternative scenarios:
Gold Reserve and Valores believe that if the court expert continues to recommend the transaction with Dalinar in his updated Final Recommendation, it would be best to adopt the proposed timeline in Annex A.
Meanwhile, if Robert Pincus recommends another bid in his updated Final Recommendation, Gold Reserve and Valores argue that it will be “impossible” to complete discovery and submit pre-hearing documents by September 15, 2025. In this case, they propose adopting the alternate timeline attached as Annex B.
The court expert and other interested parties view the proposal from Gold Reserve and Valores as “inconsistent with the Court’s instructions” provided during the status conference on August 11, 2025.
Venezuelan Parties
Both the Republic and PDVSA estimate that if the court expert recommends a bidder other than Dalinar in his updated Final Recommendation, the Venezuelan Parties “do not believe that the proposed timeline allows sufficient time for stakeholders to respond effectively to such a recommendation.” They support the concept reflected in Annex B, pending revisions and future meetings to agree on specific dates.
Since the schedule proposed by Robert Pincus does not include reply briefs, the Venezuelan parties are requesting a modification to:
- Require the submission of briefs from any entity (except for the court expert) that supports or opposes the updated Final Recommendation by September 5, so that the Venezuelan Parties can respond to the arguments of the proponents of the recommendation.
- Allow 5-page reply briefs to be submitted on Saturday, September 13.
The Republic and PDVSA warn that their participation in this scheduling proposal “does not waive their positions, here or on appeal, including whether a sale should take place, and whether the process should wait for a decision in the litigation of the PDVSA 2020 Bondholders.”
The Venezuelan parties express their intention to request a modification of the Gold Reserve embargo order amount to reflect the receipt of USD 240 million by the Republic.
Position of the Court Expert and Others
The court expert, Robert Pincus, along with other interested parties, consider it unnecessary for parties supporting the updated Final Recommendation to submit opening briefs on September 5.
They suggest that it would be “more efficient” for any objections to the updated Final Recommendation to be submitted on September 5, and for those wishing to respond to these objections to present their responses by September 11. They believe “any rebuttal arguments can be made during the Sale Hearing.”