The Delaware court overseeing the CITGO auction has ordered the court expert, Robert B. Pincus, to submit a new joint status report by September 26, addressing the alleged conflicts of interest mentioned in a prior report. This must occur before September 26, 2025. The judge will evaluate the disqualification of Robert B. Pincus.
Furthermore, Judge Leonard P. Stark, presiding over the case of Crystallex International Corporation against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which encompasses the sale of PDV Holding Inc. shares, the owner of CITGO Holding Inc., has established the framework and schedule for the post-hearing submission process regarding the sale of the Venezuelan refinery.
The judge has scheduled three rounds of concurrent submissions related to the Updated Final Recommendation of the court expert, aiming to complete most before October 15, with oral arguments anticipated on October 20 and 21.
Court Orders
The District Court of Delaware, under the direction of Judge Leonard P. Stark, issued a series of orders on September 23, 2025, which establish a strict timeline and set of procedural rules for the post-hearing submission phase in the case of Crystallex International Corporation against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The guidelines focus on the Updated Final Recommendation of the Special Expert and aim to streamline the review process. The Court proposed an accelerated schedule for October, which includes three rounds of submissions, with a deadline for the first two rounds set for October 15, followed by oral arguments on October 20 and/or 21.
Simultaneously, Judge Stark ordered that the proceedings related to a motion to disqualify the court expert, Robert B. Pincus, and/or his advisors align with this schedule.
Additionally, a separate oral order requires Pincus to present a new joint status report on the alleged conflicts of interest by September 26. This report must reflect that the parties have reached partial agreements and continue in deliberations.
A key procedural rule is the complete prohibition of incorporating arguments from previous submissions by reference, requiring parties to present their arguments fully and independently in the new documents.
Guidelines for Post-Hearing Submissions
The Court has communicated its inclinations regarding the schedule and rules for post-hearing submissions to guide interested parties and the court expert. These guidelines emphasize efficiency and clarity in the judicial process.
Structure and Submission Rounds:
Concurrent Rounds:
Three rounds of concurrent submission of writings will be established:
- Opening Writings: Both writings supporting the Updated Final Recommendation of the court expert and those opposing it will be submitted simultaneously.
- Response Writings: The process will repeat for the response writings.
- Reply Writings: The same procedure will be followed for final reply writings.
Consolidation of Arguments:
Any entity wishing to partially support and partially object to the recommendation must consolidate all its arguments into a single document for each round.
Document Limits:
No entity may submit more than three writings in total during this process.
Procedural Rules and Limitations
The Court established specific rules to ensure that arguments are concise, complete, and properly substantiated.
Page Limits:
- Opening and Response Writings: maximum limit of 30 pages.
- Reply Writings: maximum limit of 15 pages.
Factual Presentations:
Togther with the opening writings, parties must present “proposals for findings of fact.”
These must be in the format of numbered statements or short paragraphs, each including a citation that supports the evidence in the record.
The pages used for these findings of fact will not count towards the page limit of the main writings. The Court is open to proposals for a reasonable page limit for this document.
Coordination and Joint Writings:
Litigating entities are encouraged to coordinate to present joint writings, aiming to reduce the number of separate documents that the Court must evaluate.
Prohibition of Incorporation by Reference:
The Court issued a categorical guideline: “No one shall incorporate by reference arguments from previously submitted writings.” If a party wants the Court to consider an argument, it must include it in full, with all supporting materials, within the new post-hearing submissions.
Proposed Timeline
The Court has outlined a tentative schedule for proceedings in October, designed for prompt resolution.
EventDeadline or PeriodCompletion of the first two rounds of writingsNo later than October 15, 2025Oral ArgumentOctober 20 and/or 21, 2025Submission of Reply WritingsOctober 28, 2025
Management of Related Issues
In addition to the main writing process, the Court is actively managing two related matters involving the court expert.
Motion to Disqualify the Special Expert
Parties involved in a possible motion to disqualify the court expert and/or his advisors must propose a submission schedule that allows for the majority or entirety of this process to be completed in time for the Court to hear oral arguments on the topic during the same designated dates, October 20 and/or 21.