The request to dismiss the judicial expert in the CITGO auction, presented to the Delaware Court by the parties from Venezuela and Gold Reserve, was not successful, as the presiding judge denied the motions requesting such actions.
Judge Leonard P. Stark issued a court order in the case of Crystallex International Corp. v. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which restricted the sale of shares of PDV Holding Inc., owner of CITGO Petroleum Corporation. He denied multiple motions submitted by various parties and non-parties.
Specifically, the court denied requests from Gold Reserve and Venezuela to disqualify the judge, the judicial expert, and their advisors, as well as Gold Reserve’s request to suspend the ongoing sales process.
The court also rejected Leroy Garrett’s motions for reconsideration and the additional discovery request from non-party Pavel Vistanetsky. The court anticipates issuing a decision on the objections to the Updated Final Recommendation by no later than November 30, 2025.
Judge Leonard P. Stark’s Court Order
On November 13, 2025, Judge Leonard P. Stark of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued an order denying a set of motions presented by various parties and non-parties in the case of Crystallex International Corp. v. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The judge’s order categorically rejected multiple motions aimed at disqualifying key figures from the judicial process and at suspending the CITGO auction, which is currently under his supervision. Specifically, the court denied requests from Gold Reserve and the Venezuelan Parties to disqualify the judge, the judicial expert, and their advisors. The request to suspend the sales process of PDV Holding Inc. shares was also denied.
The court reaffirmed its timeline and projected a final decision on the auction recommendations by November 30, 2025. It warned the parties against inferring a result from these procedural decisions. The court also dismissed motions filed by non-parties, reaffirming procedural control and the standing requirements to intervene in the case.
Specific Points of the Judicial Decision
The court order highlights six specific points that solidify the authority of the court and ensure the continuity of the CITGO auction process.
Rejection of Disqualification Motions
The court conclusively denied two central motions seeking to disqualify the main supervisors of the auction process.
Gold Reserve’s Motion: The request to disqualify the District Judge, the judicial expert, and their advisors presented by Gold Reserve under 28 U.S.C. § 455 was denied.
Venezuelan Parties’ Motion: The request from the Venezuelan Parties — the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., PDV Holding, CITGO Petroleum Corporation — also seeking to disqualify the judicial expert and its advisors was similarly denied.
The court indicated that the full reasoning for these denials is detailed in a separate Opinion issued on the same date. It emphasized that the allegations did not meet the legal standard for disqualification.
Continuity of the CITGO Auction Process
The uninterrupted continuation of the CITGO auction process was reaffirmed by denying a request for suspension.
Gold Reserve’s Suspension Request: The court denied Gold Reserve’s request to halt the ongoing sales process. This decision allows the court to continue its evaluation of the “Updated Final Recommendation of the Judicial Expert” and the objections raised against it. This denial is crucial as it avoids further delays in a lengthy judicial process.
Timeline for Final Decision on CITGO Auction
Judge Stark clarified the timelines for the next critical phase of the case while warning against premature speculation.
Expected Date of Ruling: The court reiterated its expectation to issue a ruling on the objections to the Updated Final Recommendation by no later than November 30, 2025, or around that date.
Minimum Deadline: It was specified that due to ongoing evaluations, the ruling will not be issued before November 21, 2025.
Warning to Parties: The court issued an explicit warning: “The parties are reminded that they should not infer from today’s decision what the ruling will be regarding the merits of the recommendation and objections.”
Dismissal of Leroy Garrett’s Reconsideration Motion
The court addressed and denied a complex motion submitted by Leroy Garrett, a non-party to the main litigation.
Motion Denied: The “motion for reconsideration of the denials, the disqualification of Judge Stark, and the approval of the QSF” was denied.
Reasons for Rejection: The denial was based on the opinion issued that day and prior orders. The court emphasized that Garrett “has not identified any meritorious basis for the disqualification of the court or for reconsideration.”
Garrett’s Status: The order clarifies that although Leroy Garrett “is neither a party, nor a creditor, nor a bidder, and his intervention requests have been denied,” the court considered his numerous documents and allowed him to participate orally in the proceedings when he demonstrated a “tangentially conceivable interest” and complied with court procedures.
Dismissal of Pavel Vistanetsky’s Requests
Finally, the court rejected the requests of another non-party, Pavel Vistanetsky, for lack of foundation and standing.
Additional Discovery Request: This was denied for multiple reasons, including that he is not a party in the case and “has not presented any reasonable basis to conclude that additional discovery is likely to produce relevant evidence.”
Transcription Requests: His request for transcripts was denied as improper.
Clarification on Access to Transcripts: The court took the opportunity to explain its standard procedure for public access to transcripts:
They are available for review in the clerk’s office in Wilmington or for download through PACER 90 days after the hearing.
Before that period, they can be obtained directly from the court reporter by paying the fee set by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Watch on Sin Filtros: “U.S., lethal attacks: in the Caribbean, the ELN protects Maduro”: