Rusoro Mining Ltd. claims that Gold Reserve Ltd.’s lawsuit directly interferes with the CITGO auction. In response, Gold Reserve argues, with the support of the appointed expert, that their action does not constitute a violation and there is no imminent risk of interference.
This is outlined in a joint status report submitted to the presiding judge of the case — International Corporation vs. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela — Leonard P. Stark of the Delaware Court, filed by court order.
The report also establishes a timeline for submissions in the Delaware Chancery Court regarding Rusoro’s Motion to Dismiss in response to Gold Reserve’s lawsuit.
Additionally, a Stipulated Confidentiality Order has been executed, governing the dissemination of documents in the action while detailing the opposing positions of Rusoro and Gold Reserve on whether Gold Reserve’s Chancery Action violates the judicial mandate provisions of the District Court’s Sale Order.
The Joint Report of Rusoro and Gold Reserve
On December 12, 2025, Rusoro Mining Ltd. and Gold Reserve Ltd. submitted a joint report to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, detailing the ongoing legal dispute between the two companies due to a lawsuit initiated by the latter against the former in the Delaware Chancery Court, known as the “Chancery Action.”
The central issue of the controversy is whether this action violates a prior injunction provision of a Sale Order issued by the District Court in the main case of Crystallex International Corporation vs. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Rusoro maintains that Gold Reserve’s lawsuit, by seeking an injunction to stop the CITGO auction, directly interferes with the Sale Order and thus violates it. In contrast, Gold Reserve argues that their action does not constitute a violation and cites the Chancery Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the underlying contract and the absence of an imminent risk of interference. This conclusion is backed by the auction’s expert, Robert B. Pincus.
The report also establishes the procedural status of the Chancery Action and includes an agreed timeline for the filing of documents related to Rusoro’s motion to dismiss and the execution of a confidentiality order to facilitate the exchange of uncensored documents with the parties in the District Court case.
The report aims to update the Delaware Court on the status and implications of a separate litigation, namely, the Chancery Action (Gold Reserve Ltd. v. Rusoro Mining Ltd., 2025-1292-LWW), which is unfolding in the Delaware Chancery Court. This action was initiated by Gold Reserve through a lawsuit and a request for a preliminary injunction.
The Timeline for the Motion to Dismiss
Rusoro and Gold Reserve have stipulated a timeline for the submission of writings related to Rusoro’s response to Gold Reserve’s claim.
Deadline | Action to be taken
December 30, 2025 | Rusoro must file its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and its Opening Brief.
January 30, 2026 | Gold Reserve must file its Opposition Brief to the Motion to Dismiss.
February 16, 2026 | Rusoro must file its Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss.
Once Gold Reserve has filed its response brief, the attorneys for both parties will coordinate with the Chancery Court to schedule an oral hearing on the motion.
Confidentiality Order
Rusoro Mining Ltd. and Gold Reserve Ltd. executed a Stipulated Confidentiality Order in accordance with the guidelines of the Delaware Chancery Court. Once this order is formally entered by the court, it will allow other stakeholders in the District Court case — additional judgment creditors and parties involved in the CITGO auction — to execute an annex of said order. By doing so, they will be entitled to receive uncensored copies of Gold Reserve’s complaint, its request for a preliminary injunction, and the attached documents.
Controversy over the CITGO Auction
The main source of conflict detailed in the report is the divergent interpretation of the Sale Order — CITGO auction — issued by the District Court on November 29, 2025, and its effect on the Chancery Action.
Position of Rusoro Mining Ltd.
Rusoro asserts that Gold Reserve’s Chancery Action constitutes a direct violation of the injunction provisions of the Sale Order. Specifically, Rusoro relies on paragraph 6 of that order, which states:
“All Interested Parties and any person or entity acting in concert with them are prohibited and ordered not to take any action that negatively affects, interferes with, frustrates, or is in any way inconsistent with the ability of the Special Administrator or his Advisors and agents to transfer the Shares of PDVH to the Buyer pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement and this Order…”
Rusoro’s argument is that since Gold Reserve’s lawsuit in the Chancery Court explicitly seeks an injunction to prevent Rusoro from taking necessary actions to consummate the transaction authorized by the Sale Order, the continuation of said litigation directly violates the terms of this provision.
Position of Gold Reserve Ltd.
Gold Reserve contends that its Chancery Action, filed on November 7, 2025, does not infringe upon the Sale Order of November 29, 2025. Their position is based on the following points:
Equity Court Jurisdiction: The Delaware Chancery Court has already assessed the concerns of judicial courtesy, determining that it is “the exclusive forum for resolving disputes” arising from the underlying contract between the parties.
Absence of imminent interference: The expert noted in a letter to the District Court on November 20, 2025, that the Chancery Court’s decision not to expedite proceedings for the preliminary injunction “appears to have eliminated any imminent risk of the Chancery Court issuing an order that interferes with this Court’s sale process in the near future.” This, according to Gold Reserve, confirms that there is no real risk of interference.
Limitations of the Anti-Injuction Act: Gold Reserve argues that if Rusoro suggests that the District Court should issue an order to stop the proceedings in the Chancery Court, such action would be prohibited by the Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283), as none of the strict exceptions permitting such a measure are met.