Welcome to the Crystallex HUB on AGORACOM

Crystallex International Corporation is a Canadian-based gold company with a successful record of developing and operating gold mines in Venezuela and elsewhere in South America

Free
Message: 3rd. District Court of Appeals Oral Arguments

Both PDVSA and Crystatellex have put forward their main argument for the April 15th court hearing.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

ECF FILER: SUMMARY OF ORAL ARGUMENT submitted by Attorney Joseph D. Pizzurro, I, Esq. for Appellant Petroleos de Venezuela SA in 18-2797 Attorney Joseph D. Pizzurro, I, Esq. for Petitioner Petroleos de Venezuela SA in 18-2889 18-3124 Case Summary: The District Court needs an independent basis for jurisdiction over PDVSA before its property can be use to satisfy a judgment against the Republic. And there can be no alter ego finding absent an abuse of the corporate form injuring the plaintiff.. Post Video: YES. 18-2797 18-2889 18-3124 (JDP)

ECF FILER: SUMMARY OF ORAL ARGUMENT submitted by Attorney Miguel A. Estrada, Esq. for Appellee Crystallex International Corp in 18-2797 Attorney Miguel A. Estrada, Esq. for Respondent Crystallex International Corp in 18-2889 18-3124 Case Summary: To enforce Crystallex's unpaid, $1.2 billion plus interest judgment against Venezuela, did the district court err in ordering the attachment of Venezuela's property in Delaware held through Venezuela's state-owned oil company and alter ego, PDVSA?. Post Video: YES. 18-2797 18-2889 18-3124 (MAE)

The Court of Appeals can only review the applicable law (e.g. Did the DE Court attachment decision violate the Foreign Sovereing Immunity Act?), not the case facts and findings by the DE Court (e.g. PDVSA is Venezuela's alter ego). 

Three important points to remember here are:
- there is no discussion / review of the fact that Venezuela expropriated Crystallex's property and that the ICSID award is valid and enforceable in the U.S.,
- Guaido's Attorney General was a legal expert for Crystallex at the ICSID and U.S. legal proceedings that testify that the expropriation was ilegal and that the Government had legal and infact control over PDVSA,
- It does not help PDVSA's lawyer argument that PDVSA is an "ïnnocent" party because at one point in time the Government gave PDVSA control and ownership of Las Cristinas and that it sold it to the Venezuelan Central Bank for billions of dollars when it started having problems paying its suppliers. 

Was goes around, comes around?

The court will post a video and a trascript of the arguments on its internet site the same day.

 

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply