By Marianna Parraga
HOUSTON (Reuters) – Holders of billions of dollars in Venezuelan bonds and notes have emerged as last-minute protagonists in a U.S. court case set to decide the ownership of oil refiner Citgo Petroleum, threatening to derail an auction to compensate more than a dozen companies for unpaid debts and expropriations by the country.
At least two groups of holders have resorted to other U.S. courts to enforce their claims, pursuing the same Citgo assets that industrial conglomerates, mining and oil firms have been pursuing for years.
The court cases, designed to circumvent the court’s priority in payouts, have added new delays to a 7-year-long case and increased uncertainty over which company best positioned to take over the seventh-largest U.S. refiner.
The new lawsuits last month motivated Elliott Investment Management affiliate Amber Energy to impose conditions to its $7.3 billion offer for Citgo’s parent, PDV Holding, making it a highly uncertain bid. PDV Holding’s only asset is Citgo’s 807,000-barrel-per-day refining network and linked facilities.
If the Delaware court handling the auction cannot block the rival claims, the Elliott affiliate’s offer can be withdrawn in days, throwing the auction into chaos.
WHO IS FIRST?
Holders led by Gramercy Distressed Opportunity Fund want to have the Delaware court prioritize their payments, which would cut the potential proceeds from the share auction available to other creditors, leaving a large number of them empty-handed.
Creditors including oil giant ConocoPhillips, Gold Reserve and miner Crystallex, which brought the original case that found Citgo’s parent liable for Venezuela’s debts, have opposed allowing the bondholders to jump the line.
If the Gramercy claims are not barred, they could dash the court’s carefully constructed ‘first come, first serve’ priority order that begins with Crystallex, Tidewater, ConocoPhillips, O-I Glass and Huntington Ingalls.
Citgo, Venezuela’s crown jewel of foreign assets, has been valued up to $13 billion as part of the auction while claims against those shares total $21.3 billion. Venezuela’s external debt, which remains largely unpaid, is about $150 billion.
CAN THE BONDHOLDERS BE STOPPED?
Robert Pincus, the court officer managing the auction, has requested the judge block creditors already participating in the sale process from resorting to other courts.
Judge Leonard Stark is expected to make a decision soon, which could be challenged, further delaying the sale or forcing the court officer to start negotiations with another bidder, or ultimately scrap the auction.
Another group of creditors, the holders of bonds collateralized with Citgo equity, also could be prioritized. They have not won their court cases about the bonds’ validity, but Stark this year approved a motion to include payment provisions as part of bids, which granted them a place in the deliberations.
Pincus failed to reach a payment agreement with these holders as part of the bid negotiation on the deadline set by the court. Because of the many obstacles in the middle, Elliott affiliate’s offer has not been confirmed by the judge and the process’ deadlines will not be enforced until a new schedule is approved, Stark said last month.
WHAT ARE OTHER CREDITORS DOING?
Several creditors have told the judge they could follow Gramercy’s strategy and file parallel lawsuits if Stark does not block the holders from resorting to other courts.
Siemens Energy this month filed a similar lawsuit in a Texas court seeking to recoup about $200 million from a promissory note unpaid by Citgo’s ultimate parent, state company PDVSA.
Creditors that do not hold Venezuelan bonds or notes and lawyers representing Venezuela have criticized the negotiation between Pincus and Amber Energy, arguing it lacks transparency and the bid’s amount is too low to even cover the first claims in line.
They will be granted time to file objections to the offer and to the process once a new calendar is approved, likely postponing the case’s final hearing to early 2025, the judge said.
(Reporting by Marianna Parraga; Editing by Nick Zieminski)
Comments