Petroleos De Venezuela S.A. v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-10023
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Petroleos De Venezuela v. MUFG Union Bank, Judge Failla ordered the parties to seek the United States’ views on Venezuela’s bond-indenture invalidation.
The plaintiffs and defendants were ordered to notify the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and request the United States Government’s views on the 2020 Bond Indenture.
What happened
Petroleos De Venezuela S.A. v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A. concerns plaintiffs’ argument that the act of state doctrine may apply to the dispute involving the 2020 Bond Indenture.
The court asked the parties to notify the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that it wanted the United States’ views on whether recognizing the Venezuelan National Assembly’s denunciation and invalidation of the indenture would be consistent with U.S. law and policy.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the parties to request that the Government provide its views by August 5, 2020. The order did not decide the parties’ summary-judgment motion or the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Petroleos De Venezuela S.A. v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A. · No. 1:19-cv-10023
- Katherine Failla
- June 25, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs Petroleos de Venezuela S.A., PDVSA Petroleo S.A., and PDV Holding, Inc. raised the possible application of the act of state doctrine in briefing supporting their motion for summary judgment. That doctrine can require courts to consider whether recognizing an act by a foreign government would be consistent with the law and policy of the United States.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to notify the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that the court invited the views of the United States Government. The question presented was whether recognition of the Venezuelan National Assembly’s denunciation and invalidation of the 2020 Bond Indenture would be consistent with U.S. law and policy.
The notification was to be directed specifically to Jeffrey Oestericher, Chief of the Civil Division. The parties were also ordered to request that the Government provide its views to the court no later than August 5, 2020.
Effect of the Order
This order sought the Government’s position to assist the court’s analysis. It did not resolve the act of state issue, rule on the summary-judgment motion, or decide the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.