https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/10/07/case-day-crystallex-international-v-petroleos-de-venezuela/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:50:11 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/10/07/case-day-crystallex-international-v-petroleos-de-venezuela/#comment-2664 Mon, 05 Aug 2019 10:02:21 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23466#comment-2664 […] Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Veneuela (3d Cir. 2019). I last wrote about the case in October 2016. Crystallex, a Canadian company that had invested in a Venezuelan gold mining project, won a $1.2 […]

]]> https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/10/07/case-day-crystallex-international-v-petroleos-de-venezuela/#comment-2663 Fri, 07 Oct 2016 13:00:45 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23466#comment-2663 I didn’t want to comment too much on the UFTA issues in the post itself, as they are somewhat far afield for Letters Blogatory, but I’m a business litigator and so I have some views on this. I think the judge’s decision is very odd and likely wrong. The complaint alleges that Petróleos de Venezuela, but not CITGO, is an alter ego of Venezuela. So the transfer was a transfer to the arbitration award debtor! I don’t really see how that can be a fraudulent transfer. This is related, I think, to the judge’s counterintuitive reading of the word “by.” In this context, it seems to me that “by” implies a transfer from the debtor, not a transfer to the debtor.

]]>