Venezuela US SRL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Case summary

At a glance

Parties: Venezuela US SRL (Barbados) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Case no.: D.C. Circuit No. 25-7096 (appeal from D.D.C. No. 1:22-cv-03822)
Forum and rules: Recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 201–08). The underlying arbitration was seated in The Hague under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
Treaty: Treaty between Barbados and Venezuela (named in the dissent only)
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: Senior Circuit Judge Randolph (opinion), Circuit Judges Rao and Walker (Walker dissenting)
Underlying award(s): Arbitral decision on jurisdiction and merits (February 2021); damages award (November 2022)
Sector: Oil and gas
Outcome: Affirmed (12 June 2026). The district court's recognition and enforcement of the award against Venezuela stands. Judge Walker dissented.
Amount: The majority describes the award as USD 59 million plus costs, attorney fees and interest. The dissent describes it as more than USD 100 million.

The dispute

In 2006 Venezuela US SRL (VUS), a Barbados company, acquired an 18 percent stake in Petroritupano, S.A., a Venezuelan mixed company holding oil production rights. Its other shareholders were state-owned and were paid dividends for 2008 and 2009; VUS received nothing. VUS started arbitration in The Hague in 2013 and obtained findings of liability in February 2021 and a damages award in November 2022. While the arbitration was pending, the United States recognized Juan Guaidó's Interim Government in January 2019. In June 2020 the Maduro regime replaced Venezuela's counsel, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, with Guglielmino & Associados S.A., which then conducted the damages phase. When VUS sought enforcement in the United States, Venezuela argued only that enforcing the award would violate U.S. public policy under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, because it would contradict the President's exclusive power to recognize foreign governments.

Key holdings

The court did not decide whether the President's recognition power is a cognizable public policy under the New York Convention. Even if it were, recognizing and enforcing this award would not violate it, so the Federal Arbitration Act requires recognition. Majority op., pp. 6–7
Valores Mundiales v. Venezuela, 87 F.4th 510 (D.C. Cir. 2023), is binding on this point, although it concerned ICSID awards. Recognizing an award is not a formal acknowledgment that the Maduro regime was Venezuela's effective government, and it does not force the Executive to contradict its recognition of the Guaidó government. Majority op., pp. 7–8
The link to the recognition power is weaker here than in Valores. The Interim Government never tried to replace the Maduro regime's counsel in the arbitration, so the arbitral tribunal never had to choose between rival governments. Majority op., p. 8
The court would not consider public-policy theories Venezuela never raised in the district court or on appeal. These were the right to be heard, adequate representation, the right to counsel, foreign sovereignty and separation of powers. Venezuela's counsel expressly disclaimed reliance on inadequate representation at oral argument. Majority op., pp. 9–12, 13–14
Complaints about the right to be heard and to counsel fall under Article V(1)(b), not the public-policy exception of Article V(2)(b). Such rights may be waived. Separation of powers and comity do not engage any basic notion of morality and justice here. Majority op., pp. 11–13
Dissent (Walker, J.): Judge Walker would reverse. In his view, five considerations taken together make recognition contrary to U.S. public policy: the right to be heard, adequate representation, the right to counsel, respect for foreign sovereignty, and separation of powers. He would hold that Valores does not control because no public-policy exception applied under the ICSID full faith and credit standard, and that forfeiture cannot displace the court's duty to resolve the public-policy question. Dissent, pp. 2–3, 9–28

Procedural history

2013VUS commences arbitration against Venezuela in The Hague. The tribunal splits the case into jurisdiction, merits and damages phases.
2016First phase ends: the tribunal finds that Venezuela consented to arbitrate.
23 January 2019The National Assembly names Juan Guaidó Interim President. The U.S. President recognizes him the same day.
June 2020The Maduro-led government replaces the Curtis firm with Guglielmino & Associados S.A. (30 June 2020 according to the dissent).
February 2021The tribunal dismisses Venezuela's jurisdictional challenge and finds Venezuela liable.
November 2022Damages award in favour of VUS (4 November 2022 according to the dissent).
2025The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia grants VUS's petition for recognition and enforcement (789 F. Supp. 3d 1).
23 February 2026Oral argument before the D.C. Circuit.
12 June 2026The D.C. Circuit affirms, with Judge Walker dissenting.