What is the current status of enforcement or annulment proceedings in the ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil arbitrations?
Executive summary
ConocoPhillips’ long‑running ICSID and ICC victories have largely survived Venezuela’s legal challenges and are in the process of being recognised and enforced in multiple jurisdictions, while ExxonMobil’s awards—smaller in size—have also been enforced in U.S. courts; both companies continue to pursue practical collection through national courts and enforcement measures even as political developments in Venezuela complicate immediate recoveries [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. ConocoPhillips: from arbitration win to annulment skirmishes to cross‑border enforcement
ConocoPhillips secured multi‑billion‑dollar awards stemming from Venezuela’s 2007 nationalisations—including an ICSID ruling ordering roughly $8.7 billion in compensation and separate ICC awards—and Venezuela repeatedly sought to annul or resist those awards, but recent reporting indicates annulment attempts have failed and courts in jurisdictions such as Trinidad and Tobago (and U.S. courts in related matters) have moved to recognise and help enforce Conoco’s claims, with Conoco taking enforcement steps like persuading a court to appoint a receiver over payments owed to PDVSA in the Caribbean [1] [2] [3] [5].
2. ExxonMobil: a smaller award but confirmed enforcement in U.S. courts
ExxonMobil’s claims against Venezuela have resulted in awards in the order of roughly $1.6–$1.65 billion from investment tribunals, and reporting from Global Arbitration Review and other outlets shows at least one U.S. court has enforced an Exxon ICSID award—dismissing Venezuela’s arguments about tribunal error tied to representation issues—so Exxon has moved from tribunal victory to judicial enforcement in national courts [4] [6] [3].
3. Where annulment proceedings stand: Venezuela’s attempts and mixed outcomes
Venezuela has repeatedly sought to annul or otherwise overturn ICSID and ICC awards, and while some procedural challenges were pursued, reporting shows significant defeats for Caracas in court: U.S. courts have rejected appeals on at least some awards and annulment committees have, in Conoco’s case, produced decisions that commentators say leave Venezuela with few remaining legal avenues to delay enforcement [2] [5] [3].
4. Enforcement tactics and practical recovery: legal wins versus real‑world collection
The companies have translated tribunal victories into enforcement actions in national courts and targeted assets or streams tied to Venezuela or its state firms—Conoco convinced a Trinidad court to appoint a receiver over payments due to PDVSA, and courts in multiple jurisdictions have been asked to recognise or execute awards—but practical recovery remains a separate challenge because enforcement depends on locating attachable assets and on the willingness of third‑party jurisdictions to act, a process already underway but unlikely to instantly yield full payment [3] [2].
5. Political developments and U.S. policy: a complicating overlay
The overthrow of Nicolás Maduro and the current U.S. administration’s posture create fresh opportunities and risks: U.S. officials have signalled enforcement of claims is not an immediate priority even as the White House presses oil majors to invest if they want access or leverage, and the changing political landscape could either facilitate negotiated settlements or introduce new diplomatic and commercial obstacles to speedy collection [7] [8] [9].
6. Bottom line — legally strong, practically incomplete
Legally, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil have turned arbitration awards into court recognitions and enforcement steps across jurisdictions, with Venezuela’s annulment and appeal attempts largely unsuccessful in the reported cases; practically, the companies still face the hard work of enforcement — identifying recoverable assets, winning recognition in debtor jurisdictions, and turning judgments into cash amid shifting geopolitics and competing creditor claims [1] [3] [2] [4].