What enforcement actions have ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil taken to collect ICSID and ICC awards against Venezuela since 2019?
Executive summary
ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil have pursued a multi‑jurisdictional enforcement campaign since 2019 that combines court recognition of ICSID/ICC awards, domestic enforcement petitions, attachment and receiver orders over Venezuelan oil revenues, and the inclusion of their claims in litigation over CITGO—while Venezuela has repeatedly sought annulments and invoked sovereign‑immunity and political defenses [1] [2] [3] [4]. The two oil majors have relied on U.S. and regional courts to turn arbitral awards into executable judgments and to seize streams tied to PDVSA or its subsidiaries rather than extracting payment directly from Venezuela’s coffers [3] [5] [6].
1. ConocoPhillips: turning ICSID and ICC awards into domestic judgments and seizures
After an ICSID tribunal awarded ConocoPhillips roughly $8.7 billion in 2019 for unlawful expropriation, ConocoPhillips registered and sought enforcement of that award through U.S. proceedings and overseas courts, including registering the award in Delaware and seeking writs to attach U.S.‑based PDVSA shares and payments [1] [3]. The company also incorporated the earlier ICC contract award (about $2 billion) into enforcement efforts and negotiated a settlement over one ICC claim with PDVSA in 2018, while continuing to press the remaining awards in court [1] [2]. ConocoPhillips has persuaded courts in the Caribbean—most notably Trinidad and Tobago—to recognise and register ICSID awards and to appoint receivers over payments due to PDVSA as part of recovery efforts tied to an ICC award, leveraging local jurisdiction over PDVSA revenue streams [5] [6]. U.S. appellate and district courts have been used to tie awards to Venezuelan assets in the United States, and Conoco has successfully incorporated favorable “alter ego” or attachment rulings into Delaware proceedings to press claims against PDVSA and CITGO‑related assets [7] [3].
2. ExxonMobil: smaller awards, targeted enforcement and U.S. court backing
ExxonMobil’s ICSID awards date earlier (a notable 2014 award arising from nationalization disputes), and the company has pursued enforcement in U.S. courts to convert arbitral victories into collectible judgments, with at least one U.S. court enforcing an ExxonMobil billion‑dollar ICSID award against Venezuela [5] [8]. Reports indicate ExxonMobil has sought additional resubmissions and top‑up awards in subsequent years and that U.S. courts have dismissed some Venezuelan objections—allowing Exxon to attach or seek recognition of awards in U.S. jurisdictions [9] [8]. Public reporting notes partial payments from Venezuela on some Exxon claims but emphasizes that Exxon has continued to litigate to collect outstanding balances [9].
3. Strategy: chasing revenue streams, courts across borders and the CITGO auction
Both companies have adopted a strategy of pursuing assets and revenue streams tied to PDVSA and its subsidiaries rather than relying on direct state payment; that approach includes recognition and registration in multiple national courts, receiver appointments over PDVSA payments, attachment motions against PDVSA shares, and folding their claims into court‑managed processes for CITGO in the United States, where auction or court‑ordered sales could satisfy arbitration awards on a “first come, first served” basis [5] [4] [7]. ConocoPhillips in particular has pushed both ICSID and ICC awards into an ongoing court‑ordered auction context for CITGO and sought to register awards in jurisdictions where PDVSA conducts business to tap receivables [4] [6].
4. Venezuela’s responses and legal limits of enforcement
Venezuela has repeatedly sought annulment of awards, invoked its 2012 withdrawal from ICSID (while tribunals have held that withdrawal does not affect pre‑existing liabilities), challenged procedural grounds and arbitrator impartiality, and cited economic and sanctions constraints as practical barriers to payment; annulment attempts were dismissed in key ConocoPhillips proceedings, enabling recognition efforts to proceed [2] [10] [11]. Sanctions and diplomatic complexities have constrained straightforward execution of awards, leaving companies to pursue piecemeal enforcement against corporate revenue streams and foreign‑jurisdiction assets rather than full immediate recovery from the state treasury [4] [12].
5. What reporting covers and remaining gaps
Public reporting documents multiple enforcement steps—U.S. filings in Delaware and Washington DC, appellate opinions, recognition orders in Trinidad and Tobago, receiver appointments over PDVSA payments, and inclusion of awards in CITGO litigation—primarily for ConocoPhillips, and earlier ICSID enforcement for ExxonMobil [3] [6] [5] [8]. Coverage is less complete on the precise amounts collected to date, the full list of jurisdictions where attachments were successful, and the detailed timeline of each enforcement motion; where those specifics are not contained in the cited reporting, this account does not speculate beyond the sources [9] [7].