What arbitration rulings have U.S. companies won against Venezuela and what assets have been targeted for enforcement?

1. The marquee prize: ConocoPhillips’ multibillion‑dollar wins and enforcement push

ConocoPhillips pursued multiple proceedings stemming from the 2007 expropriation of its Venezuelan oil projects and has secured awards totaling in the high billions, with a World Bank/ICSID-related tribunal ordering more than $8 billion and later committees dismissing Venezuela’s annulment attempts—figures reported at roughly $8.37–$8.7 billion, plus interest and costs that push liabilities higher ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}. After those rulings, ConocoPhillips has actively sought to enforce judgments by pursuing Venezuelan assets overseas and litigating in U.S. courts to prevent other creditors from undermining asset sales intended to satisfy awards, with U.S. litigation intertwined with auctions of PDVSA’s U.S. refinery business, Citgo ^{[3] [6]}.

2. Other successful claimants: ExxonMobil, Koch interests and smaller award holders

ExxonMobil obtained a billion‑dollar ICSID award that U.S. courts have enforced, with judges rejecting arguments about which Venezuelan representatives the tribunal should have recognized—demonstrating U.S. courts’ willingness to turn arbitration awards into enforceable judgments against Venezuela or its instrumentalities ^[7]. Firms controlled by Charles and David Koch won roughly $409 million in an ICSID expropriation claim in the fertiliser sector and have applied to U.S. courts to enforce that award ^[8]. Separate tribunals awarded a Barbadian oil company about $108 million and ordered over $165 million to dual nationals via UNCITRAL proceedings for indirect expropriation in the food distribution sector—both awards have seen U.S. enforcement activity or court proceedings connected to collection ^{[6] [9] [10]}.

3. Enforcement targets: Citgo, PDVSA/PDV Holding, and overseas assets

Enforcement strategies emphasize attaching assets that U.S. courts conclude are Venezuela’s corporate alter egos—primarily PDVSA and its U.S. affiliates such as PDV Holding and Citgo—because those entities operate property within U.S. jurisdiction that can be reached to satisfy awards, and courts have refused sovereign‑immunity shields in key precedents ^{[4] [6]}. The Citgo refinery business and related Delaware auction processes have become focal points for arbitral creditors and litigants, with competing enforcement and sale strategies playing out in U.S. courts as creditors seek to convert arbitration victories into recoveries ^{[6] [3]}.

4. How U.S. courts and political recognition shaped collections

U.S. federal courts have repeatedly enforced ICSID and other arbitration awards against Venezuela, often grappling with which Venezuelan regime’s representatives or which corporate entities are liable, and at times rejecting foreign‑policy objections such as recognition issues raised by Venezuela ^{[9] [4]}. Those judicial decisions underpin creditors’ ability to pursue enforcement remedies against assets located in jurisdictions amenable to U.S. process, making U.S.-based or U.S.-linked Venezuelan property prime targets ^{[4] [7]}.

5. Limits, frictions and practical collection hurdles

Despite sizeable awards, practical collection remains contested: Venezuela has consistently resisted paying and litigated annulments and enforcement challenges for years, and the international legal and political landscape—sanctions, competing creditor claims, auctions of state assets like Citgo, and questions about asset immunity—complicates creditor recovery pathways ^{[1] [3] [6]}. Reporting indicates ongoing disputes among award creditors and procedural battles in U.S. courts over enforcement priorities, and the available sources do not catalog every specific foreign asset seized to satisfy awards, only the major litigation focal points ^{[3] [6]}.