Which high-profile compensation settlements or unpaid awards involving Venezuela remain unresolved as of 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A cluster of high‑profile international awards and compensation claims against Venezuela remained effectively unresolved through 2025, most notably multi‑billion‑dollar investor‑state arbitration awards such as ConocoPhillips’ roughly $8.5–8.7 billion award, a raft of other investor claims recorded in UNCTAD’s ISDS Navigator, and bondholder and PDVSA‑related disputes tied to Citgo and PDVSA debt — all complicated by U.S. sanctions and enforcement barriers [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. ConocoPhillips — the flagship multi‑billion award still unpaid
The most prominent unresolved award as of 2025 is the ConocoPhillips arbitration, where ICSID and related tribunals affirmed awards in excess of $8 billion that Venezuela has challenged and lost in appeals, leaving a roughly $8.5–$8.7 billion principal award plus interest outstanding and enforcement efforts ongoing [6] [1] [2].
2. Dozens of investor‑State claims recorded but largely unpaid
UNCTAD’s Investment Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Navigator documents numerous treaty‑based investor claims against Venezuela arising from nationalizations and other measures, many of which either resulted in awards or settlements on paper but remain effectively unpaid or subject to protracted enforcement processes [3].
3. Mobil and other oil partners — liability, settlements and unfinished business
Cases tied to oil nationalizations beyond ConocoPhillips — such as claims involving Mobil and other partners over Cerro Negro and La Ceiba projects — illustrate mixed outcomes (tribunals have sometimes found liability without awarding damages, or cases have been settled or discontinued), leaving unresolved questions about actual payments and the scope of compensation still owed to former partners [7].
4. Bondholders, PDVSA, and the Citgo collateral saga
Separately, disputes over Venezuela’s sovereign and PDVSA debt — including litigation over PDVSA‑issued bonds and efforts to attach Citgo shares to satisfy awards — remained active in U.S. courts and creditor committees as of 2025, with bondholders and committees negotiating or litigating to convert judgments into recoverable assets while statutory limitations and legal recognition of competing Venezuelan authorities complicate outcomes [4] [8].
5. Enforcement hampered by sanctions and licensing rules
U.S. sanctions and OFAC licensing policy materially constrain both settlement negotiations and execution of judgments against property blocked under the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations, meaning that even where courts or tribunals have issued awards, practical enforcement or settlement transfers often require specific licenses or are prevented by sanction regimes — a central reason many awards remain unpaid in practice [9] [5].
6. Human‑rights reparations and Inter‑American processes awaiting implementation
Beyond commercial and bond claims, inter‑American human‑rights mechanisms have pressed Venezuela for financial reparations in cases brought by the IACHR to the Inter‑American Court, such as the Brito Rodríguez case where the Commission sought comprehensive reparations, signaling parallel unpaid obligations in the human‑rights sphere that are subject to international judgment and implementation challenges [10].
7. Two narratives: creditors pressing versus Venezuela’s legal and political defenses
Creditors and multinational claimants emphasize tribunal awards and court rulings as legal entitlements to be enforced, while Venezuelan authorities and political allies have contested tribunal procedures, assembly recognition and evidentiary rulings in appeals and public statements — a split reflected in court filings and commentary and complicating both negotiation dynamics and public narratives about “collectible” versus “theoretical” awards [1] [6].
8. Why “unresolved” means legal victory plus practical hurdles
In sum, several high‑profile awards — ConocoPhillips foremost — were legally upheld yet remained unresolved in practical terms because of enforcement friction, competing claims over assets like Citgo, complex indemnity and alter‑ego findings, and U.S. sanctions and licensing constraints that limit transfer or seizure of assets without OFAC authorization [1] [4] [9] [5]. UNCTAD’s ISDS dataset and contemporaneous reporting show many additional investor claims exist that may be awarded but are not collectable in any straightforward way absent political or legal shifts [3] [11].