Which Venezuelan assets have been successfully seized to satisfy foreign arbitration awards, and which claimants obtained them?

1. ConocoPhillips: the largest oil arbitration and active enforcement

ConocoPhillips won a series of arbitration awards tied to the 2007 expropriation of its Venezuelan oil projects that U.S. and international courts have upheld, culminating in an award of roughly $8.5 billion that Venezuela lost on appeal and which Conoco has actively tried to enforce by attaching Venezuelan‑linked assets in the Caribbean and elsewhere; U.S. authorities have even authorized Conoco to pursue enforcement actions worldwide in pursuit of satisfying its judgment ^{[2] [5] [6] [7]}.

2. Crystallex and creditor strategies against Venezuelan‑linked assets

Crystallex, a Canadian miner, secured an arbitration award and won recognition in U.S. courts that turned its claim into a debt obligation that could be pursued against Venezuelan assets abroad; Reuters and other reporting list Crystallex alongside Conoco as a successful claimant whose award has been upheld and who is in the queue to try to collect from Venezuelan state or state‑linked property ^{[1] [8]}.

3. ExxonMobil and other oil majors: awards without full recovery

ExxonMobil obtained an ICSID award—reported at about $1.6 billion from earlier tribunals after long litigation over expropriated assets—which remains unpaid by Caracas and represents a judgment that creditors can use as the basis for enforcement attempts, though available reporting makes clear Venezuela has historically resisted payment and full recoveries have been limited ^{[3] [6]}.

4. Smaller corporate claimants: Owens‑Illinois and the industrial expropriations

Non‑energy companies also prevailed in arbitration: Owens‑Illinois sued over seized glass plants and, according to reporting summarizing ICSID decisions, was awarded roughly $372 million plus interest (part of a broader cited $500 million figure in coverage) — an award creditors have sought to turn into collectible judgments against Venezuelan assets ^[4].

5. What has been physically seized so far — enforcement realities and limits of the record

Reporting establishes that U.S. and foreign courts have converted multiple arbitration awards into enforceable judgments, enabling claimants to seek attachments of Venezuelan or state‑linked assets (for example, Conoco’s Caribbean enforcement actions and other attachments reported in earlier litigation), but the available sources do not provide a comprehensive, up‑to‑the‑day inventory of every asset actually sold to satisfy awards; they document successful legal wins and active enforcement efforts rather than a full list of assets ultimately liquidated to pay creditors ^{[7] [1] [2]}.

6. Political context, sanctions and practical obstacles to collection

Collecting on arbitration awards against Venezuela is deeply entangled with geopolitics: sanctions, U.S. Treasury permissions, the presence of state‑owned firms like PDVSA and continuing Venezuelan resistance mean awards can be enforced only where claimants find attachable assets outside Venezuela; U.S. reporting notes the Treasury has authorized enforcement steps in some cases, and analysts say political change or sanction relief would materially affect recoveries ^{[6] [5] [1]}.

7. Competing narratives and open questions

Claimants and Western reporting emphasize legal victories and the prospect of seizing Venezuelan assets to satisfy awards, but U.N. and Venezuelan sources decry external enforcement and military‑political interventions as illegitimate — the facts on the ground remain that awards exist and enforcement actions have been authorized and initiated, yet comprehensive evidence of which Venezuelan assets have already been sold to satisfy those awards is not fully documented in the cited reporting ^{[9] [1] [6]}.