The motion filed is a request for a stay on the CITGO share auction process approved by Judge Stark on Jan. 14. The stay is deemed "necessary" to allow PDVSA to appeal the Writ of Execution to collect the debt owed to KRY. The arguments are flimsy, as follows:

“Neither this Court nor the Third Circuit decided the validity of the writ under Delaware law. Nor did PDVSA litigate that issue—its opposition to Crystallex’s motion for a writ of attachment was limited to the jurisdictional barriers to attachment imposed by the FSIA.”

“The PDVH shares cannot be sold or transferred without a specific license from OFAC, and OFAC’s regulations preclude any concrete steps in preparation for or in furtherance of an unauthorized sale, including preparing for and holding a contingent sale or auction. The sale process ordered by the Court therefore violates the OFAC regulations.”

This appeal is yet another attempt to delay the payment due and is not going to work for very simple reasons:

1.- PDVSA is attacking the process to execute the collection of the debt owed, not the validity of the debt and KRY's right to collect it. They cannot do the latter after losing this argument in all courts all the way to the Supreme Court. In doing so, they are acknowledging the debt is due, but continue to avoid paying the legal judgement. Ergo, more theatrics and legal maneuvering will not get them far.

2.- The argument about Judge Stark not following the Delaware State law with the execution under Rule 69 amounts to nitpicking the rule and obviating the non-convenient part.

3.- PDVSA has and continues to argue that it did not have the opportunity to litigate KRY's motion for the Writ of Attachment. There have been not less than three different court proceedings where PDVSA could have done this, but they chose not to. Not litigating a matter as primordial as the issuance of a Writ of Attachment is nobody's fault but the defendant that chose not to do it.

4.- The most "in-your-face" argument to support the appeal is the one about the Writ of Attachment already issued on the CITGO shares being sufficient security to meet the bond required by statute; to enable the plaintiff to collect the debt owed if the appellant fails in their appeal. In other words, PDVSA is arguing that it is not necessary to post a supersedes bond (usually a liquid security or bank guarantee executable upon a court order) as security for KRY because KRY already has the Writ of Attachment on the CITGO shares. On the other hand, PDVSA also argues that the same Writ of Attachment cannot be executed until OFAC authorizes the CITGO share auction.

Do we know how is this going to be resolved quickly? The Court will not accept other than a supersedes bond for PDVSA to get a stay while it appeals Judge Stark's decision. Therefore, the Writ of Execution will proceed as ordered because PDVSA / Venezuela will not provide a supersedes bond. They know they cannot prevail, and they would rather let OFAC be in charge of the situation for as long as possible.