The potential profit from the battle for ownership of PDV Holding’s shares in litigation commenced by Crystallex has entered a new level as a distressed investment following the United States’ military overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Though a shocking departure from diplomatic norms, the removal of Maduro — widely viewed as an antagonist of the broader capital markets — has resulted in a sharp surge in the secondary trading of PDVSA and Venezuela’s distressed sovereign bonds in the secondary. For instance, PDVSA’s 6% notes due 15 November of this year are up 38% today, now indicated above 32 versus 23 prior to this weekend, according to 9fin data.

PDV Holdings is the Delaware entity of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). And victor of the moment whose profits will only be increased as PDVSA’s credit worthiness improves is Elliott Investment Management, the current winning bidder and litigant to own shares in its PDV Holding entity after an arduous and byzantine litigation that started in 2017. Elliott’s bid was selected as the winner in November and was blessed shortly thereafter in a 25 November 2025 court order and opinion, followed by a flurry of appeals.

A timely decision

On 25 November, Judge Leonard Stark of the US District Court for the District of Delaware, approved the special master Robert Pincus’s updated final recommendation that the court approve the bid from Amber Energy, an affiliate of Elliott Investment Management, bid as the winning bid.

Judge Stark’s opinion provides extensive detail on the sale process, noting that the opinion is the next step of a “years-long sale process” of the sale of the PDVH shares, which have been attached via writs by various judgment creditors of Venezuela and PDVSA, who are together owed more than $20bn.

The court recounts a four-day evidentiary hearing in September; closing arguments on 20 October from at least 15 lawyers; and extensive briefing in the three-year sale process born from litigation that has been pending for more than eight years.

The following explanation is a much truncated summary of the proceedings. For a more detailed presentation, the judge penned a 168-page opinion.