By Recently, creditors for Citgo Petroleum have raised significant concerns regarding a proposed court agreement with the US hedge fund Elliott Investment Management.
This agreement seeks to shift control of the oil refiner from Venezuela to the hedge fund, but it has faced criticism for potentially locking the company into a low offer.
Creditors argue that the terms of this agreement could threaten Citgo’s financial stability and might not meet Delaware law requirements.
Amber Energy’s bid was labelled unfeasible
According to Reuters, creditors are expressing strong opposition to Elliott’s subsidiary, Amber Energy, claiming that its offer is not economically viable.
They are pushing for cash proceeds from a court auction to help cover debt defaults and issues related to Venezuela’s appropriations.
The creditors want the court to reassess the agreement and insist on a transparent auction process that adheres to legal standards.
Concerns grow over favouritism in the auction process for Elliott’s Amber
As criticism intensifies, questions have emerged regarding the sales agreement proposed by the court officer managing the auction.
Creditors contend that the agreement disproportionately benefits Elliott’s Amber and may violate established court rules for the sale.
The auction process is being scrutinized for its potential failure to maintain a fair and competitive bidding atmosphere.
Calls for greater evaluation and transparency
In light of the contentious bid from Amber Energy, creditors are calling for a thorough reevaluation of the proposed agreement.
They emphasize the importance of increased transparency and strict compliance with legal standards in the sale of Citgo Petroleum.
The presiding judge has directed the court officer to gather input from creditors to understand their perspectives on the offer better.
Crystallex aims to auction process
Crystallex, the company that initiated the lawsuit against Citgo’s parent company, PDV Holding, has criticized the auction process, claiming it has deviated from its intended path.
The involvement of various stakeholders and the complex legal landscape surrounding the proposed agreement have raised alarms regarding the future ownership of Citgo Petroleum.
In summary, the ongoing debate over the court agreement with Elliott Investment Management highlights the complexities of financial dealings within the energy sector.
As various stakeholders continue to express differing opinions on the deal, the call for transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal norms is more urgent than ever in addressing the ownership challenges facing Citgo Petroleum.
Stakeholders request reopening of data room to enhance bidding prospects
Key companies like as It, ConocoPhillips, and Gold Reserve are pushing for the reopening of Citgo’s financial data room, and their demands are gaining support.
Both It and ConocoPhillips, which have significant stakes in the ongoing dispute, want rapid access to Citgo’s financial information to provide a level playing field for all potential bidders.
Meanwhile, Gold Reserve, a mining business with a significant claim against Venezuela, has stated that it is prepared to offer a more competitive proposal once it has examined Citgo’s data, emphasizing the importance of openness in the bidding process.
In light of the request to reopen the data room, court officer Robert Pincus suggests delaying access until December 9th. He has proposed a fresh sale timeline, allowing for a final decision by late January.
Pincus wants to limit the disclosure of Amber’s financial information and proposes establishing a breakup fee if a better offer comes forward.
While there are ongoing disagreements with creditors over the sales procedure and the Elliott agreement, Pincus intends to share his recommendations at an upcoming court hearing to address the issues raised by stakeholders.
The post Creditors challenge hedge fund’s bid for Citgo Petroleum in court appeared first on Invezz
