dual‐obligor structure, severe macroeconomic uncertainty, geopolitical complexity, and significant litigation and enforcement risks.
Venezuela’ s creditor body is unusually diverse: bondholders of the Republic and its state-owned oil company PDVSA, trade creditors, arbitration award holders, multilaterals, bilateral creditors such as China and Russia, and other claimants. These groups have different legal rights and divergent interests, creating substantial potential for intercreditor conflict. Furthermore, the sheer size and diversity of the creditor body could also complicate creditor coordination and efforts by creditors to achieve consensus on key issues.
Venezuela must restructure substantial liabilities of both the Republic and PDVSA, creating a dual obligor structure unlike most recent sovereign debt restructurings where there is only one obligor. The dual obligor structure raises difficult questions about sequencing the respective Republic and PDVSA restructurings and determining the relative treatment that will be accorded to both Republic and PDVSA creditors.
Macroeconomic uncertainty will also complicate the debt sustainability analysis for Venezuela that will underpin any debt restructuring plan. Venezuela has suffered years of economic contraction, extraordinarily high inflation, and a collapse in oil production from roughly three million barrels per day in the early 2000s to about one million barrels in recent months. Forecasting growth and production in the nearto medium‐term, much less over a multi‐year restructuring, will be extremely difficult, and the inherent volatility of global oil prices adds another layer of uncertainty to the picture.
Geopolitics may further complicate negotiations. As Venezuela’ s largest bilateral creditors, China and Russia may pursue objectives extending beyond purely financial considerations, such as advancing strategic interests or ensuring access to natural resources. In addition, broader tensions between the US on one side and China and Russia on the other could spill over into the restructuring process if the United States seeks to influence Venezuela’ s positions in the restructuring negotiations in post‐Maduro Venezuela.
Finally, ongoing enforcement actions and litigation, including proceedings involving Citgo and PDVSA, could materially affect the pool of assets available to support a debt restructuring. Any significant diminution in that pool of assets could further heighten intercreditor conflict.
Q: What innovative features might be included in a Venezuelan debt restructuring?
A: Traditional restructuring tools( such as principal reductions, maturity extensions, coupon reductions, grace periods, and debt reprofiling) may play a part in any Venezuelan restructuring. But Venezuela’ s circumstances may also warrant innovative techniques designed not only to reduce debt but to support investment, reconstruction, and long‐term growth in Venezuela.
One possibility is a modernized version of the debt‐for‐equity swaps used during the Brady Plan era of the late 1980s into the 1990s. Those transactions relied heavily on local‐currency conversions in the exchange of debt of the sovereign for shares in a privatized company, but that model would not work today given the severe devaluation of Venezuela’ s domestic currency. Any modernized swap would need to address this problem.
A broader approach would give wider scope to the equity component of the debt-for-equity swap so that it includes development rights in Venezuela’ s abundant oil and gas reserves and its diverse array of mineral resources. Given the political sensitivities surrounding the transfer of potentially valuable development rights, any Venezuelan government considering such swaps would need broad public support. It would also want to rely upon independent, third‐party valuations conducted
continued on page 57
19