⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Fernando Alban's family seeks to collect a judgment arising from his kidnapping and killing. They won against Nicolas Maduro and others, and now seek the frozen assets of the Venezuelan company PDVSA. PDVSA was not a defendant in the original action and wants the asset-seizure orders undone. The district judge accepted the family's jurisdiction theory, but ordered a fact-finding hearing on notice and the company's relationship to the Maduro regime. PDVSA appealed that immunity ruling. The rival statutes are the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA. Section 201 of TRIA permits certain terrorism judgments to be collected from blocked assets of a terrorist party or its agencies and instrumentalities. Jurisdictional immunity protects a foreign state from court proceedings; execution immunity protects property from seizure. The company's lawyer will argue that TRIA overcomes only the latter and that an independent basis for jurisdiction is still needed. The family will argue that TRIA itself provides that basis.

Meudy Osio, et al. v. PDVSA (No. 25-12365) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026.