Mary Boci

Law360~~Law360 [PDF] has reported on a recent $600,000 settlement reached between our client Amin Booker and the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Mr. Booker was held in solitary confinement for more than five years in a New York state prison, confined to a windowless cell for 23 hours a day while missing visits from his family. Mr. Booker said he was the victim of retaliation for whistleblowing on mistreatment by corrections officers.~~Partner Justine Goeke explained that Mr. Booker’s settlement is one example of many agreements that New York state and the DOCCS have reached with people in solitary confinement. She said that when the attorney general’s office saw the firm was prepared to go to trial, they quickly offered to settle.~~“We have a compelling client that speaks clearly about the abuses of the prison system, we already had a finding of liability by a district court judge on one of the claims — I mean, that set the floor,” Justine said. “When we showed the AG’s office that we were ready to go, they came to the table with a significant settlement offer.”~~In addition to Justine, our team included associates Marc Aaron Takagaki, Kate Goldberg, Teddy Kristek, Sophie White, Dennis Ting, and Apratim Vidyarthi.~~Download PDF~~

Mar 2

1 min

The SEC enforcement action highlights the agency’s continuing scrutiny of valuation practices and disclosures by private fund sponsors of illiquid investments.~~The Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) recently announced a settled enforcement action that highlights the agency’s continuing scrutiny of valuation practices and disclosures by private fund sponsors of illiquid investments. On February 25, 2026, the SEC settled claims against a formerly registered investment adviser and private fund manager (the Adviser) concerning the sufficiency of established fair valuation procedures for principal sales of loans to private fund clients (the Funds) during a brief period of extreme market dislocation at the beginning of the pandemic. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, the Adviser agreed to settle to negligence-based violations and a $900,000 penalty.[1]~~Key Takeaways:~~The SEC Order:~~According to the SEC’s Order, the Adviser, based in Chicago, originated certain senior loans using proprietary capital, typically held the loans for 30–60 days, then sold portions of such loans to the Funds. The advisory agreements with the Funds and the private placement memoranda stated that the Adviser would sell loans to the Funds at “fair value” or “fair market value” as reasonably determined by the Adviser without any third party valuation and on terms “no less favorable to [the Funds] as the terms [they] would obtain in a comparable arm’s length transaction with a non-Affiliate.”~~The Order outlines the key components of the Adviser’s valuation policy and practice:~~The loan sales at issue in the SEC’s Order occurred during a very narrow time period at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic: March 2020 through May 2020. During this period, the Adviser sold portions of loans to the Funds that it had originated before the start of the pandemic at par value less the unamortized loan fee, consistent with the written valuation policy and prior practice. According to the Order, in light of the unusual market conditions, the Adviser should have done more to confirm that loans were being sold at fair value: “between March 2020 and May 2020, at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, during a period of disruption in U.S. financial markets, [the Adviser] continued to sell performing loans it originated before the market disruption at par value less the unamortized loan fee and failed to determine the effect of the market disruption on the fair market value of those loans.”~~The order also notes a number of mitigating facts. First, all but one of the loans at issue either continued to perform or were fully repaid by the borrowers. Second, in May 2021, in response to an examination deficiency letter concerning this activity, the Adviser voluntarily reimbursed the Funds over $5 million and made enhancements to its disclosures and policies regarding its loan transfer practices.~~To settle the matter, the Adviser agreed, without admitting or denying, to negligence-based violations of Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act, and Rule 206(4)‑8, and to pay a $900,000 penalty.~~The Bottom Line:~~This action reflects continued regulatory scrutiny by the SEC’s Divisions of Examinations and Enforcement of valuation practices and compliance with related disclosures by private fund sponsors of illiquid investments (as discussed further in previous Gibson Dunn alerts here and here), particularly in affiliated transactions, and should be of interest to sponsors that warehouse investments on their own account or at a fund with the intent to transfer to a parallel or co-investment vehicle, sponsor continuation funds, lead secondary transactions, pursue a “season and sell” credit strategy, or otherwise engage in principal and other related-party transactions across funds, among other activities. Even where consent is obtained and the subject investment ultimately performs to expectations, the SEC signals an expectation for contemporaneous evidence that affiliate transaction pricing reflects current market conditions rather than defaulting to adjusted cost without further consideration, with a particular focus on sales occurring during a period of market distress or volatility.~~[1] In Re: Madison Capital Funding LLC, Advisers Act Release No. 6948 (February 25, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2026/ia-6948.pdf.~~[2] Although the SEC’s Order states that the Adviser’s sales to the Funds were principal transactions subject to Section 206(3) of the Advisers Act, the Order does not analyze whether the loans constitute “securities.”~~The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Kevin Bettsteller, Marian Fowler, Osman Nawaz, Mark Schonfeld, Lauren Cook Jackson, and Jordan Alston*.~~Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding the issues and considerations discussed above. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or any of the following leaders and members of the firm’s Investment Funds or Securities Enforcement practice groups:~~Investment Funds: Carolyn Abram – Dubai (+971 4 318 4647, cabram@gibsondunn.com) Kevin Bettsteller – Los Angeles (+1 310.552.8566, kbettsteller@gibsondunn.com) Albert S. Cho – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3811, acho@gibsondunn.com) Candice S. Choh – Los Angeles (+1 310.552.8658, cchoh@gibsondunn.com) Shannon Errico – New York (+1 212.351.2448, serrico@gibsondunn.com) Blake E. Estes – New York (+1 332.253.7778, bestes@gibsondunn.com) Marian Fowler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8525, mfowler@gibsondunn.com) A.J. Frey – Washington, D.C./New York (+1 202.887.3793, afrey@gibsondunn.com) Shukie Grossman – New York (+1 212.351.2369, sgrossman@gibsondunn.com) James M. Hays – Houston (+1 346.718.6642, jhays@gibsondunn.com) Kira Idoko – New York (+1 212.351.3951, kidoko@gibsondunn.com) Duncan K. R. McKay – New York (+1 212.351.2603, dmckay@gibsondunn.com) Gregory Merz – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3637, gmerz@gibsondunn.com) Eve Mrozek – New York (+1 212.351.4053, emrozek@gibsondunn.com) James O’Donnell – London (+44 20 7071 4261, jodonnell@gibsondunn.com) Roger D. Singer – New York (+1 212.351.3888, rsinger@gibsondunn.com) Edward D. Sopher – New York (+1 212.351.3918, esopher@gibsondunn.com) C. William Thomas, Jr. – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3735, wthomas@gibsondunn.com) Kate Timmerman – New York (+1 212.351.2628, ktimmerman@gibsondunn.com)~~Securities Enforcement: Mark K. Schonfeld – New York (+1 212.351.2433, mschonfeld@gibsondunn.com) David Woodcock – Dallas (+1 214.698.3211, dwoodcock@gibsondunn.com) Jina L. Choi – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8221, jchoi@gibsondunn.com) Osman Nawaz – New York (+1 212.351.3940, onawaz@gibsondunn.com) Tina Samanta – New York (+1 212.351.2469, tsamanta@gibsondunn.com) Lauren Cook Jackson – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8293, ljackson@gibsondunn.com)~~*Admitted only in New York; practicing under the supervision of members of the District of Columbia Bar under D.C. App. R. 49.~~© 2026 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.  All rights reserved.  For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.~~Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials.  The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel.  Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.~~Download PDF~~

Mar 3

5 min

A lawyer for the special master overseeing the auction of Citgo to satisfy billions of dollars' worth of Venezuelan debt has defended his request for more than $15.3 million in fees on top of nearly $63 million already paid, saying the request follows an "extraordinarily complex" sale process. In a letter submitted to a Delaware federal court on Monday, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP partner Bindu Ann Palapura acknowledged that the $15.346 million in fees incurred by special master Robert Pincus and his advisors during September, October and November last year were "undoubtedly significant." She nevertheless defended the fee request as warranted, given the extensive labor and legal expertise that was necessary to finalize the sale process, which resulted in a $5.892 billion bid from hedge fund Elliott Investment Management LP that was accepted by the court late last year. The letter comes after Gold Reserve Ltd. — whose $7.382 billion bid for Citgo was rejected last year after being initially accepted by Pincus — complained in a Feb. 23 letter to the court that the fee request was "staggering." Gold Reserve argued, in part, that the $10.2 million in legal fees charged by Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP was unreasonable, noting that the request includes time entries from 41 attorneys at an average hourly rate of $1,566.83, with only two staff attorneys charging less than $1,000 per hour. But Palapura argued that Gold Reserve is downplaying the "scope and breadth" of work the special master's advisors had to perform during the three months in question. "Gold Reserve also largely ignores the complexity of the matter, the special master's dual role as both an arm of the court and a litigant, and the evidentiary burden placed on the special master in supporting his recommended bid," she wrote. Gold Reserve and others had already argued in 2024 that the fees incurred by Pincus were too high, resulting in a court order from U.S. Circuit Judge Leonard P. Stark requiring that Pincus evaluate "whether the number of timekeepers can be reduced" and whether Weil could "still justify billing on an ongoing basis at the same non-discounted rates they have been charging for the first 44 months of their engagement with this case." Palapura rebutted Gold Reserve's allegations in its letter last month that Pincus had not complied with the order, noting that he had significantly reduced the number of timekeepers and discussed the discounted fee issue. "The special master discussed the issue with Weil and determined that, in light of the revised billing procedures that the advisors implemented beginning in January 2025, there was no reason for Weil to deviate from the standard billing rates that it had been charging for the sale process to that point without objection," she wrote. The fee dispute comes just weeks after Pincus lost his bid to have Venezuela and Gold Reserve pay his $3.1 million bill for defending against their unsuccessful bid to have him disqualified in the long-running litigation over the sale of Citgo. In a Feb. 9 order, Judge Stark said he was "not persuaded this situation merits requiring the moving parties to bear more than their ordinary share of the special master's fees associated with the motions." The sales process for Citgo resulted in Judge Stark approving the $5.892 billion bid from hedge fund Elliott — submitted formally by Elliott affiliate Amber Energy Inc. — last fall. In his ruling, the judge concluded that it offered the best overall combination of price and certainty of closing of any bid submitted. Judge Stark, formerly a district court judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, was elevated to the Federal Circuit in 2022, but he continues to oversee a variety of cases brought by creditors against Venezuela in Delaware federal court. The Delaware court is conducting the long-awaited sale nearly eight years after defunct Canadian mining company Crystallex International Corp. won an attachment order over shares in PDV Holding Inc., the indirect parent company of Citgo. PDV Holding is a subsidiary of Venezuelan state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA. Crystallex is looking to enforce a $1.2 billion arbitral award it won against Venezuela after being ousted from a lucrative Venezuelan gold-mining project. In the years since then, the litigation has attracted other creditors of Venezuela owed billions of dollars more, since Citgo is Venezuela's most significant seizable asset. Those creditors include Gold Reserve, which won its $713 million arbitral award in September 2014 after Venezuela yanked its permit for a gold-mining project. Gold Reserve initially won the nod from Pincus as his chosen bidder in a final recommendation last year, with a $7.4 billion bid. But the special master later changed his mind, issuing an updated final recommendation that the court approve the $5.9 billion bid from Elliott. Counsel and representatives for the parties declined to comment or could not immediately be reached for comment on Tuesday. Gold Reserve is represented by Kevin J. Mangan, Matthew P. Ward and Stephanie S. Riley of Womble Bond Dickinson, Matthew H. Kirtland, Katherine G. Connolly and Taylor J. LeMay of Norton Rose Fulbright, and by Michael J. Bowe, Lauren Tabaksblat, Andrew T. Sutton and Kate E. Fisch of Brithem LLP. Pincus is represented by Matthew F. Davis, Bindu A. Palapura and Malisa C. Dang of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, and by Matthew S. Barr, David J. Lender, Jared R. Friedmann and Chase A. Bentley of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP. Venezuela is represented by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Elaine J. Goldenberg, Ginger D. Anders, George M. Garvey and Adeel Mohammadi of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP. PDVSA is represented by Joseph D. Pizzurro, Kevin A. Meehan, Juan O. Perla, Robert Groot and David V. Holmes of Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle LLP. Delaware counsel for Venezuela and PDVSA are Samuel Taylor Hirzel II and Brendan Patrick McDonnell of Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP. PDV Holding and Citgo are represented by Susan W. Waesco and Alexandra M. Cumings of Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, and by Nathan P. Eimer, Daniel D. Birk and Gregory M. Schweizer of Eimer Stahl LLP. Crystallex is represented by Raymond J. DiCamillo, Jeffrey L. Moyer and Travis S. Hunter of Richards Layton & Finger PA, and by Robert L. Weigel, Jason W. Myatt, Rahim Moloo, Miguel A. Estrada, Lucas C. Townsend, Zachary Kady and Adam M. Smith of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. The case is Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, case number 1:17-mc-00151, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Mar 3

5 min

A lawyer for the special master overseeing the auction of Citgo to satisfy billions of dollars' worth of Venezuelan debt has defended his request for more than $15.3 million in fees on top of nearly $63 million already paid, saying the request follows an "extraordinarily complex" sale process. In a letter submitted to a Delaware federal court on Monday, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP partner Bindu Ann Palapura acknowledged that the $15.346 million in fees incurred by special master Robert Pincus and his advisors during September, October and November last year were "undoubtedly significant." She nevertheless defended the fee request as warranted, given the extensive labor and legal expertise that was necessary to finalize the sale process, which resulted in a $5.892 billion bid from hedge fund Elliott Investment Management LP that was accepted by the court late last year. The letter comes after Gold Reserve Ltd. — whose $7.382 billion bid for Citgo was rejected last year after being initially accepted by Pincus — complained in a Feb. 23 letter to the court that the fee request was "staggering." Gold Reserve argued, in part, that the $10.2 million in legal fees charged by Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP was unreasonable, noting that the request includes time entries from 41 attorneys at an average hourly rate of $1,566.83, with only two staff attorneys charging less than $1,000 per hour. But Palapura argued that Gold Reserve is downplaying the "scope and breadth" of work the special master's advisors had to perform during the three months in question. "Gold Reserve also largely ignores the complexity of the matter, the special master's dual role as both an arm of the court and a litigant, and the evidentiary burden placed on the special master in supporting his recommended bid," she wrote. Gold Reserve and others had already argued in 2024 that the fees incurred by Pincus were too high, resulting in a court order from U.S. Circuit Judge Leonard P. Stark requiring that Pincus evaluate "whether the number of timekeepers can be reduced" and whether Weil could "still justify billing on an ongoing basis at the same non-discounted rates they have been charging for the first 44 months of their engagement with this case." Palapura rebutted Gold Reserve's allegations in its letter last month that Pincus had not complied with the order, noting that he had significantly reduced the number of timekeepers and discussed the discounted fee issue. "The special master discussed the issue with Weil and determined that, in light of the revised billing procedures that the advisors implemented beginning in January 2025, there was no reason for Weil to deviate from the standard billing rates that it had been charging for the sale process to that point without objection," she wrote. The fee dispute comes just weeks after Pincus lost his bid to have Venezuela and Gold Reserve pay his $3.1 million bill for defending against their unsuccessful bid to have him disqualified in the long-running litigation over the sale of Citgo. In a Feb. 9 order, Judge Stark said he was "not persuaded this situation merits requiring the moving parties to bear more than their ordinary share of the special master's fees associated with the motions." The sales process for Citgo resulted in Judge Stark approving the $5.892 billion bid from hedge fund Elliott — submitted formally by Elliott affiliate Amber Energy Inc. — last fall. In his ruling, the judge concluded that it offered the best overall combination of price and certainty of closing of any bid submitted. Judge Stark, formerly a district court judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, was elevated to the Federal Circuit in 2022, but he continues to oversee a variety of cases brought by creditors against Venezuela in Delaware federal court. The Delaware court is conducting the long-awaited sale nearly eight years after defunct Canadian mining company Crystallex International Corp. won an attachment order over shares in PDV Holding Inc., the indirect parent company of Citgo. PDV Holding is a subsidiary of Venezuelan state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA. Crystallex is looking to enforce a $1.2 billion arbitral award it won against Venezuela after being ousted from a lucrative Venezuelan gold-mining project. In the years since then, the litigation has attracted other creditors of Venezuela owed billions of dollars more, since Citgo is Venezuela's most significant seizable asset. Those creditors include Gold Reserve, which won its $713 million arbitral award in September 2014 after Venezuela yanked its permit for a gold-mining project. Gold Reserve initially won the nod from Pincus as his chosen bidder in a final recommendation last year, with a $7.4 billion bid. But the special master later changed his mind, issuing an updated final recommendation that the court approve the $5.9 billion bid from Elliott. Counsel and representatives for the parties declined to comment or could not immediately be reached for comment on Tuesday. Gold Reserve is represented by Kevin J. Mangan, Matthew P. Ward and Stephanie S. Riley of Womble Bond Dickinson, Matthew H. Kirtland, Katherine G. Connolly and Taylor J. LeMay of Norton Rose Fulbright, and by Michael J. Bowe, Lauren Tabaksblat, Andrew T. Sutton and Kate E. Fisch of Brithem LLP. Pincus is represented by Matthew F. Davis, Bindu A. Palapura and Malisa C. Dang of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, and by Matthew S. Barr, David J. Lender, Jared R. Friedmann and Chase A. Bentley of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP. Venezuela is represented by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Elaine J. Goldenberg, Ginger D. Anders, George M. Garvey and Adeel Mohammadi of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP. PDVSA is represented by Joseph D. Pizzurro, Kevin A. Meehan, Juan O. Perla, Robert Groot and David V. Holmes of Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle LLP. Delaware counsel for Venezuela and PDVSA are Samuel Taylor Hirzel II and Brendan Patrick McDonnell of Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP. PDV Holding and Citgo are represented by Susan W. Waesco and Alexandra M. Cumings of Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, and by Nathan P. Eimer, Daniel D. Birk and Gregory M. Schweizer of Eimer Stahl LLP. Crystallex is represented by Raymond J. DiCamillo, Jeffrey L. Moyer and Travis S. Hunter of Richards Layton & Finger PA, and by Robert L. Weigel, Jason W. Myatt, Rahim Moloo, Miguel A. Estrada, Lucas C. Townsend, Zachary Kady and Adam M. Smith of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. The case is Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, case number 1:17-mc-00151, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Mar 3

5 min

Gibson Dunn is advising Coterra Energy on its all-stock merger agreement with Devon Energy. The combined company’s enterprise value will be approximately $58 billion, making this the largest upstream oil and gas deal since early 2024.~~The Gibson Dunn corporate team includes partners Tull Florey, Hillary Holmes, and Andrew Kaplan; of counsel Jonathan Sapp; and associates Mary Boci, Kyle Ezring, and Hunter Michielson. Partner Rahul Vashi is advising on oil and gas aspects. Senior counsel Gregory Nelson and associate Nathan Sauers are advising on tax aspects. Partner Shalla Prichard is advising on finance aspects. Partner Krista Hanvey and of counsel John Curran are advising on benefits. Partner Joshua Lipton and associate Alexander Merritt are advising on antitrust aspects.~~The Texas Lawbook reported that 12 Gibson Dunn lawyers were lead counsel on billion-dollar M&A transactions in 2025 and that those deals had a combined value of $54.1 billion, second among all law firms.~~Download PDF~~

Feb 2

1 min