Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The alternative reorganization plan for bankrupt Pacific Gas & Electric Co. could face some rough going in its quest to get in front of creditors. In federal bankruptcy court Wednesday, PG&E attorneys signaled that they might object to various aspects of the California Public Utilities Commission’s recently filed reorganization plan — and questioned the CPUC’s authority to even file a plan. Previously, PG&E had indicated that it would hold its fire as the CPUC pushed its disclosure statement through the bankruptcy court, and let creditors choose between the rival plan and its own reorganization plan. “We had originally told you that based on the term sheet we did not intend to object,” said James Lopes, the Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin lawyer representing PG&E Co. “In our view the material filed is significantly different from the term sheet.” Among the key differences, said Lopes, is the plan’s provision that PG&E take on billions of dollars in new debt and issue stock in the utility. Moreover, PG&E pointed to a suit filed in the California Supreme Court by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights that claims the commission’s plan is illegal. Unlike what the CPUC had told the court previously, said Lopes, this suit brings into question whether the state regulatory agency has the authority to file a reorganization plan. Lawyers for the CPUC called the suit a “red herring,” and maintained it would have no bearing on their plan. “One of the wonderful and terrible things about America is that anybody can sue anybody,” said CPUC General Counsel Gary Cohen. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Dennis Montali has set a deadline of May 3 for formal objections to the CPUC’s disclosure statement, with a hearing on objections slated for May 9. Montali also used Wednesday’s hearing to officially approve PG&E’s own disclosure statement. During the seven months it took PG&E to win that approval, the utility’s disclosure statement weathered 73 objections.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.