Company: SCE-PL
Filing Date: 2025-10-28
Form Type: SF-1/A
Source: 0001193125-25-253849
Chunk: 30

Company: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Co
Filing Date: 2025-10-28
Form: SF-1/A
Chunk 30
---
 to that position. If a court were to characterize the transaction as a financing, we expect that we would, on behalf of ourselves and the trustee, be treated as a secured creditor of SCE in the bankruptcy proceedings, although a court might determine that we only have an unsecured claim against SCE. Even if we had a security interest in the recovery property, we would not likely have access to the related fixed recovery charge collections during the bankruptcy and would be subject to the risks of a secured creditor in a bankruptcy case, including the possible bankruptcy risks described in the immediately preceding risk factor. As a result, repayment of the bonds might be significantly delayed and a plan of reorganization in the bankruptcy might permanently modify the amount and timing of payments to us of the related fixed recovery charge collections and therefore the amount and timing of funds available to us to pay bondholders. If the servicer enters bankruptcy proceedings, certain fixed recovery charges remitted by the servicer prior to the date of bankruptcy might constitute preferences, which means these funds might be unavailable to pay amounts owing on the bonds In the event of a bankruptcy of the servicer, a party in interest might take the position that the remittance of funds prior to bankruptcy of the servicer, pursuant to the servicing agreement, constitutes a preference under bankruptcy law if the remittance of those funds was deemed to be paid on account of a preexisting debt. If a court were to hold that the remittance of funds constitutes a preference, any such remittance within 90 days of the filing of the bankruptcy petition could be avoidable, and the funds could be required to be returned to the bankruptcy estate of the servicer. To the extent that fixed recovery charges have been commingled with the general funds of the servicer, the risk that a court would hold that a remittance of funds was a preference would increase. Also, we or the servicer may be considered an “insider” with any ESP that is affiliated with us or the servicer. If we or the servicer are considered to be an “insider” of the ESP, any such remittance made within one year of the filing of the bankruptcy petition could be avoidable as well if the court were to hold that such - 32 -

remittance constitutes a preference. In either case, we or the trustee would merely be an unsecured creditor of the servicer. If any funds were required to be returned to the bankruptcy estate of
the servicer, we would expect that the amount of any future fixed recovery charges would be increased through