Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-01493/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-01493-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 11:101 Bankruptcy

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DAVID M. FELDMAN (pro hac vice) 

 dfeldman@gibsondunn.com

MATTHEW K. KELSEY (pro hac vice) 

 mkelsey@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166-0193 

Telephone: 212.351.4000 

Facsimile: 212.351.4035 

MATTHEW D. McGILL (pro hac vice) 

 mmcgill@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036-5306 

Telephone: 202.955.8500 

Facsimile: 202.467.0539 

MICHAEL S. NEUMEISTER, SBN 274220 

 mneumeister@gibsondunn.com

MICHELLE CHOI, SBN 313557

 mchoi@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

333 South Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 

Telephone: 213.229.7000 

Facsimile: 213.229.7520 

Attorneys for the Ad Hoc Committee of

Holders of Trade Claims

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

AD HOC COMMITTEE OF HOLDERS 

OF TRADE CLAIMS, 

Appellant, 

v. 

PG&E CORPORATION, et al.,

Appellees, 

MIZUHO BANK, LTD.,

Appellant, 

v. 

PG&E CORPORATION, et al., 

Appellees. 

Lead Case No. 20-cv-01493-HSG 

Bankruptcy Case No. 19-bk-30088-DM 

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 

EXTENDING PAGE LIMIT ON REPLY 

IN SUPPORT OF TRADE 

COMMITTEE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO APPEAL AND CROSS-MOTIONS 

Case No. 20-cv-01621-HSG 

Case 4:20-cv-01493-HSG Document 41 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 8
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

44553.00001

OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF 

UNSECURED CREDITORS,

Appellant, 

v. 

PG&E CORPORATION, et al.,

Appellees. 

Case No. 20-cv-01652-HSG 

AD HOC COMMITTEE OF SENIOR 

UNSECURED NOTEHOLDERS OF 

PG&E CORPORATION,

Appellant, 

v. 

PG&E CORPORATION, et al., 

Appellees. 

Case No. 20-cv-01654-HSG 

CITIBANK N.A., 

Appellant, 

v. 

PG&E CORPORATION, et al. 

Appellees. 

Case No. 20-cv-01658-HSG 

BOKF, NA,

Appellant, 

v. 

PG&E CORPORATION, et al. 

 Appellees. 

Case No. 20-cv-01659-HSG 

Case 4:20-cv-01493-HSG Document 41 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 8
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

JOINT STIPULATION 

WHEREAS, on February 20, 2020, the Trade Committee filed in the Bankruptcy Court the

Motion of Ad Hoc Committee of Holders of Trade Claims for Leave to Appeal Order Regarding 

Postpetition Interest [Bankr. D.I. 5845],1

 the Memorandum in Support of Motion of Ad Hoc 

Committee of Holders of Trade Claims for Leave to Appeal Order Regarding Postpetition Interest 

[Bankr. D.I. 5846], and the Notice of Motion of Ad Hoc Committee of Holders of Trade Claims for 

Leave to Appeal Order Regarding Postpetition Interest [Bankr. D.I. 5847] (collectively, the 

“Motion for Leave”), seeking leave to appeal the Interlocutory Order Regarding Postpetition 

Interest [Bankr. D.I. 5669] entered by the Bankruptcy Court on February 6, 2020 (the “PPI Order”) 

and the related Memorandum Decision Regarding Postpetition Interest entered by the Bankruptcy 

Court on December 30, 2019 [Bankr. D.I. 5226] (the “PPI Memorandum” and together with the 

PPI Order, the “PPI Memorandum and Order”); 

WHEREAS, on March 4 and 5, 2020, additional parties (the “Cross-Movants”) filed crossmotions relating to the appeal of the PPI Memorandum and Order [Bankr. D.I. 6060, 6101, 6120, 

6124] (the “Cross-Motions” and, together with the Motion for Leave, the “Motions”); 

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Court’s Order (1) Directing Parties to Meet and 

Confer on Briefing Schedule for Motion for Leave to Appeal, and (2) Vacating Dates in the Initial 

Case Management Scheduling Order [D.I. 5] (the “Order Regarding Briefing Schedule”), the 

parties met and conferred regarding a briefing schedule for the Motions, and submitted a Joint 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Briefing Schedule in Connection with Motion of Ad 

Hoc Committee of Holders of Trade Claims for Leave to Appeal Order Regarding Postpetition 

Interest on March 10, 2020 [D.I. 23]; 

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the Court entered the Order on Briefing Schedule for 

Motion for Leave to Appeal [D.I. 24] (the “Order Setting Briefing Schedule”), (i) setting a deadline 

of March 13, 2020 for the filing of oppositions to the Motions and a deadline of March 27, 2020 

for the Trade Committee and Cross-Movants to file replies in support of their respective Motions, 

1

 “Bankr. D.I.” refers to filings on the docket for In re PG&E Corporation, et al., Ch. 11 Case No. 19-

30088 (DM) (Bankr. N.D. Cal.) 

Case 4:20-cv-01493-HSG Document 41 Filed 03/25/20 Page 3 of 8
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

44553.00001

and (ii) instructing the parties to meet and confer regarding the filing of consolidated briefs; 

WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Unsecured Noteholders, 

BOKF, N.A., and the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders filed a consolidated brief in 

opposition to the Motions [D.I. 31] (the “Creditors’ Opposition”) and the appellees PG&E 

Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Appellees”) filed a separate opposition 

to the Motions [D.I. 32] (the “Appellee’s Opposition” and, together with the Creditors’ Opposition, 

the “Oppositions”), with Certain PG&E Shareholders joining in the Appellee’s Opposition;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8013(f)(3)(C), any reply 

brief filed in the District Court that is produced using a computer must not exceed 2,600 words; 

and 

WHEREAS, the Trade Committee will be submitting a reply brief in support of the Motion 

for Leave (the “Trade Committee Reply”), and in light of the number and complexity of issues 

raised in the Oppositions, the parties have agreed that additional pages are necessary to adequately 

address the issues raised in the Oppositions; 

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED that: 

1. The Trade Committee Reply in support of the Motion for Leave shall be limited to 

15 pages. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

[Signatures to follow.] 

Case 4:20-cv-01493-HSG Document 41 Filed 03/25/20 Page 4 of 8
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 

44553.00001

Dated: March 24, 2020 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

By: /s/ Michael S. Neumeister

 David M. Feldman 

 Matthew K. Kelsey 

 Matthew D. McGill 

 Michael S. Neumeister 

 Michelle Choi 

Attorneys for the Ad Hoc Committee of 

Holders of Trade Claims

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

By: /s/ Theodore E. Tsekerides 

 Stephen Karotkin 

 Ray C. Schrock 

 Jessica Liou 

 Theodore E. Tsekerides 

Attorneys for PG&E Corporation and Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company

KELLER BENVENUTTI KIM LLP 

By: /s/ Peter J. Benvenutti

 Peter J. Benvenutti 

 Jane Kim 

Attorneys for PG&E Corporation and Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company

MILBANK LLP 

By: /s/ Gregory A. Bray

 Dennis F. Dunne 

 Samuel A. Khalil 

 Gregory A. Bray 

 Thomas R. Kreller 

Attorneys for the Official Committee of 

Unsecured Creditors

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD 

LLP

By: /s/ Abid Qureshi

 Ashley Vinson Crawford 

 Michael S. Stamer 

 Ira S. Dizengoff 

 David H. Botter 

 Abid Qureshi 

Attorneys for the Ad Hoc Committee of Senior 

Unsecured Noteholders of Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company

STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 

By: /s/ Kenneth Pasquale

 Mark A. Speiser 

 Kenneth Pasquale 

Attorneys for Mizuho Bank, Ltd., in its 

capacity as HoldCo Term Loan 

Administrative Agent

Case 4:20-cv-01493-HSG Document 41 Filed 03/25/20 Page 5 of 8
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 

44553.00001

ARENT FOX LLP 

By: /s/ Aram Ordubegian

 Aram Ordubegian 

 Andrew I. Silfen 

 Beth M. Brownstein 

Attorneys for BOKF, NA, in its capacity as 

Indenture Trustee for the Utility Senior Notes

DAVID POLK & WARDWELL LLP 

By: /s/ Timothy Graulich

 Timothy Graulich 

 David Schiff 

 Daniel E. Meyer 

 Andrew D. Yaphe 

Attorneys for Citibank N.A., as Administrative 

Agent for the Utility Revolving Credit Facility

JONES DAY

By: /s/ James O. Johnston

 Bruce S. Bennett 

 Joshua M. Mester 

 James O. Johnston 

Attorneys for Certain PG&E Shareholders

Case 4:20-cv-01493-HSG Document 41 Filed 03/25/20 Page 6 of 8
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6 

44553.00001

FILER’S ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I, Michael Neumeister, hereby 

attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from counsel for PG&E 

Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, counsel for Certain PG&E Shareholders, 

counsel for BOKF, NA, in its capacity as Indenture Trustee for the Utility Senior Notes, counsel 

for the Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Unsecured Noteholders of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, counsel for Mizuho Bank, Ltd., in its 

capacity as Holdco Term Loan Administrative Agent, and counsel for Citibank, N.A., as 

Administrative Agent for the Utility Revolving Credit Facility. 

Dated: March 24, 2020 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

/s/ Michael S. Neumeister

Michael S. Neumeister 

Attorneys for the Ad Hoc Committee of 

Holders of Trade Claims

Case 4:20-cv-01493-HSG Document 41 Filed 03/25/20 Page 7 of 8
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7 

44553.00001

ORDER

By joint stipulation on March 24, 2020, the parties submitted the Joint Stipulation and 

Proposed Order Extending Page Limit on Reply in Support of Trade Committee’s Motion for 

Leave to Appeal and Cross-Motions (the “Joint Stipulation”).2

NOW THEREFORE, the District Court approves the Joint Stipulation and orders as 

follows: 

1. The Trade Committee Reply in support of the Motion for Leave shall be limited to 15

pages. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ___________________ _______________________________ 

The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 

United States District Judge

2

 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings afforded to them in the Joint 

Stipulation. 

3/25/2020

Case 4:20-cv-01493-HSG Document 41 Filed 03/25/20 Page 8 of 8