1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1 0 

1 1 

1 2 

1 3 

1 4 

1 5 

1 6 

1 7 

1 8 

1 9 

2 0 

2 1 

2 2 

2 3 

2 4 

2 5 

2 6 

2 7 

2 8 

De n nis F. D u n ne (a d mitte d pr o h ac vice ) Sa m uel A. K halil (a d mitte d pr o h ac vice ) MI L B A N K L L P 

5 5 H u ds o n Yar ds 

Ne w Y or k, Ne w Y or k 1 0 0 0 1- 2 1 6 3 

Tele p h o ne: ( 2 1 2) 5 3 0- 5 0 0 0 

Facsi mile: ( 2 1 2) 5 3 0- 5 2 1 9 

a n d 

Gre g or y A. Bra y ( S B N 1 1 5 3 6 7) 

T h o mas R. Kreller ( S B N 1 6 1 9 2 2) 

MI L B A N K L L P 

2 0 2 9 Ce nt ur y Par k East, 3 3r d Fl o or 

L os A n geles, C A 9 0 0 6 7 

Tele p h o ne: ( 4 2 4) 3 8 6- 4 0 0 0 

Facsi mile: ( 2 1 3) 6 2 9- 5 0 6 3 

C o u nsel f or t he Offici al C o m mittee 

of U nsec ure d Cre dit ors

U NI T E D S T A T E S B A N K R U P T C Y C O U R T 

N O R T H E R N DI S T RI C T O F C A LI F O R NI A 

S A N F R A N CI S C O DI VI SI O N 

I n re: 

P G & E C O R P O R A TI O N 

 - a n d - 

P A CI FI C G A S A N D E L E C T RI C 

C O M P A N Y,

De bt ors.

Case N o. 1 9- 3 0 0 8 8 ( D M) 

C ha pter 1 1 

( Lea d Case) 

(J oi ntl y A d mi nistere d) 

O B J E C TI O N O F T H E O F FI CI A L 

C O M MI T T E E O F U N S E C U R E D 

C R E DI T O R S T O T H E 

O F FI CI A L C O M MI T T E E O F T O R T 

C L AI M A N T’ S: (I) B A R D A T E M O TI O N 

A N D (II) A N G EI O N R E T E N TI O N 

A P P LI C A TI O N 

Date: J u ne 2 6, 2 0 1 9 

Ti me: 9: 3 0 a. m. ( Pacific Ti me) 

Place: U nite d States Ba n kr u ptc y C o urt 

 C o urtr o o m 1 7, 1 6t h Fl o or 

 4 5 0 G ol de n Gate A ve n ue 

 Sa n Fra ncisc o, C A 9 4 1 0 2 

Re: D oc ket N os. 2 2 9 7 a n d 2 3 0 3 

Affects P G & E C or p orati o n 

Affects Pacific Gas a n d Electric 

C o m pa n y 

 Affects b ot h De bt ors 

 All p a pers s h all be file d i n t he Le a d C ase, 

N o. 1 9- 3 0 0 8 8 ( D M) . 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2650 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:37:17 Page 1 of

9
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

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) of PG&E Corp. and 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (collectively, the “Debtors”) hereby objects to both the: 

(i) Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 501 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a), 3003(c), 5005 and 

9007 for Entry of an Order (I) Establishing a Bar Date for Filing Fire Claims, (II) Approving the 

Form and Procedures for Notice of the Bar Date for Fire Claims, and (III) Approving 

Supplemental Procedures for Notice of the Bar Date to Fire Claimants (the “TCC Bar Date 

Motion”) [Docket No. 2297]; and (ii) Application Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1103 and Fed. R. Bankr. 

P. 2014 and 5002 to Retain and Employ Angeion Group, LLC as Fire Claim Bar Date Noticing 

Agent Effective as of May 22, 2019 (the “Angeion Retention Application”) [Docket No. 2303] filed 

by the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “TCC”) on May 31, 2019.1

INTRODUCTION 

1. From the outset of these cases, the TCC has repeatedly emphasized to the Court 

that “time is of the essence”2 because, among other things, “[t]he [50,000+] victims are desperately 

in need of assistance”,3 “displaced victims [face] significant hardship in their day to day lives”,4

and “[w]e hear every week on our weekly [TCC] telephone calls about how this case must move 

expeditiously and be resolved within six months.”5 

2. The Committee does not dispute these sentiments and indeed wholeheartedly 

agrees that it is imperative to bring these cases to an expeditious conclusion so that all unsecured 

creditors, including the fire victims, may be properly compensated. To achieve this overarching 

goal, the Committee is working diligently to advance these cases as fast as possible to the time 

 

1 Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the TCC Bar 

Date Motion.

2

 See Hr’g Tr. May 22, 2019 at 119:6-7. 

3

 See Official Committee of Tort Claimants’ Limited Joinder, Objection and Counter Motion 

to Debtors’ Wildfire Assistance Program Motion [Docket No. 2013] at 12:22-23. 

4

 Id. at 7:17-19, citing Declaration of Robert A. Julian in Support of Official Committee of 

Tort Claimants’ Limited Joinder, Objection and Counter Motion to Debtors’ Wildfire 

Assistance Program Motion [Docket No. 2021], at Exhibit H and Motion Pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 363(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002 and 6004(h) for an Order (A) 

Authorizing Debtors to Establish and Fund Program to Assist Wildfire Claimants with 

Alternative Living Expenses and Other Urgent Needs and (B) Granting Related Relief (the 

“Wildfire Assistance Program Motion”) [Docket No. 1777] at 8:3. 

5

 See Hr’g Tr. May 8, 2019 at 53:11-13.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2650 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:37:17 Page 2 of

9
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

when a fair and equitable plan of reorganization can be confirmed, providing for prompt 

distributions to all holders of valid claims without undue delays and avoidable hardships. 

Establishing a bar date in the near term is an important step in that process. 

3. Given this purportedly shared goal, the Committee is bewildered by the TCC’s 

recent request to push the bar date to next year and its other litigation tactics that have already had, 

and are likely to continue to have, the effect of delaying even the initial necessary steps of setting 

the bar date, establishing appropriate notice procedures and commencing the claims reconciliation 

processes. Most importantly, however, the Committee believes that the TCC’s request to set the 

bar date for fire victims for January 31, 2020—over seven months from now—is unwarranted, 

unreasonable and is not in the best interests of any unsecured creditors, including wildfire victims. 

4. The TCC’s efforts to commandeer critical elements of the claims process—

including seeking the retention of yet another noticing agent—without so much as a conversation 

with the Debtors or the Committee is nothing but a turf war rather than an effort to move these 

cases forward in a constructive fashion. Rather than simply make its views known about the 

proposed bar date, proof of claim (“POC”) form, and noticing program in an objection to the 

Debtors’ initial bar date motion, the TCC elected to file its own competing motion, plus an 

application to employ a separate noticing agent, thus unnecessarily confusing and complicating 

matters—much like they did with respect to the motion to establish the wildfire victims fund. 

Moreover, while there may well be reasons for noticing procedures in these cases that are above 

and beyond those ordinarily employed, the TCC has not provided any credible evidence that the 

procedures and the timeline it has proposed strikes the right balance; its “arguments” are nothing 

but speculation and hyperbole. Nor has the TCC provided any competent evidence that a 

comprehensive notice program cannot be carried out in approximately 95 days. It is beyond 

peradventure that the unnecessary lengthening of the administration of these cases will ensure that 

all unsecured creditors, including the fire victims, are forced to wait longer than is necessary to 

receive the compensation from the Debtors’ estates to which they are entitled. 

5. Arguing for speed while actively seeking to delay these cases appears to be the 

TCC’s strategy. For example, the TCC has proposed a POC form that requires little information 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2650 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:37:17 Page 3 of

9
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

from fire victims.6 The TCC justifies this proposal by asserting that extensive information about 

individual claimants’ alleged damages are already available in the BrownGreer database—yet, for 

months now, the TCC has refused to share such information with anyone, choosing instead to 

leverage its control over this information to gain an upper hand in these cases. Such conduct is 

counterproductive and is hardly in the best interests of these estates and their creditors. 

6. As was made clear in its Statement Regarding Debtors’ Bar Date Motion and the 

Competing Proof of Claim Forms Proposed by the TCC and the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation 

Claimholders (the “Statement”) [Docket No. 2308], the objective of the Committee has always 

been “to establish the most effective and efficient method for gathering (and sharing among the 

relevant parties) the information that will be necessary to accurately assess the magnitude of the 

Debtors’ claims pools.” Statement at 2. The Committee has urged the TCC to share the claims 

information it has access to and acknowledged that the Committee would be prepared to accept 

the TCC’s proposed POC form if such information became available to parties other than the TCC. 

7. Since that time, rather than continue to fight with the TCC, the Debtors have agreed 

to use the TCC’s POC form.7

 The Committee does not necessarily agree with that decision but 

understands the Debtors’ desire to minimize the number of unresolved issues. However, the 

consequence of the TCC’s both opposing the more detailed (but relatively straightforward) POC 

form proposed by the Debtors and refusing to share the purportedly substantial information already 

in its control, will result in a two-step bar date and discovery process that will inevitably lead to 

unnecessary delay and administrative expenses, rather than streamlining the claims and discovery 

process and expediting these cases as it has vociferously advocated. 

8. Despite the Committee’s efforts to prod the parties to these proceedings into sharing 

information that they have on hand and that is critical to estimating the magnitude of the Debtors’ 

wildfire claim pools, negotiations have been beset by squabbling and gridlock, and the lion’s share 

 

6

 In addition, the TCC’s proposed POC form does not require any supporting documentation, 

or any details regarding the nature or the quantification of the claim. 

7

 The Committee does not concede that adoption of the TCC’s POC form is proper. The 

Committee reserves its right to take discovery in connection with, among other things, all 

filed wildfire claims, including any and all related information possessed or controlled by 

the TCC, its advisors, its members and their respective attorneys. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2650 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:37:17 Page 4 of

9
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

of information remains under lock and key. As a consequence, the Committee has—reluctantly—

served limited discovery upon the TCC and its members, the Debtors and the Subrogation Group 

in connection with the bar date motions seeking only the most basic data and information, 

including, with respect to the TCC, information necessary to access the BrownGreer database. The 

Committee took this step only after the Debtors withdrew their more comprehensive proof of claim 

form in favor of the TCC’s form, and only to advance the ball in terms of information 

sharing. Rather than embrace what ought to be a common goal, the TCC responded with vitriol—

accusing the Committee by letter of having served the discovery requests in bad faith and in 

violation of Rule 9011. The Committee is at a loss as to how the TCC can take this position, 

particularly when, as the TCC knows, the Committee has sought the same basic discovery of the 

Debtors and the Subrogation Group. The Committee believes, as it has said time and again, that 

this information must be shared as expediently as possible in order to advance these cases toward 

a swift and just conclusion. 

9. In any case, now that the Debtors have agreed to accept the TCC’s POC form, there 

is no credible argument as to why the bar date should be delayed until next year. Moreover, the 

Committee understands that the Debtors and their noticing agent, Prime Clerk, intend to 

supplement the proposed notice program by adopting some of the elements proposed by the TCC. 

The Committee believes that the notice program proposed by the Debtors already exceeds the 

requirements necessary to guarantee the wildfire claimants’ due process rights. There is no reason 

or justification for the added expense of retaining an additional noticing agent in these cases. 

10. For these reasons, the Committee objects both to the TCC Bar Date Motion and to 

the Angeion Retention Application, and urges the Court to approve the Debtors’ proposed bar date 

and noticing program. 

BACKGROUND 

11. The Debtors filed their Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 502(b)(9) and 105(a), Fed. 

R. Bankr. P. 2002, 3003(c)(3), 5005, and 9007, and L.B.R. 3003-1 for Order (I) Establishing 

Deadline for Filing Proofs of Claim, (II) Establishing the Form and Manner of Notice Thereof, 

and (III) Approving Procedures for Providing Notice of Bar Date and Other Information to All 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2650 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:37:17 Page 5 of

9
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

Creditors and Potential Creditors (the “Bar Date Motion”) [Docket No. 1784] on May 1, 2019. 

Among other things, the Bar Date Motion seeks to: (i) approve various POC forms;8 and (ii) 

establish September 16, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. (Prevailing Pacific Time) as the deadline for creditors 

to file POCs (the “Debtors’ Proposed Bar Date”).9 

12. On May 3, 2019, the TCC filed its Motion of the Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 501 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a) for Entry of an 

Order Approving Proposed Model Proof of Claim Form for Fire Claims and Related Procedures 

(the “TCC POC Motion”) [Docket No. 1824], seeking, among other things, approval of its own 

POC form (the “TCC POC Form”) for asserting wildfire claims and certain procedures for 

submitting such claims.10 The TCC POC Motion did not specify a specific bar date by which 

POCs would need to be filed nor did it request a different notice program. 

13. The Debtors’ Bar Date Motion was originally set to be heard on May 22, 2019. The 

TCC requested an adjournment to the June 11, 2019 hearing. On May 31, 2019, a mere eleven 

days before the June 11 hearing, the TCC filed the TCC Bar Date Motion and the Angeion 

Retention Application, along with an ex parte request to allow them to be heard on an expedited 

basis at the June 11, 2019 hearing.11 On the same day, the TCC also served on the Debtors a 

deposition notice and request for production of documents regarding the Debtors’ Proposed Bar 

Date. As pointed out in the Preliminary Statement Updating the Court with Respect to the Status 

of the Debtors’ Bar Date Motion and Related Noticing Motions and Pleadings [Docket No. 2562], 

during the more than three weeks between the filing of the Debtors’ Bar Date Motion and the TCC 

Bar Date Motion, the Debtors, the Committee and the TCC engaged in what the Committee 

 

8

 The Committee understands that the POC form proposed for the subrogation claimants has 

been modified in response to the comments received from the Ad Hoc Group of 

Subrogation Claim Holders [Docket No. 2044]. 

9

 The Committee understands that the September 16, 2019 date was based on a 95-day notice 

period and that, because of the delay in obtaining the bar date order, the Debtors intend to 

extend the bar date accordingly. 

10 The Committee previously informed the Court of its position with respect to the TCC POC 

Motion in its Statement. 

11 The Court denied the motion to shorten notice. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2650 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:37:17 Page 6 of

9
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

believed to be good faith discussions regarding, among other things, the bar date. Throughout this 

period, the TCC never mentioned its intention to file its own bar date motion or seek discovery in 

connection with the Bar Date Motion.12 The Court ultimately moved the hearing on the bar date 

issues to June 26, 2019—thus, the TCC’s gamesmanship has already resulted in an over one month 

delay in establishing the bar date in these cases. 

OBJECTION

A. The Committee Supports the Debtors’ Notice Procedures. 

14. The Committee wishes that all creditors—including fire victims—receive ample 

notice of the bar date and a full and fair opportunity to file their POCs, as proper notice to creditors 

and complete information regarding the quantum of the Debtors’ liabilities is necessary to 

formulate, negotiate, and ultimately confirm a plan in these cases. As such, the Committee 

believes that a notice program is necessary that will give all of the Debtors’ various creditors a fair 

and reasonable opportunity to assert their claims against the Debtors without unnecessary delay or 

waste of estate resources. To that end, while the Committee is in favor of an expansive notice 

program, it is also mindful that, under applicable law, notice programs must only be “reasonably 

calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action 

and afford them an opportunity to present their claims.” In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 137 B.R. 

679, 682 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1992), citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 

306, 314 (1950); see also City of New York v. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. Co., 344 U.S. 293, 296 (1953) 

(applying Mullane due process requirements to bankruptcy cases); In re Robintech, 863 F.2d 393, 

396 (5th Cir. 1989) (stating that Mullane requires that reasonable notice include all pertinent 

information and sufficient time for claimants to respond).

15. While the Committee is not opposed to the additional notice procedures, provided 

they are consistent with the bar date proposed by the Debtors, it believes that, on the whole, the 

Debtors’ proposed notice program is appropriate from both a legal and practical sense of informing 

all creditors, including the wildfire victims, of the time and manner for exercising their right to 

assert a claim against the estate(s). The Committee understands that the Debtors are proposing to 

 

12 It is questionable whether the TCC has standing to pursue the TCC Bar Date Motion. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2650 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:37:17 Page 7 of

9
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 

8 

44553.00001

modify their proposed program in response to some of the TCC’s suggestions and hopes that the 

parties reach a consensual agreement on this issue (and stands ready to help facilitate such an 

agreement). The Committee is mindful, however, that, in light of the fact that the 2017 and 2018 

wildfires were well publicized disasters, and, as such, their victims should already be well aware 

of these bankruptcy cases, further spending on a notice program may not necessarily improve 

notice, will have diminishing returns, and will exceed the legal requirement that only a reasonable

effort be made to reach all creditors. 

16. As the Court is well aware, the Debtors have already retained Prime Clerk to serve 

as the noticing agent in these cases. There is no justification for retaining yet another professional 

to serve in the same capacity or why Prime Clerk cannot adequately perform its assigned role. 

Moreover, as opposed to Prime Clerk, on information and belief, the Committee understands that 

Angeion has never been involved in a chapter 11 case and has been criticized for its administrative 

role in a number of class action cases. Accordingly, the Committee supports the Debtors’ notice 

program as modified, and objects to the Angeion Retention Application. 

B. The Committee Supports the Debtors’ Proposed Bar Date.

17. The TCC bases its request for a later bar date on two grounds: (i) extra time is 

required for fire claimants “to complete and submit the necessary claim forms” owing to their 

“deep, long-lasting psychological trauma”;

13 and (ii) more time is required to notify all fire 

claimants regarding the deadline for filing POCs. The TCC has not provided any evidence, 

however, that any particular claimant cannot file a timely POC on account of this trauma, or that 

comprehensive notice cannot be provided by Prime Clerk in the allotted time. Rather, the TCC 

relies on the declarations by purported experts about the need for more notice and/or the 

capabilities of the fire victims. 

18. Neither the Bankruptcy Code nor Bankruptcy Rules give specific guidance on 

establishing a bar date. Courts have, however, recognized that “it is manifest that fixing the 

 

13 See Objection of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants to Motion of the Debtors for 

Order (I) Establishing Deadline for Filing Proofs of Claim, (II) Establishing the Form and 

Manner of Notice Thereof, and (III) Approving Procedures for Providing Notice of Bar 

Date and Other Information to All Creditors and Potential Creditors at Exhibit H, 

Declaration of Jeffrey R. Dion, at 2: 20 and 3: 14-15. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2650 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:37:17 Page 8 of

9
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 

9 

44553.00001

number and identity of . . . claimants will lend considerable assistance to the process of arriving at 

a value of the claims.” Eagle-Picher, 137 B.R. at 681. Determining the potential universe of a 

debtor’s liabilities is important in the plan process, and any delay in establishing a bar date will 

only serve to delay any distributions to the fire victims. 

19. The Committee recognizes the need for the Court to balance the objectives of 

assuring fair and proper notice to all unsecured creditors with the swiftest possible confirmation 

of a plan of reorganization so that the Debtors’ creditors can be paid as soon as possible, especially 

given the circumstances of these cases. The Committee believes that the establishment of an 

approximately 95-day bar date period, ending in mid-October, coupled with the adoption of the 

modified notice procedures that include certain elements of the TCC’s proposal will “thread this 

needle.” If, on the other hand, a bar date is set for next year, a foreseeable consequence is a material 

delay in the plan process—which will only lead to additional uncertainty and risk while the Debtors 

languish in chapter 11. As such, the Committee requests that the TCC’s request for a later bar date 

be denied. 

CONCLUSION 

20. The Committee respectfully requests that the Court: (i) deny the TCC Bar 

Date Motion; (ii) approve the Debtors’ Proposed Bar Date; (iii) deny the Angeion Retention 

Application; and (iv) grant such other and further relief as is just and reasonable. 

Dated: June 19, 2019 

MILBANK LLP 

/s/ Andrew M. Leblanc . 

DENNIS F. DUNNE 

SAMUEL A. KHALIL 

GREGORY A. BRAY 

THOMAS R. KRELLER 

ANDREW M. LEBLANC 

Counsel for the Official Committee of 

Unsecured Creditors

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2650 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 15:37:17 Page 9 of

9