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 

Dennis F. Dunne (admitted pro hac vice) 

Samuel A. Khalil (admitted pro hac vice) 

MILBANK LLP 

55 Hudson Yards 

New York, New York 10001-2163 

Telephone: (212) 530-5000 

Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 

and 

Gregory A. Bray (SBN 115367) 

Thomas R. Kreller (SBN 161922) 

MILBANK LLP 

2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Telephone: (424) 386-4000 

Facsimile: (213) 629-5063 

Counsel for the Official Committee 

of Unsecured Creditors

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION 

 - and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors.

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

STATEMENT OF THE OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED 

CREDITORS REGARDING DEBTORS’ 

BAR DATE MOTION AND THE 

COMPETING PROOF OF CLAIM FORMS 

PROPOSED BY THE OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS AND 

THE AD HOC GROUP OF SUBROGATION 

CLAIM HOLDERS 

Date: June 11, 2019 

Time: 9:30 a.m. (Pacific Time) 

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

 450 Golden Gate Avenue 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: Docket Nos. 1784, 1824, 2044

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2308 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:57:11 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

1. By several motions and objections, each of the Debtors, the Official Committee of 

Tort Claimants (the “TCC”) and the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders (the 

“Subrogation Group”) has proposed its own proof of claim (“POC”) forms and filing procedures. 

The primary difference among these competing proposals is the amount of information sought 

from wildfire claimants as part of the POC process.1 

2. The Creditors’ Committee’s overarching objective in these cases is to achieve 

confirmation of a comprehensive plan of reorganization that treats all creditors, including wildfire 

victims, fairly and equally, and to do so as swiftly as possible. With respect to the claims bar date

process, the Creditors’ Committee has only one objective: 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. Not surprisingly, 

the most challenging aspect of that exercise will be the collection and evaluation of reliable 

information regarding the claims asserted against the Debtors by victims of the various wildfires. 

3. The claims bar date process is an important part of that equation, but it need not be 

the only part. The Creditors’ Committee has been advised that the Debtors and both the TCC and 

the Subrogation Group and their respective members possess significant wildfire claims-related 

data both based on historical claims experience and compiled in connection with prepetition 

wildfire claims litigations. The Creditors’ Committee believes that all of the relevant parties, and 

ultimately the Court, will be well served if that data is made available by the Debtors, the TCC 

and the Subrogation Group pursuant to a consensual information sharing protocol designed to 

place all of the parties on relatively equal footing in terms of access to this important information. 

The common goal of this process should be fact-finding, not strategic gamesmanship. While the 

 

1

 We understand that an agreement has been reached among the Debtors and the Subrogation 

Group regarding a revised POC form. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2308 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:57:11 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 

3 

44553.00001

parties have had extensive discussions regarding the possibility of such an information sharing 

protocol and the Creditors’ Committee has strongly advocated for the prompt sharing of data, thus 

far no agreement has been reached. 

4. A consensual information sharing protocol should also help resolve the pending 

differences of opinion regarding the proposed POC forms, the bar date and related procedures. To 

the extent that an acceptable information sharing protocol were to be agreed upon, the Creditors’ 

Committee believes that the POC approach favored by the TCC of a simpler, more limited POC 

form may be more feasible. Absent an agreement among the various parties to provide access to 

claims information they have already gathered, however, a POC form and bar date similar to those 

proposed by the Debtors may prove necessary to allow the Debtors to gather more information 

directly from claimants themselves. If the TCC is concerned that the Debtors’ proposed POC, 

procedures and bar date are overly burdensome to claimants, it should welcome the opportunity to 

ease that burden by sharing the data that they and their members already have in hand. 

5. Accordingly, barring an agreement on information sharing, the Creditors’ 

Committee supports the Debtors’ Proposed Bar Date and the Debtors’ POC (each as defined 

below).2

 To the extent that an agreement on information sharing is reached among the parties, the 

Creditors’ Committee would be open to supporting a more limited POC form along the lines 

proposed by the TCC. 

BACKGROUND 

6. On May 1, 2019, 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 

 

2

 To the extent that the Court approves the use of the Debtors’ POC, the Creditors’ 

Committee does have certain comments that it will provide to the Debtors. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2308 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:57:11 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 

4 

44553.00001

Notice thereof, and (III) Approving Procedures for Providing Notice of Bar Date and Other 

Information to All Creditors and Potential Creditors (the “Bar Date Motion”) [Docket No. 1784].3

 

Among other things, the Bar Date Motion seeks to establish September 16, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. 

(Prevailing Pacific Time) as the deadline (the “Debtors’ Proposed Bar Date”) for each person, 

including, without limitation, all Wildfire Claimants, Wildfire Subrogation Claimants, and 

Customers to file a proof of claim in respect of a prepetition claim asserted against either of the 

Debtors. 

7. As the Debtors assert that Official Form 410 is not designed to capture information 

necessary in a mass tort case, they also seek approval of a POC form (the “Debtors’ POC”) 

specifically tailored to the needs of these cases and customized for different constituencies. With 

respect to Wildfire Claimants and Wildfire Subrogation Claimants, the Debtors’ POC requests 

more information on the underlying claim than typically is required, including information on the 

relevant wildfire, the type of loss or injury, the location of the loss or injury, the type of damages

asserted, and (if applicable) whether the claim is covered by insurance and relevant coverage 

information. 

8. 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 Motion”) [Docket No. 1824], seeking, among other things, an order approving its own 

proposed POC form (the “TCC’s POC”) for asserting wildfire claims and certain procedures for 

submitting such claims. 

 

3

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

Motion. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2308 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:57:11 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 

5 

44553.00001

9. As compared to the Debtors’ POC, the TCC’s POC is more abbreviated, requiring 

less information relating to the nature and specifics of the underlying claim. For instance, the 

TCC’s POC does not request the claimant to indicate: (i) whether the claim is covered by 

insurance; (ii) whether the property was on the market for sale at the time and if so, the asking 

price; (iii) the circumstances and nature of any personal injury on which the POC is based; and 

(iv) the specific dollar amount of the claim. 

10. The TCC states that it wishes to “simplify the process for Fire Claimants to file a

proof of claim against the Debtors in respect of any prepetition Fire Claim.” TCC Motion at 3. 

11. The TCC further asserts that it “expects that certain information obtained through 

the proof-of-claim filing process may be unnecessary to estimate certain claims given information 

available through databases maintained in connection with various state court proceedings.” TCC 

Motion at 9. This appears to be a reference to the fact that the Superior Court of California for the

County of San Francisco in the “California North Bay Fire Cases” (CJC-17-004955) issued a case 

management order mandating the establishment of a central repository (the “BrownGreer Portal”) 

populated with detailed information regarding claims asserted against the Debtors as a 

consequence of the 2017 North Bay Fires. 

12. The Creditors’ Committee understands that the information to be deposited in the 

BrownGreer Portal includes, among other things: (i) for each individual plaintiff, address of loss 

location, the fire(s) alleged to have caused such loss, categories of damages allegedly incurred, 

and causes of action asserted; and (ii) for each subrogation plaintiff claims, the carrier name, 

amounts paid under applicable policies, open reserves (if any), and the status of adjustment of the 

claim by the carrier. But neither the Debtors nor the Creditors’ Committee currently has been 

given access to the BrownGreer Portal and so has no ability to assess what information actually 

resides there. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2308 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:57:11 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 

6 

44553.00001

13. On May 16, 2019, the Subrogation Group filed its Partial Objection to the Bar Date 

Motion [Docket No. 2043] and its Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 107(b) and 501 and 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a) and 9018 for Entry of an Order Approving Proposed Model Omnibus 

Insurance Subrogation Proof of Claim Form for Subrogation Claims and Related Procedures (the 

“Subrogation Motion”) [Docket No. 2044]. In the Subrogation Motion, the Subrogation Group 

proposed, among other things, a POC form for subrogation claims that limits the information 

requested from subrogation claimholders to what, the Subrogation Group alleges, is historically 

exchanged with defendants. The Subrogation Group asserts that its proposed POC form will allow 

the Debtors to evaluate and reconcile claims without unduly burdening claimholders. We 

understand that the Debtors and Subrogation Group have had productive discussions that may 

resolve the Subrogation Group’s objection and motion. The Creditors’ Committee nonetheless 

continues to urge both the Debtors and the Subrogation Group to agree to provide the claims data 

they already have in order to facilitate the flow of information and claims pool analysis that will 

be critical to any prospect for a prompt resolution of these cases. 

STATEMENT 

14. The Creditors’ Committee has reviewed all of the proposed POC forms and 

discussed them with its advisors, as well as with the Debtors, the TCC and the Subrogation Group. 

The Creditors’ Committee is not opposed to the use of a specifically tailored POC form and 

recognizes that, in most mass tort bankruptcies, courts have permitted parties in interest to make 

modifications to the Official Form 410. See, e.g., In re A.H. Robins, Co., 862 F.2d 1092, 1093 

(4th Cir. 1988) (discussing custom-designed questionnaire used to elicit information to establish 

grounds for tort liability and validity of proofs of claim in chapter 11 bankruptcy of manufacturer 

of defective medical devices); In re TK Holdings Inc., Case No. 17-11375 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017) 

(Docket No. 959, Ex. B-2) (approving model proof of claim form for individuals who owned 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2308 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:57:11 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 

7 

44553.00001

vehicles equipped with airbag inflators containing phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate (PSAN) to 

file claims that required each claimant to provide vehicle-specific information). 

15. The Creditors’ Committee also understands the desire to make the POC process as 

easy as possible for wildfire victims to submit their claims. But this desire is balanced against the

need to design a process that will garner sufficient information for the relevant parties, and 

ultimately the Court, to accurately assess the magnitude of those claims – and for that process to 

occur along a timeline that will permit the timely formulation and prosecution of a plan of 

reorganization. 

16. Recognizing the paramount need for pooling the information regarding the wildfire 

claims, the Creditors’ Committee’s advisors have been meeting with and participated in numerous 

calls with the various parties in an effort to gain access to the various information held by each, 

including: (i) the Debtors’ information regarding the cause of the fires along with prior settlement 

information; (ii) the TCC’s information from the underlying state court actions; and (iii) the 

Subrogation Group’s information from insurers regarding claims made and paid to date. To date, 

however, the parties have not been able to successfully reach agreement on an information sharing 

protocol. While the TCC asserts that a complex POC form is not necessary, based in part on 

information that it alone has access to, without the TCC sharing such information with the other 

parties in interest, the other parties have no choice but to require a lengthy and detailed POC. 

17. As such, without an agreement on an information sharing protocol, the Creditors’ 

Committee must support the Debtors’ POC and Debtors’ Proposed Bar Date, which are designed 

to elicit information that must be made known to all parties in interest in the near term in order to 

properly estimate the Debtors’ wildfire liabilities and bring these cases to swift and successful 

conclusion. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2308 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:57:11 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 

8 

44553.00001

CONCLUSION 

 The Creditors’ Committee respectfully requests that the Court: (i) to the extent no 

agreement on an information sharing protocol has been reached, approve the relief requested in 

the Bar Date Motion, including the Debtors’ Proposed Bar Date and the Debtors’ POC; and 

(ii) granting such other relief as is just and reasonable. 

Dated: May 31, 2019

MILBANK LLP 

/s/ Thomas R. Kreller . 

DENNIS F. DUNNE 

SAMUEL A. KHALIL 

GREGORY A. BRAY 

THOMAS R. KRELLER 

Counsel for the Official Committee of 

Unsecured Creditors 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2308 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:57:11 Page 8 of

8