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

-1-

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and -

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

☐ 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).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088-DM

Chapter 11

Jointly Administered 

Date: August 27, 2019

Time: 9:30 AM (Pacific Time)

Place: Courtroom 17

 450 Golden Gate Ave.

 16th Floor

 San Francisco, CA

ORDER REGARDING FURTHER HEARINGS ON ESTIMATION MOTION

AND OTHER CASE SCHEDULING MATTERS

I. INTRODUCTION

At the conclusion of the August 14, 2019, hearing on the 

Debtors’ Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 502(c) for 

the Establishment of Wildfire Claims Estimation Procedures (Dkt. 

3091) (the “Estimation Motion”) the court neither granted nor 

denied it. Many objections that had been filed were probably 

Signed and Filed: August 20, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

August 20, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3619 Filed: 08/20/19 Entered: 08/20/19 15:40:27 Page 1 of

5
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-

rendered moot by subsequent events, but the record needs to be 

complete as to their disposition.

The court’s minutes and the case docket reflect a continued 

status conference on the Estimation Motion on August 27, 2019, 

at 9:30. The orders that will shortly be entered granting the 

Official Committee of Tort Claimants’ Amended Motion for Relief 

from Stay (Dkt. 2904) and the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim 

Holders’ Motion for Relief from Stay (Dkt. 2863) certainly moot 

for the most part one significant aspect of the suggested 

timetable in the Estimation Motion, namely Phase 2 and the Tubbs 

Fire.

The court also set a hearing for the same time on the 

Official Committee Tort Claimants’ Motion for Entry of Order 

Determining Procedures for Preserving Jury Trial Rights (Dkt. 

3479). 

It seems useful for all parties to have a clear 

understanding of what will be dealt with in the coming months as 

to all remaining aspects of the Estimation Motion and other 

steps described in the Debtors’ Corrected Supplemental Statement 

and Plan of Reorganization Timeline in Support of Opposition to 

Motions to Terminate Exclusivity (Dkt. 3515). (“Timeline”)

II. ATTENDANCE AT CONTINUED STATUS CONFERENCE

For implementation of the Timeline, the court requires the 

participation of the following principal counsel, preferably in 

person but telephonic appearance by non-local counsel will be 

acceptable:

Stephen Karotkin, Esq.

Kevin J. Orsini, Esq.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3619 Filed: 08/20/19 Entered: 08/20/19 15:40:27 Page 2 of

5
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-

Robert A. Julian, Esq.

Cecily A. Dumas, Esq.

Benjamin P. McCallen, Esq.

Dennis F. Dunne, Esq. or Gregory A. Bray, Esq.

Frank A. Petrie, Esq.

Michael A. Kelly, Esq.

Alan Kornberg, Esq.

Counsel not on that list are not meant to be excluded, and 

all who wish may appear and participate in any discussion of 

these matters.

Notwithstanding the short time before the August 27, 2019,

status conference, principal counsel should meet and confer, 

principally about Items C and E below.

III. TIMELINE DISCUSSION POINTS 

A. In anticipation of a Debtors’ plan being filed on or 

about September 9, 2019, the court wants a discussion about 

varying the traditional sequence of FRBP 3016 and 3017. Rule 

3016(b) directs that a plan and disclosure statement be filed 

together “or within a time fixed by the court.”

If the proposed competing plans that were considered at 

last week’s hearings are any indication of what Debtors will be 

filing, the only impaired classes will be the fire victims and 

their insurers. Accordingly, the court wants to make sure that 

the proposed Disclosure Statement looks less like a thick phone 

book and is essentially a brief and simplified explanation of 

how and when the fire victims and their insurers should expect 

to be paid. Note that 11 U.S.C. § 1125(a) plainly directs that 

“adequate information” for disclosure statement purposes is to 

enable a hypothetical (investor?) of the relevant class to make 

an informed judgment. That admonition should be kept in mind.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3619 Filed: 08/20/19 Entered: 08/20/19 15:40:27 Page 3 of

5
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-

Subject to further discussion regarding item D, below, the 

court envisions two tracks to confirmation, one which deals with 

the determination of the amount of any trust (e.g., inverse 

condemnation ruling; Tubbs fire results; final estimation under 

11 U.S.C. § 502(c), etc.). The other will be the financial 

projections and provisions set forth in the Plan in order for 

the Debtors to implement and deal with all of the confirmation 

challenges but are not necessary to be included in a disclosure 

statement.

Finally, the court will discuss with all parties what might 

happen if Debtors do not meet their target of September 9, 2019,

plan filing.

B. Tentatively the court suggests Debtors file their

Opening brief on the inverse condemnation issue to be filed by 

November 1; TCC and others wishing to join in one brief to 

respond by November 15; Debtors’ reply by November 22; matter 

then submitted unless the court chooses to schedule oral 

argument. Comments about altering the schedule and setting page 

limits will be welcome.

C. The court wishes comments, particularly from Tubbs fire 

litigation counsel on both sides, as to what might be helpful in 

any coordination between setting the court’s estimation schedule 

(Phase 3) and the timing of Tubbs fire trial. Related is 

whether the Debtors are willing and able to work with 

plaintiffs’ counsel to speed up the scheduling of the Tubbs fire 

trial. 

D. Related to paragraph A, above, the court wants counsel 

for CPUC to outline what the Commission needs, and when, from 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3619 Filed: 08/20/19 Entered: 08/20/19 15:40:27 Page 4 of

5
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-

this court by way of a preliminary approval of the Plan terms; 

the extent of any required disclosures; whether the final 

outcome of the estimation proceedings is relevant to the 

preliminary tasks that the Commission will be handling, and what 

else will facilitate meeting its requirements. 

E. The court wants a full discussion among counsel as to 

what discovery will be necessary, and what is the timeframe, 

preparatory to the scheduling of the final estimation 

proceedings. 

F. Role of the Article III judge 

G. Possible mediation & court direction

H. Other matters of concern

**END OF ORDER**

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3619 Filed: 08/20/19 Entered: 08/20/19 15:40:27 Page 5 of

5