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

William B. Abrams

end2endconsulting@gmail.com

2041 Stagecoach Rd.

Santa Rosa, CA, 95404

Tel: 707 397 5727

Pro Se Fire Victim Claimant and Party to related proceedings before the California Public Utilities 

Commission and the California Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION,

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtors.

* All papers shall be filed in the lead case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Bankr. Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administrated)

WILLIAM B. ABRAMS OBJECTION 

TO THE REORGANIZED DEBTORS’

OMNIBUS MOTION TO ENFORCE 

THE DISCHARGE AND INJUNCTION 

PROVISIONS OF PLAN AND 

CONFIRMATION ORDER AGAINST 

CERTAIN PENDING ACTIONS

Relates To: [Dkt. 13685]

Objection Deadline: 

May 10, 2023 (Pacific Time)

Hearing Date: May 24, 2023

Time: 10:00am (Pacific Time)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13714 Filed: 05/10/23 Entered: 05/10/23 08:35:55 Page 1

of 6
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 

 William B. Abrams (“Abrams”) as a PG&E fire victim claimant and Northern California 

resident, submits this “William B. Abrams Objection to the Reorganized Debtors’ Omnibus Motion 

to Enforce the Discharge and Injunction Provisions of Plan and Confirmation Order Against Certain 

Pending Actions” (the “Objection”). This Objection is filed in direct response to the “Reorganized 

Debtors’ Omnibus Motion to Enforce the Discharge and Injunction Provisions of Plan and 

Confirmation Order Against Certain Pending Actions” (the “Motion”). While Abrams is not a 

named “State Court Plaintiff,” he has standing to file this Objection given that the Debtors’ have 

stated within the Motion that they plan to enforce this channeling injunction and prevent appeals and 

other legal actions for “all holders of claims” including Abrams and other similarly situated victims 

whom were never provided sufficient notice in accordance with Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 

Procedure 9019 and 2002. Given Abrams prior objections to the inequitable application of judicial 

review and the continued unjust manner in which the Debtor continues to wield the channeling 

injunction to undermine the interests of victims, Abrams respectfully submits the following: 

BACKGROUND 

1) On February 6, 2020 The Court filed the “Order Establishing Scheduling for 

Disclosure Statement Approval and Plan Confirmation” [Dkt. 5673]. Subsequently, on February 11, 

2020 the Court filed the “Amended Order Establishing Schedule for Disclosure Statement Approval 

and Plan Confirmation” [Dkt. 5732]. Within these Court orders it established March 6, 2020 as the 

“Deadline for any other parties (e.g., parties other than the Core Parties) to file and serve any 

Disclosure Statement or Solicitation Objections, which shall be in short, concise bullet points” and 

established March 10, 2020 as the “Deadline to file substantially final forms of each of the Fire 

Victim Trust Agreement and the Fire Victim Claims Resolution Procedures.” While many objection 

deadlines were established within these orders, nowhere within these orders or any other Court orders 

did it identify how a fire victim could retain access to judicial review or object to an unknown waiver 

of their rights to further legal actions like those represented with the Motion. Similarly, the Debtors 

and other core parties NEVER provided notice or identified a process or procedure for victims to 

timely object to the waiver of their legal rights and remedies. Therefore, it is clear that the parties 

identified within the “Reorganized Debtors’ Omnibus Motion to Enforce the Discharge and 

Injunction Provisions of Plan and Confirmation Order Against Certain Pending Actions” were never 

given the opportunity to preserve their legal rights or to object to the waiver of their rights to pursue 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13714 Filed: 05/10/23 Entered: 05/10/23 08:35:55 Page 2

of 6
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 

subsequent court actions separate and apart from those accommodated through the Fire Victim Trust 

(the “FVT”). 

2) On May 15, 2020, there was a hearing held and the following question was posed by 

the Court to the Debtors and other core parties: 

“Is there anything in the plan or the disclosure statement that tells the thousands and 

thousands of people that were solicited, by the way, it doesn’t matter what you do, we’re 

going to stick this down your throat under 9019(b)?” 

In response to this very astute and pertinent question by the Court, Mr. MacConaghy on behalf of the 

Official Committee of Tort Claimants stated “Well, 9019(b) isn’t referenced...” It was clear from this 

statement and others that NO timely notice was provided to victim claimants by the Court or by the 

Debtors to inform them of their rights to object to the unknown waiver of judicial review or 

procedures to preserve their rights to appeal. This lack of due process includes a lack of notice to 

those individual fire victims listed within the Debtors’ Motion “Exhibit 2” as “State Court Plaintiffs.” 

Now, after these plaintiffs and others undoubtedly incurred considerable costs to pursue these 

“pending actions,” the Debtor would like to retroactively notice victims that their rights were stripped 

away through an unspecified hearing and/or through some non-existent notice. This is NOT 

informed consent or consent of any type. This is NOT due process and this is NOT just. The later 

inclusion of these waivers within provisions of the Channeling Injunction are a clear violation of 

victim rights, clearly not a product of common-sense due process and should not be upheld by the 

Court. 

 3) On June 19, 2020, the “Order Confirming Debtors’ and Shareholders Proponents’ 

Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization” (the “Plan”) [Dkt.8053] indicated, within obscure footnote 

7 on page 26, “the parties that timely submitted objections to the Fire Victim Trust Documents are as 

follows...” However, nowhere within this footnote nor anywhere else within the Plan or Trust 

Documents is there any indication of when, how or in accordance with what procedures victims 

were provided timely notice regarding their opportunity to retain their rights to judicial review 

and appeal. This was not cited here or anywhere because no such prior notice was provided by the 

Debtors and no related informed consent or waiver was provided by victims. This after-the-fact 

footnote is the only vague indication of what the Debtors must now contort and rely upon to further 

undermine the rights of their victims. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13714 Filed: 05/10/23 Entered: 05/10/23 08:35:55 Page 3

of 6
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 

OBJECTION 

 Abrams is a holder of Damage Claims under the Debtors’ confirmed “Debtors’ and 

Shareholder Proponents’ Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization Dated June 19, 2020” [Dkt. 8048] 

(the “Plan”) and has actively engaged as a pro se claimant within this bankruptcy case through letters 

to the Court [Dkt. 3828, 3906, 4468], an initial objection to the TCC Restructuring Support 

Agreement [Dkt. 5139] and through subsequent papers seeking just and fair remedies and outcomes. 

Abrams finds the Debtors’ efforts through this motion to push the resolution of these actions onto the 

already beleaguered and underfunded Fire Victim Trust to be unjust and not consistent with the facts 

of this case. Specifically, the Debtor has stated that “the dismissal of the Pending Actions pursuant to 

and consistent with the Channeling Injunction does not leave the State Court Plaintiffs who have filed 

valid and timely claims in the Chapter 11 Cases without a potential remedy... if the Fire Victim Trust 

deems such claims entitled to distribution, such Fire Victim Claims will be liquidated, satisfied, 

and/or paid by the Fire Victim Trust” (emphasis added). 

 The Debtors are well aware that these plaintiffs along with the vast majority of individual fire 

victim claimants were never informed of any Court process or schedule where they could retain their 

rights to an appeal. The post-facto removal of fire victim rights that was pursued by the Debtors in 

close collaboration and consultation with certain victim attorneys does not in any way satisfy Federal 

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 or Rule 2002. These rules require that notice must be provided 

to all affected parties. In re UAL Corporation, 412 F. 3d775 (7th Cir. 2005), the court held that a 

waiver of the right to judicial review must be knowing and voluntary and that notice of the 

waiver must be adequate to satisfy due process. The court found that the notice provided in that 

case was inadequate because it did not clearly inform the parties of the waiver of their right to appeal 

or provide them with a meaningful opportunity to object. Also, the Court should consider In re 

Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. 666 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2011). In that case the court held that a 

waiver of the right to appeal must be knowing and voluntary and that notice of the waiver must be 

reasonably calculated to reach interested parties. The court found that the notice provided in that 

case was inadequate because it did not provide sufficient information to allow the parties to make an 

informed decision about whether or not to waive their right to appeal. 

 Here, within this Case there was (1) NO notice to victims regarding their “opportunity to 

object” to the waiver of their legal rights (2) NO information provided to victims that would allow 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13714 Filed: 05/10/23 Entered: 05/10/23 08:35:55 Page 4

of 6
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 

them to make an “informed decision” about waiving judicial review and (3) NO information about 

how they could retain their “rights to appeal.” Indeed, there was no notice provided within the 

context of this case that would provide a schedule, a process or a procedure for upholding and/or 

retaining their rights to appeal or to pursue the types of legal action the Debtors’ now seem intent on 

directing to the FVT through this Motion. Given these facts, it is not surprising that these plaintiffs 

and many others filed actions against the Debtors. They were simply never noticed regarding an 

opportunity to retain these legal rights prior to bankruptcy plan confirmation and the execution of the 

channeling injunction. Instead, the Debtors rely on a post-facto footnote within the Plan that reserved 

these legal rights and remedies for a “handful of victims” that “objected to Trust Documents” and in 

so doing stripped these same rights away from all other victims. Indeed, the Debtors now seem intent 

on taking away the rights of victims who were first devastated by the PG&E fires and are now 

subjected to injustices that no other parties would tolerate. 

CONCLUSION 

There was no notice provided to PG&E victims in any way, shape or form that informed them 

of the process or procedure to retain their rights to appeal or to maintain their rights to pursue the 

types of legal actions that the Debtor references and attempts to block through their Motion. Neither 

the Court, the Tort Claimant Committee nor Official Fire Claimant Professionals informed individual 

victims about any process or procedure to retain their rights. Through the Debtors’ Motion, it now 

seems clear that this lack of judicial notice was by design so the rights of unsuspecting victims could 

be trampled upon. Moreover, there was no schedule or hearing noticed by the Debtors that would 

reasonably inform victims of the time or place to be heard to retain these rights. Now, the Debtors 

are attempting to strip victims of their rights through a channeling injunction to apparently establish 

unjust precedent that might be considered a “notice of retroactive due process” by stating within the 

Motion that “after the effective date of the Plan, the Reorganized Debtors sent correspondence and 

made multiple efforts to obtain the voluntary dismissal of the actions...” 

“Informed Consent” is a judicial standard for all lawful agreements and rightfully supported 

through the American Bar Associations Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court should not set 

aside this ethical standard for the sake of legal expediency. However, if there is any timely notice 

anywhere and in any form that was provided to individual victim claimants informing them of 

the process or procedure to retain their rights to appeal or any Court order indicating when or 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13714 Filed: 05/10/23 Entered: 05/10/23 08:35:55 Page 5

of 6
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 

how to retain their rights to judicial review more broadly, the Debtors or any other party 

should produce it. If this notice is produced, Abrams will gladly withdraw this Objection. 

Otherwise, the Court should deny this Motion with prejudice and all subsequent Motions by the 

Debtors that are intent on retroactively stripping away the rights of victims and further diluting the 

value of the Fire Victim Trust that wildfire survivors like Abrams and his family have relied upon to 

rebuild their homes and their lives. 

Executed on May 10, 2023, at Santa Rosa, CA. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 ______________________________ 

William B. Abrams 

Pro Se Claimant 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13714 Filed: 05/10/23 Entered: 05/10/23 08:35:55 Page 6

of 6