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 

Bruce S. Bennett (SBN 105430) 

Joshua M. Mester (SBN 194783) 

James O. Johnston (SBN 167330) 

JONES DAY 

555 South Flower Street 

Fiftieth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071.2300 

Telephone: (213) 489-3939 

Facsimile: (213) 243-2539 

E-mail: bbennett@jonesday.com 

 jmester@jonesday.com 

 jjohnston@jonesday.com 

Attorneys for PG&E Shareholders 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION 

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

OBJECTION OF CERTAIN PG&E 

SHAREHOLDERS TO MOTIONS OF 

THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF 

TORT CLAIMANTS AND THE AD HOC 

COMMITTEE OF SUBROGATION 

CLAIM HOLDERS FOR RELIEF FROM 

AUTOMATIC STAY TO PERMIT 

STATE COURT JURY TRIAL OF 2017 

TUBBS WILDFIRE CLAIMS

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).

Date: July 24, 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. 2842, 2843, 2855, 2863, and 

2904

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3108 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 16:39:50 Page 1 of

 4
- 1 - 

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 

Certain owners of common stock of PG&E Corporation (the “PG&E Shareholders”)1

hereby object to (a) the Amended Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay To Permit State Court 

Jury Trial Of 2017 Tubbs Wildfire Claims [ECF 2904] and Amended Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities In Support Of Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay To Permit State Court Jury 

Trial Of 2017 Tubbs Wildfire Claims [ECF 2855 (together with ECF 2904, the “TCC Motion”)] 

filed by the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “TCC”); and (b) the Motion For Relief 

From The Automatic Stay [ECF 2863 (the “Subrogation Motion” and, collectively with the TCC 

Motion, the “Motions”)] filed by the Ad Hoc Committee of Subrogation Claim Holders (the 

“Subrogation Committee”). In the aggregate, the PG&E Shareholders own 35% (over 185 

million shares) of the outstanding common stock of PG&E Corporation. 

JOINDER 

The PG&E Shareholders object to the Motions and join PG&E’s objection [ECF 3104] to 

them. 

STATEMENT RE SOLVENCY 

The PG&E Shareholders write separately to address the assertion by the TCC that the 

Debtors are insolvent because their wildfire liabilities “exceed[] $54 billion.” [ECF 2855 at 4]. 

That is a nonsense number that should be given no credence. The TCC literally fabricated 

it by tripling the $18 billion paid by insurers for 2017 and 2018 fires. Id. Even though the TCC 

should have more information than any other stakeholder about the nature and extent of damages 

claimed by wildfire victims, the TCC does not offer any information about actual losses incurred 

by anyone. 

Instead, the TCC relies on PG&E’s allegedly “well-documented record of paying fire 

losses on a ratio of roughly 3-1 for total losses versus insured losses.” [ECF 2855 at 3; id.

 

1

 The PG&E Shareholders are identified in the First Amended Verified Statement Of Jones Day 

Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 [ECF 3066]. The PG&E 

Shareholders are acting in their individual capacities but authorized the filing of this single 

submission for the purpose of administrative efficiency. Each of the PG&E Shareholders is 

expressing its independent views, and counsel does not have the actual or apparent authority 

to obligate any one entity to act in concert with any other entity with respect to PG&E equity 

securities. The PG&E Shareholders have not agreed to act in concert with respect to their 

respective interests in PG&E equity securities. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3108 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 16:39:50 Page 2 of

 4
- 2 - 

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 

at 4, 7]. That “well-documented” record consists of a single smaller fire (Butte) that occurred in 

2015, in a different location, with different victims, different losses, and different insurance 

coverage rates than those in the 2017 and 2018 wildfires. The TCC makes no effort to actually 

quantify the wildfire claims to be asserted against PG&E and it cites no authority for the 

proposition that claims may be allowed or estimated based on historical circumstances that have 

nothing to do with the facts and circumstances of the claims to be allowed or estimated. Indeed, 

the Subrogation Committee – whose interests seemingly would be aligned with the TCC in this 

regard – has disclaimed the TCC’s 3:1 ratio approach. Subrogation Motion at 4 n.3 (Subrogation 

Committee “disagrees with the assertion that a ratio of total losses to insured losses for past 

wildfires should be used to predict the losses for the 2017 and 2018 Northern California 

wildfires”). 

As the Court recently noted, “the victims of the Camp Fire and other fires have suffered 

different types of injuries ranging from loss of property to loss of life to loss of prospective 

economic advantage. These disparate claims will likely present different questions of law and 

fact that could not be appropriately addressed or resolved in the context of a class action.”2

 By 

the same logic, there cannot be any reliable loss information about fires that occurred in 2017 and 

2018 to be gleaned from the 2015 fire losses. 

In fact, given that the bar date has not occurred (and that, at the TCC’s insistence, wildfire 

claimants need not state an amount when they do file their claims), the only reliable information 

to date is that provided by the market, which currently is valuing PG&E as a solvent company 

with more than $9.5 billion of equity value.3 As such, the Court can and should assume that these 

are solvent estates unless it is proven otherwise. 

CONCLUSION

PG&E’s objection to the Motions explains why relief from stay to litigate Tubbs fire 

claims in state court would mire these cases in litigation and potentially doom PG&E’s ability to 

2

 Order Granting Motion To Dismiss First Amended Complaint, Adv. Pro. No. 19-03005 

[ECF 35 at 10]. 

3

 PG&E shares closed trading on Thursday, July 18, 2019, at $18.46 per share. With 

529,210,278 shares outstanding, that share price equates to more than $9.7 billion in equity 

value. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3108 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 16:39:50 Page 3 of

 4
- 3 - 

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 

resolve the cases by the important legislatively-established deadline of June 30, 2020. The PG&E 

Shareholders, as owners of a solvent debtor, join that objection. 

Dated: July 19, 2019 JONES DAY 

By: /s/ James O. Johnston

James O. Johnston 

Attorneys for PG&E Shareholders 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3108 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 16:39:50 Page 4 of

 4