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 

RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

4825-8320-0415, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

RICHARD A. MARSHACK, SBN 107291 

rmarshack@marshackhays.com 

DAVID A. WOOD, SBN 272406 

dwood@marshackhays.com 

LAILA MASUD, SBN 311731 

lmasud@marshackhays.com 

MARSHACK HAYS LLP 

870 Roosevelt, Irvine, CA 92620 

Tel: 949-333-7777 -/- Fax: 949-333-7778

GERALD SINGLETON, SBN 208783 

JOHN C. LEMON, SBN 175847 

SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC 

450 A Street, 5th Floor 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Tel. (619) 771-3473 

Email: gerald@slffirm.com 

 john@slffirm.com 

Attorneys for SLF Fire Victim Claimants 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

 and, 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

 Debtors. 

 

Affects: 

☐ PG&E Corporation 

☐ Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

☒ Both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in Lead Case, 

 No. 19-30088 (DM). 

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case Jointly Administered) 

RESPONSE TO MOTION OF THE AD 

HOC COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED 

NOTEHOLDERS TO TERMINATE THE 

DEBTOR'S EXCLUSIVE PERIODS 

[Docket No. 2741] 

Hearing: 

Date: August 13, 2019 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Ctrm; 17, 16th Floor 

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

TO THE HONORABLE DENNIS MONTALI, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

JUDGE, THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE AND ALL INTERESTED 

PARTIES: 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3450 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:19:39 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 

RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

4825-8320-0415, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

 The Singleton Law Firm (“SLF”) and Marshack Hays LLP, together with several other 

firms, represent approximately 5,200 victims of the fires started by PG&E in 2015 (“Butte Fire”), 

2017 (the twenty fires generally referred to as the “North Bay” and “Wind Complex Fires”) and 

2018 (“Camp Fire”).1 The SLF Claimants submit this response (“Response”) to the Motion of the Ad 

Hoc Committee of Senior Unsecured Noteholders (“Ad Hoc Committee”) to Terminate the Debtors’ 

Exclusive Period (“Exclusivity Motion”), filed on June 25, 2019, as Docket No. 2741. 

I. Summary of Argument 

The Motion seeks to terminate the exclusivity period for filing and pursuing confirmation of 

a chapter 11 plan. As Debtors have neither proposed nor made significant strides towards a plan of 

reorganization, terminating the exclusivity period will function to afford other parties the 

opportunity to offer a plan. Terminating exclusivity will, in fact, help move the case forward so 

Debtors have a fighting change of exiting bankruptcy before June 30, 2020 in order to participate in 

the new wildfire recovery fund proposed by the California legislature (“WildFire Recovery Fund”). 

All parties, including the Ad Hoc Committee, should be allowed to expedite the plan confirmation 

process by proposing their own plans that can finally move this case to a point of confirmation 

where all other indications point to unnecessary delay by Debtor. 

II. Procedural Background 

Since, the Debtors continue to operate their businesses and manage their properties as debtors 

in possession pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1107(a) & 1108 of. The Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases are being 

jointly administered for procedural purposes only pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”). On February 12, 2019, the United States Trustee (“U.S. Trustee”) 

appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“Creditors Committee”). A torts claimants 

committee has also been formed (“TCC”). 

Notably, none of the SLF Claimants are members of the TCC. 

 

1

 The claimants are jointly referred to as the “SLF Claimants.” 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3450 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:19:39 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 

RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

4825-8320-0415, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

On June 25, 2019, as Dk No. 2741, the Ad Hoc Committee filed the instant Motion seeking 

to terminate Debtors exclusivity. In response, SLF Claimants file this instant response in support of 

the Motion. 

III. Legal Argument 

A. Debtors Have Made No Real Progress Towards Reorganization and 

Have Not Demonstrated Reasonable Prospects for Filing a Viable Plan 

Section2 1121 provides, the bankruptcy court “may for cause reduce or increase the 120 day 

period” upon the request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing. 11 U.S.C. § 1121(d)(1). 

The determination of whether cause exists to warrant an extension of the statutory time periods is 

fact specific. In re Henry Mayo Newhall Mem. Hosp., 282 B.R. 444, 453 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2002) 

(citing In re Dow Corning, 208 B.R. 661, 670 (Bankr. E.D. Mich 1997)) (emphasis added). In 

determining any adjustment to exclusivity, a “transcendent consideration is whether adjustment of 

exclusivity will facilitate moving the case forward toward a fair and equitable resolution.” In re 

Henry Mayo Newhall Mem. Hosp., 282 B.R. 444, 453 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Dow 

Corning, 208 B.R. 661, 670 (Bankr. E.D. Mich 1997)). 

Courts have enumerated the following factors to be considered in determining whether 

cause exists to warrant an extension: (1) the size and complexity of the case; (2) the necessity of 

sufficient time to negotiate and prepare adequate information; (3) the existence of good faith 

progress toward reorganization; (4) whether the debtor is paying its debts as they come due; (5) 

whether the debtor has demonstrated reasonable prospects for filing a viable plan; (6) whether 

the debtor has made progress in negotiating with creditors; (7) the length of time the case has 

been pending; (8) whether the debtor is seeking the extension to pressure creditors; and (9) 

whether unresolved contingencies exist. Dow Corning, 208 B.R. at 664-665; see also Henry Mayo 

Newhall Mem. Hosp., 282 B.R. at 452 (citing the Dow Corning factors). 

 

2

 Unless otherwise indicated, all Chapter and Section references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 

U.S.C. §§ 101–1532. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3450 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:19:39 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 

RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

4825-8320-0415, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

Here, Debtors have not shown cause to warrant an extension of the exclusivity period. 

Instead, cause has been shown to terminate the exclusivity period. As an initial matter, Debtors have 

not proposed a plan up to date. Although SLF Fire Victim Claimants do not necessarily support the 

proposed Term Sheet by the Ad Hoc Committee as being the “best path forward,” it is at least a step 

in the right direction with respect to what has been sluggish movement by the Debtors. Mot., 6:4. 

SLF Fire Victim Claimants shall highlight some of the Dow Corning Factor that when considered 

are particularly worrisome and demonstrate cause for which the Motion should be granted. 

i. Whether the Case is Particularly Large or Complex 

No one will deny that Debtors’ case is complex. But complexity should not give way to 

efficiency especially considering the rapidly approaching deadline to participate in the WildFire 

Recovery Fund. At the previous Exclusivity Hearing, this court stated that it would entertain motions 

to terminate exclusivity. Although Debtors did not take this cue to propose a plan, at least one other 

party did actively come up with a credible plan. Simply stated, Debtors were allowed to continue in 

exclusivity but a confirmable plan from Debtors is no closer today than it was in May. 

ii. Debtors Have Not Filed A Viable Plan/ Existence of Good Faith Progress to 

Reorganization 

Debtor has not filed a plan. Moreover, Debtor has come no closer to filing a plan as most 

time has been spent overhauling the board of directors. At minimum, terminating exclusivity will 

motivate Debtor to work towards proposing a plan in light of other parties’ proposals for resolution. 

iii. Debtors Have Not Made Meaningful Progress In Negotiating With Creditors 

In various pleadings filed by the Ad Hoc Committee and the TCC, parties have brought it to 

the Court’s attention that Debtor is not actively communicating3 with its creditors on a viable 

proposal of how to exit bankruptcy in a prompt fashion. Surely, Debtors would have at least spoken 

with the Ad Hoc Committee who is willing to put up the necessary funds towards moving this case 

towards resolution. Yet that is exactly what has not happened. Moreover, rather than speak with the 

 

3 See, e.g. Mot., 11:1-4. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3450 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:19:39 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

RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

4825-8320-0415, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

TCC and SLF Claimants about individualized resolution on an expedited matter, Debtors instead 

propose an estimation motion as a way to ‘bootstrap’ a cap on the funds available to compensate 

victims all the while doing an end around due process. Plainly put, other than settling the wildfire 

claims of 18 local public entities, Debtors have done little to nothing to move these cases forward. 

IV. Conclusion

In this case, the foregoing factors4 are decidedly in favor of terminating the Debtor’s

exclusivity period and allow parties to propose plans thus fostering forward movement. Granting the 

Motion will not stop the Debtors from pursuing their own plan, but it will open the playing field for 

other parties, like the Ad Hoc Committee. SLF Claimants respectfully requests, the Motion be 

granted.

Dated: August 7, 2019 MARSHACK HAYS LLP 

By:______________________________

RICHARD A. MARSHACK 

DAVID A. WOOD 

LAILA MASUD

Attorneys for SINGLETON LAW FIRM 

FIRE VICTIM CLAIMANTS 

Dated: August _, 2019 SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC 

By:______________________________

GERALD SINGLETON 

AMANDA W. LOCURTO 

Attorneys for SINGLETON LAW FIRM 

FIRE VICTIM CLAIMANTS 

4

 For brevity, SLF Claimants only address the factors it feels weigh in favor of terminating 

exclusivity and granting the Motion. 



ARSHACK HAYS LLP

y:_____________________

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3450 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:19:39 Page 5 of

5