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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Robert A. Julian (SBN 88469) Elizabeth A. Green (pro hac vice)

Cecily A. Dumas (SBN 111449) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 2300

1160 Battery Street, Suite 100 Orlando, FL 32801

San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 407.649.4036

Telephone: 628.208.6434 Email: egreen@bakerlaw.com

Facsimile: 310.820.8859

Email: rjulian@bakerlaw.com

Email: cdumas@bakerlaw.com

Eric E. Sagerman (SBN 155496) Elyssa S. Kates (pro hac vice)

David J. Richardson (SBN 168592) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

Lauren T. Attard (SBN 320898) 45 Rockefeller Plaza

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP New York, NY 10111

11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400 Telephone: 212.589.4200

Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Email: ekates@bakerlaw.com

Telephone: 310.442.8800

Facsimile: 310.820.8859

Email: esagerman@bakerlaw.com

Email: lattard@bakerlaw.com

Counsel for Official 

Committee of Tort Claimants

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION

-andPACIFIC 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

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

APPLICATION OF THE OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER (I) 

CONFIRMING THE SCOPE OF 

EMPLOYMENT OF BAKER & 

HOSTETLER LLP, OR 

ALTERNATIVELY (II) AMENDING 

THE ORDER APPROVING 

APPLICATION OF THE OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 1103 AND 

FED. R. BANKR. P. 2014 AND 5002, FOR 

AN ORDER AUTHORIZING 

RETENTION AND EMPLOYMENT OF 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, 

EFFECTIVE AS OF FEBRUARY 15, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4296 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 15:19:42 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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

1

2019 (THE “RETENTION ORDER”) 

(RELATED DKT. NOS. 1331, 4018 & 

4210)

Date: October 22, 2019 

Time: 10:00 a.m. (Pacific Time)

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Objections Due: October 15, 2019

 4:00 p.m. (Pacific Time)

The Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “TCC”) 1 of PG&E Corporation and Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company (the “Debtors”) for its reply (the “Reply”)2 in support of its Application 

of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants for Entry of an Order (I) Confirming the Scope of 

Employment of Baker & Hostetler LLP, or Alternatively (II) Amending the Order Approving 

Application of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1103 and Fed. R. 

Bankr. P. 2014 and 5002, for an Order Authorizing Retention and Employment of Baker & 

Hostetler LLP Effective as of February 15, 2019 (the “Application”) (Dkt. No. 4018), and in 

response to the Debtors’ Response and Objection to TCC’s Application to Expand the Scope of 

Baker & Hostetler LLP’s Retention (the “Objection”) (Dkt. No. 4210), respectfully states as 

follows:

1. In the Objection, the Debtors oppose the entry of an order confirming the scope of 

Baker & Hostetler LLP’s (“Baker”) employment or alternatively, expanding the scope of that 

employment to include representation of the TCC in connection with the California North Bay Fire 

Cases, JCCP 4955 (the “State Court Litigation”). The Debtors’ opposition is based on a mistaken 

supposition that Baker will be litigating individual claims rather than representing the interests of 

the TCC in a manner consistent with the TCC’s duties under section 1103(c) of the Bankruptcy 

Code. The Debtors also object due to the forum of the State Court Litigation. However, as set 

forth in the Application, and as fully explained below, the representation and services Baker has 

provided the TCC since the order lifting the stay, and seeks confirmation that it can continue to 

 1 Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Reply shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Application.

2 In the Application, the TCC reserved the right to file a brief and memorandum of law in response to any objection to 

this Application. Application at 24. This Reply is filed in accordance therewith. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4296 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 15:19:42 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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

2

provide to the TCC benefit the TCC and tort claimants as a whole. Baker has not, does not, and 

will not represent any individual creditor’s interest in the State Court Litigation. The Debtors’ 

Objection is wholly without merit and must be overruled.

A. The Debtors’ Objection Contradicts the Debtors’ Prior Position and is 

Contrary to the Court’s Rulings

1. The Debtors’ disingenuous attempt to sever and divorce the State Court Litigation, 

which addresses the Tubbs Fire, from the estimation proceedings and plan process is contrary to 

this Court’s rulings and statements from the bench. On August 14, 2019, while hearing argument 

about whether the estimation proceedings and Tubbs Fire liability proceedings could occur 

simultaneously, the Court noted the parties’ longstanding agreement that the proceedings were 

critically linked. (The Court: “how many times have we agreed? They’re all part of the same 

inquiry.”) (Hr’g. Tr. 116-117:23-1, Aug. 14, 2019). Similarly, the Debtors’ prior representations 

to the Court recognize the Tubbs Fire litigation is integral to the bankruptcy cases. On October 7, 

2019, during the hearing on the Fee Examiner’s Motion to Approve Fee Procedures (Dkt. No. 

3950), the Court asked Paul Zumbro, an attorney for the Debtors, “whether it’s your firm, or the 

Weil firm or any other firm, all the professional time being spent either in Tubbs Fire litigation or

in Judge Donato’s court or in this court or in the FERC litigation or in the CPUC, OAI, its all being 

billed through the bankruptcy court, right?” (Hr’g. Tr. 21:3-9, Oct. 7, 2019). Mr. Zumbro replied 

“[T]hat’s correct, sir.” (Hr’g. Tr. 21:10, Oct. 7, 2019). 

2. In addition to the statements made during hearings, the Estimation Hearings Order 

provides in part that the orders granting the “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.” Id. at p. 2. The Court also stated that it “envisions 

two tracks to tracks to confirmation, [including] 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.).” Id. at p. 4. The Estimation Hearings Order also stated that the Court 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4296 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 15:19:42 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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

3

wanted to hear from counsel, including Tubbs Fire litigation counsel, regarding coordination of 

scheduling for the estimation proceedings and Tubbs Fire trial. Id. at p. 4. 

3. Finally, in the Debtors’ Objection to the Amended Motion of the Official Committee 

of Tort Claimants for Relief from Automatic Stay to Permit State Court Jury Trial of 2017 Tubbs 

Wildfire Claims and the Motion of the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders for Relief 

from the Automatic Stay (Dkt. No. 3104), the Debtors stated in part that:

The Debtors, of course, agree with a simple point: there is no single issue that is 

more central to the resolution of these cases and the Debtors’ ability to emerge by 

June 30, 2020, than estimating the potential liability the Debtors might have for the 

thousands of unliquidated Tubbs Fire claims. Where the Debtors cannot agree with 

the TCC and the Subro Group is with respect to their suggestion that this Court 

should send this ‘gating issue,’ which is critical to the ability of all stakeholders to

‘negotiate and confirm’ a plan of reorganization, back to the prepetition landscape 

of state court litigation, thereby relegating this Court to the status of a mere spectator 

to the central issue in these Chapter 11 cases.” 

Id. at p. 7.

4. Notwithstanding this Court’s rulings, the parties’ prior agreement, and the Debtors’ 

representations to the Court, the Debtors now attempt to recharacterize the TCC’s role from 

representing the interests of all tort claimants to representing the interests of individual claimants. 

(See, Objection at p. 5). The Debtors’ efforts are inappropriate and the Objection must be overruled. 

Pursuant to section 1103(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, the TCC is able, among other things, to 

“participate in the formulation of a plan *** [and] perform such other services as are in the interest 

of those represented.” 11 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(3) & (5). The proceedings in the State Court Litigation 

are crucial to the formulation of a plan, and the TCC needs its own legal counsel to advise the TCC 

in this matter. Depriving the TCC of the full ability to protect its interests, and the interests of tort 

claimants as a whole, in a proceeding that is central to estimation, plan confirmation and recovery, 

would place the TCC and tort claimants at a disadvantage. 

5. Baker’s services in connection with the Tubbs Fire and State Court Litigation are 

entirely consistent with the TCC’s fiduciary obligations. Baker was retained to represent the TCC 

in estimation proceedings and plan confirmation proceedings, and pursuant to the Retention Order 

and Retention Application, Baker is permitted to represent the TCC in hearings or proceedings 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4296 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 15:19:42 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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

4

before tribunals and courts other than this Court. The scope of Baker’s employment also permits 

it to assist the TCC by preparing pleadings and applications and pursuing or participating in 

contested matters in furtherance of the TCC’s interests.3 As stated in the Application, Baker’s role 

in the State Court Litigation is limited to those activities which are “necessary to protect the TCC 

and all Tubbs fire victims’ interests” (Application at p. 5). The Debtors’ selective quoting of the 

Application does not change this limit (See, Objection at p. 5). Thus, this Application is not about 

permitting Baker to represent the interests of individual litigants, nor is it about fee shifting (See, 

Objection at p. 3). Indeed, 11 U.S.C. § 1103(a) authorizes a committee to select “one or more 

attorneys, accountants, or other agents, to represent or perform services for such committee.” 

B. There is No Conflict or Potential Conflict of Interest

1. The Debtors attempt to manufacture an imaginary conflict of interest between the 

TCC and its constituents, on one hand, and the plaintiffs in the State Court Litigation (the 

“Plaintiffs”), on the other.4 The Court should not countenance the Debtors’ attempt at fiction. The 

TCC has a fiduciary duty to represent the interests of all tort claimants, including those impacted 

by the Tubbs Fire. These interests are implicated in the State Court Litigation, which will involve, 

among other things, a determination as to whether the Debtors are liable for the Tubbs Fire. The 

discovery, motions, trial and other proceedings in the State Court Litigation will involve matters 

that impact, and significantly overlap with, the estimation proceedings critical to plan formulation 

and ultimate recovery by the tort claimants. The Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ obligations are to represent 

the Plaintiffs and only the Plaintiffs; they cannot speak for the TCC nor can they speak for the entire 

TCC constituency Baker represents. If anything, the possibility raised by the Debtors that “[t]he 

interests of an individual Preference Plaintiff may run contrary to other litigants or the TCC’s other 

constituents...” (Response at p. 6) underscores exactly why the TCC must be involved in the State 

Court Litigation and must also have its own separate representation. Accordingly, the TCC is 

obligated to and is entitled to fully participate in the State Court Litigation as necessary to protect 

 3 As stated in the Application, given the wide scope of Baker’s retention, Baker believes that it may currently represent 

the TCC in the State Court Litigation. Nevertheless, due to the unusual procedural posture of these cases, the TCC 

filed the Application out of an abundance of caution.

4 One of the Plaintiffs is Greg Wilson, a member of the TCC.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4296 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 15:19:42 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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

5

the interests of all tort claimants, including the right to pay experts to testify as to the liability for 

the Tubbs Fire (many of whom will also testify in the estimation proceedings), in order to fulfill 

the TCC’s fiduciary obligation.

2. The cases cited by the Debtors generally hold that a committee cannot represent an 

individual creditor whose interest conflicts with the interests of a committee’s constituents. Of 

course, this is not remotely what counsel to the TCC is or has been doing in the State Court 

Litigation since the stay was lifted by this Court. As such, the cases cited by the Debtors are 

distinguishable. See, e.g., Adorno & Yoss LLP v. U.S. Tr. (In re 3DFX Interactive, Inc.), 2008 

Bankr. WL 8448326, *5 (9th Cir. B.A.P. Feb. 6, 2008). The TCC and Baker are continuing to do 

what they have done since the early days of these cases – they are protecting the interests of all tort 

claimants. 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated in the Application, the TCC respectfully requests that 

this Court overrule the Objection and enter an order, in the form attached to the Application as 

Exhibit A, (a) authorizing Baker to provide services to the TCC in connection with the State Court 

Litigation; and (b) granting such other and further relief as is just and proper. 

Dated: October 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

By:/s/ Elizabeth A. Green

Counsel for the Official Committee of Tort Claimants

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4296 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 15:19:42 Page 6 of

6