Relevant Documents:Draft PlanDraft Confirmation Order
After issuing his June 17 memorandum decision
concluding that the PG&E debtors’ plan “complies in all respects” with applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, Judge Dennis Montali conducted a hearing today to resolve the remaining outstanding disputes regarding the plan and the form of the confirmation order.
Ahead of today’s hearing, the debtors filed revised versions of a draft plan and a draft confirmation order for discussion at the hearing.
Certain of the open disputes noted in the June 17 decision were resolved consensually between the applicable parties in advance of today’s hearing. After extensive argument and discussion today on open matters, the court and the parties resolved the remaining objections.
Debtors’ counsel indicated that the debtors would file a revised plan, a revised confirmation order and a plan supplement containing final versions of the fire victim trust documents later today.
The court indicated that it would enter the confirmation order today, if practicable, or tomorrow, Saturday, June 20. Judge Montali congratulated the parties for their work in these cases, saying, “It’s been my pleasure to oversee it.”
Under AB 1054
, the debtors face a June 30 deadline for plan confirmation. Yesterday, Thursday, June 18, ratepayers appealed
U.S. District Judge James Donato’s dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of the ratepayers’ federal lawsuit challenging the legality of AB 1054.
Separately, the official tort claimants committee filed its final report
today indicating that it has not “identified any evidence of a significant voting issue in the data or other information considered during its analysis” or “found any factual support for the allegation that Prime Clerk or Debtors did not comply with their obligations under the Solicitation Procedures Order.” Even if “all of the measurable defective and potentially duplicative ballots were presumed to be cast against the Plan,” the TCC “believes the two-thirds threshold required for Plan approval by the fire victim class would have been met,” the report says.Objections
In the June 17 decision, the court addressed the official unsecured creditors committee’s outstanding objections and directed the plan proponents and the UCC to meet and confer regarding the specific language changes to be made consistent with the court’s decision. Ahead of today’s hearing, the UCC filed a statement
indicating that the meet and confer was “not successful” and submitting proposed language that it asserted “would appropriately resolve” the outstanding issues. For their part, the plan proponents filed a response
setting forth their proposed language.
Counsel for the UCC indicated today that the debtors’ response had bridged the gap between the parties significantly, leaving outstanding one dispute concerning specific language relating to monetary and nonmonetary defaults under contracts. The court and the parties ultimately agreed on language today that resolves that sole remaining issue.
On Thursday, the debtors submitted confirmation order language
reflecting the resolution of all but one of the outstanding securities litigation issues. Before today’s hearing, the lead plaintiff in the securities litigation withdrew its resolved objections, noting that the parties agreed to have the court determine the remaining dispute regarding the plan’s insurance deduction. After hearing extensive argument, Judge Montali sided with the debtors on the insurance deduction issue and also addressed additional language issues raised by the lead plaintiff.
Debtors’ counsel indicated today that the outstanding issues surrounding the fire victim trust documents and fire victim claims procedures “have been finalized among all the parties.” As noted above, the debtors will file the final documents later today in a plan supplement.South San Joaquin Irrigation District
appeared today in connection with the eminent domain issues raised in its June 18 filing. After hearing argument, the court indicated that it would not address the matter in the confirmation order but instead resolve it separately in the future.
The court also addressed today certain language issues raised by the California state agencies and the United States.