WIth PG&E Ailing After California Wildfires, Cravath Advises on Reorganization
A large corporate and litigation team is stepping in for an embattled client.
January 14, 2019 at 04:57 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
|
Cravath Swaine & Moore is advising PG&E, the nation's largest utility, on the Chapter 11 reorganization the company announced it is filing as it faces billions of dollars in damages from lawsuits related to the catastrophic wildfires in California in 2017 and 2018.
The move will allow Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. to hold off creditors and continue operating while it tries to put its finances in order. It comes as the judge overseeing the company's probation following its 2016 safety-related felony conviction is considering ordering the company to inspect its entire electric grid and turn off power during high winds if it can't assure operations in such conditions.
PG&E's decision to submit to in-court reorganization comes after a public relations and legal catastrophe related to the possibility that the company's aging and improperly maintained power lines played a direct role in sparking the wildfires that ravaged vast areas of Northern California, causing dozens of deaths and hundreds of thousands of evacuations. State officials are investigating the role of the company's power lines in the recent fires as well as the cause of a blaze that led to massive destruction in Santa Rosa last year.
The Chapter 11 filing allows PG&E to have all of the wildfire claims consolidated into a single proceeding before a bankruptcy judge, not a jury—a move that could shield it from massive jury verdicts.
Chapter 11 reorganization represents “the only viable option to address the company's responsibilities to its stakeholders,” Richard Kelly, chairman of PG&E's board of directors, said in a statement.
Cravath was one of several law firms, which also included Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, enlisted by PG&E in its defense against the many legal claims made following fires.
In an official statement, PG&E said it had provided the 15-day advance notice of its Chapter 11 restructuring as required under California law and stated that it hopes the reorganization will “support the orderly, fair and expeditious resolution of its potential liabilities resulting from 2017 and 2018 Northern California wildfires, and will assure the company has access to the capital and resources it needs to continue to provide safe service to customers.”
The statement emphasized PG&E's determination to work with regulators and policymakers in the assessment of different options for delivering natural gas and electric service in what the releases characterized as “an environment that continues to be challenged by climate change.”
Leading the charge for Cravath's corporate team are partners Erik Tavzel and Andrew Elken. Cravath's litigators in this matter include partners Evan Chesler, Julie North, Darin McAtee, Timothy Cameron, Kevin Orsini, Omid Nasab, and Damaris Hernandez. On the restructuring side, Cravath's team includes partners Paul Zumbro, Stephen Kessing, and Nicholas Dorsey.
PG&E is not a new client of Cravath's. The firm represented the company prior to the wildfires on various matters, including acting as an adviser in the aftermath of the explosion of a natural gas pipeline in San Bruno, on Sept. 9, 2010, which caused a massive fire and led to eight deaths and dozens of injuries. PG&E was ordered to pay a $3 million fine and serve five years' probation for violating the Pipeline Safety Act and obstructing the National Transportation Safety Bureau's investigation into the cause of the blast.
Two years before the wildfires of 2017, KQED questioned whether lessons had been learned from the San Bruno incident and whether the public was any safer. U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who is supervising PG&E's probation, has repeatedly questioned the company's safetey practices since the latest disaster broke out. Alsup is set to hold a hearing on the terms of PG&E's probation on Jan. 30.
PG&E did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Ross Todd contributed reporting to this story.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: A $604.9M Trade Secrets Verdict With a Big Assist From a Juror Question
Securities Case Over Hawaiian Electric Company's Wildfire Readiness Dismissed
2 minute readFTC Bans Exec From Chevron Board—Exercising Authority It Doesn't Have, GOP Dissenters Say
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 4Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250