Message-ID: <25810080.1075848067207.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:56:00 -0700 (PDT) From: james.steffes@enron.com To: susan.mara@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com, steven.kean@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com Subject: FW: PGE Bankruptcy motions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: James D Steffes X-To: Susan J Mara, Jeff Dasovich, Steven J Kean, Paul Kaufman X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_June2001_3\Notes Folders\California-pg&e bankruptcy X-Origin: KEAN-S X-FileName: skean.nsf FYI. Today's update. ---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 04/09/2001 05:55 PM --------------------------- From: Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/09/2001 05:25 PM To: Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Travis McCullough/HOU/ECT@ECT, Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Greg Whalley/HOU/ECT@ECT, John J Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: FW: PGE Bankruptcy motions fyi -----Original Message----- From: "JOHN G KLAUBERG" @ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22JOHN+20G+20KLAUBERG+22+20+3CJKLAUBER+40LLGM+2ECOM+3E+40E NRON@ENRON.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 5:01 PM To: Tribolet, Michael Cc: CARL A. EKLUND; JAMES L. HUEMOELLER Subject: Fwd: PGE Michael: as you know, one of my SF bankruptcy partners, Ben Young, attended the PG&E hearing today. Here is a quick synopsis. Could you please distribute as appropriate. John ============================================================================== This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is confidential and may be protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this e-mail, including attachments, and notify me. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. ============================================================================== Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:46:25 -0400 From: "BENNETT G. YOUNG" To: ceklund@llgm.com, "JOHN G KLAUBERG" , "JAMES L. HUEMOELLER" Subject: PGE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline I attended the hearings on PGE's two cash collateral motions today. Both were granted on an interim basis. The court set a final hearing for May 9 at 9:30 am. PGE is to file its pleadings by April 20 and any opposition is due by May 4. The bondholder cash collateral motion was heard first. There was no opposition and the bond trustee (Bank of New York) consented to the relief. BONY and PGE are working on a final cash collateral stipulation. Next was the gas supplier motion. PGE mentioned in its presentation that the basis of the pre-petition agreement was the waiver of termination rights in the event of bankruptcy by the suppliers in return for a security interest in the receivables. Jim Lopes, PGE's lawyer, mentioned that he had learned a great deal about Bankruptcy Code section 556 in the last few months. Judge Montali nodded his head at that comment. Montali also asked whether PGE conceded that 556 applied. Lopes answered that he did not concede that it applied, but he was "very concerned." I asked whether the post-petition security interest was available to suppliers that were not parties to the pre-petition agreements. The Court said that was up to PGE; Lopes said they were willing to talk about it, but they did not want to grant liens to all of their creditors and hoped creditors would rely on their administrative claims, which PGE believes will be paid in the ordinary course. Procedurally, the Court said it would not authorize any new security interests on the basis of the interim order resulting from today's hearing. Instead, that would have to be the subject of a separate motion with notice, and perhaps coujld be taken up at the final hearing. P GE also indicated that it is filing today a lawsuit against the CPUC seeking a TRO regarding a deadline of April 11 for the filing of certain advice letters. A hearing is tentatively scheduled on the TRO for 3 pm tomorrow, April 10. There was also discussion of various administrative matters, like scheduling hearings, entering a case management order, etc. A representative of a consumer group, the Coalition for Public Power, read a statement asking Judge Montali to rollback rates and to force PGE's parent to pay the utility's debts. The Judge let them speak, but made it clear that it was not an action item, and seemed generally to ignore them. The courtroom was packed with attorneys, journalists and members of the public. After the hearing, the reporters all descended upon the attorneys for PGE and the CPUC. The courtroom is in an office building in SF's financial district; there were probably ten TV cameras set up on the sidewalk as well as several protesters carrying signs. Please call me if you have any questions. Bennett G. Young One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 951-1167 byoung@llgm.com