California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1054 into law today, marking a significant financial commitment by the state to shore up the financial position of California's major investor-owned utilities. The new law establishes a Wildfire Fund of up to $21 billion to provide liquidity for utilities to cover eligible, uninsured third-party damage claims resulting from future catastrophic wildfires. The law also establishes a new framework to encourage and certify utility safety practices intended to reduce the risk of wildfires ignited by power infrastructure.

In response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California held that the rejection of wholesale power purchase agreements “is solely within the power of the bankruptcy court, a core matter exclusively this court’s responsibility.” [1]

On June 7, 2019, Judge Dennis Montali of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of California San Francisco Division found that FERC’s finding that it had concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. bankruptcy court over wholesale power agreements was “unenforceable in bankruptcy court and of no force on the parties before it.” Judge Montali further noted that if necessary, the U.S. bankruptcy court will “enjoin FERC from perpetuating its attempt to exercise power it wholly lacks.” At issue, on review by the bankruptcy court, was whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

In a bankruptcy, a commercial lender with a lien on collateral valued more than the debt can demand to be paid default interest provided in the loan only to be faced with an objection by the borrower or trustee that the default interest constitutes an “unenforceable penalty” under California Civil Code section 1671(b). A recent decision by the District Court for the Central District of California, however, holds that section 1671(b) does not apply to a default interest rate imposed upon maturity as a matter of law.

United States District Court, C.D. California, May 21, 2019

Seyfarth Synopsis: Employers increasingly find themselves in the difficult position of deciding whether to continue garnishing an employee’s wages pursuant to a garnishment order when the employee files for bankruptcy. On one hand, the employer risks penalties for failing to withhold wages; on the other hand, the employer risks sanctions for violating the automatic stay generated by a bankruptcy filing. Below we discuss this dilemma and employers’ options.

On May 1, 2019, FERC denied Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (“PG&E”) requests for rehearing of two prior orders in which FERC held that it and the bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review and address the disposition of wholesale power contracts sought to be rejected through bankruptcy. FERC’s order comes as the PG&E bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (“Bankruptcy Court”) remain ongoing.

A controlling question of California law dealing with the interplay between State law presumptions of community property and “form of title” on which there was no controlling California precedent has been certified to the California Supreme Court by the Ninth Circuit.

In Brace v. Speier (In re Brace), 908 F.3d 531 (9th Cir.), the Ninth Circuit certified the following questions to the California Supreme Court:

Last year, a California Bankruptcy Court wiped out $10.2 million in default interest (“DRI”) when it ruled that a 5% DRI was an unenforceable penalty in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case where the construction lender fully recovered principal, interest, and other costs of collection.

A dispute over whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) can order one of Northern California’s largest natural gas and electric companies – Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) – to reject wholesale power purchase contracts (“PPCs”) will be decided by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (“Bankruptcy Court”), instead of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”).