This excerpt taken from the PCG 10-K filed Feb 18, 2005.
Emergence From Chapter 11
On April 12, 2004, the Utility emerged from Chapter 11 when its plan of reorganization became effective, or the Effective Date. The plan of reorganization incorporated the terms of the Settlement Agreement approved by the CPUC on December 18, 2003, and entered into among the CPUC, the Utility and PG&E Corporation on December 19, 2003, to resolve the Utility's Chapter 11 proceeding. Although the Utility's operations are no longer subject to the oversight of the bankruptcy court, the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising in connection with the interpretation, implementation or enforcement of (1) the Settlement Agreement, (2) the plan of reorganization, and (3) the bankruptcy court's December 22, 2003 order confirming the plan of reorganization. In addition, the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction to resolve remaining disputed claims.
In anticipation of its emergence from Chapter 11, the Utility consummated its public offering of $6.7 billion of First Mortgage Bonds on March 23, 2004. Upon the Effective Date the Utility paid all valid claims, deposited funds into escrow accounts for the payment of disputed claims upon their
resolution, reinstated certain obligations, and paid other obligations. The following table summarizes the sources and uses of funds on the Effective Date:
In connection with the Utility's emergence from Chapter 11, the Utility received investment-grade issuer credit ratings of Baa3 from Moody's Investors Service, or Moody's, and BBB- from Standard & Poor's, or S&P.
On July 15, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, or the District Court, dismissed the appeals of the bankruptcy court's order confirming the plan of reorganization that had been filed by the two CPUC commissioners who did not vote to approve the Settlement Agreement. These two commissioners appealed the District Court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or Ninth Circuit. An appeal of the confirmation order filed by the City of Palo Alto remains pending at the District Court. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the appeals of the confirmation order are without merit.
In addition, on April 15, 2004, the City and County of San Francisco, or CCSF, and Aglet Consumer Alliance, or Aglet, each filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal seeking review of the CPUC's December 18, 2003 decision approving the Settlement Agreement and the CPUC's March 16, 2004 decision denying applications for rehearing of its December 18, 2003 decision. CCSF and Aglet allege that the Settlement Agreement violates California law, among other claims. CCSF requests that the appellate court hear and review the CPUC's decisions, approving the Settlement Agreement and Aglet requests that the CPUC's decisions be overturned. Three California state senators have filed a brief in support of the CCSF and Aglet petitions. The California Court of Appeal has not yet acted on the petitions. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the petitions are without merit and should be denied.
Under applicable federal precedent, once the plan of reorganization has been "substantially consummated," any pending appeals of the confirmation order should be dismissed. If, notwithstanding this federal precedent, the bankruptcy court's confirmation order or the Settlement Agreement is subsequently overturned or modified, PG&E Corporation and the Utility's financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.