PG&E’s Common Stock ATM Program
May 14, 2021
Cravath represented PG&E Corporation in connection with establishing its registered $400 million at‑the‑market common stock program. PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and natural gas to customers in northern and central California. The transaction closed on April 30, 2021.
The Cravath team included partners C. Daniel Haaren and Nicholas A. Dorsey and associates Michael P. E. Dooley, Margaret R. Fleming and Ori Oren on capital markets matters, partner Andrew W. Needham and associates Arvind Ravichandran and Kyle R. Jorstad on tax matters, and practice area attorney Sarah W. Colangelo on executive compensation and benefits matters.
Related Practices & Industries
People
- Photo
-
-
J.D., 2012, New York University School of LawOrder of the Coif, Pomeroy Scholar, magna cum laude
-
B.A., 2009, Duke University
- New York
Education
Admitted In
- Photo
-
-
J.D., 2009, Cornell Law SchoolOrder of the Coif, summa cum laude
-
M.Acc., 2006, Case Western Reserve Universitysumma cum laude
-
B.S., 2006, Case Western Reserve Universitysumma cum laude
- New York
Education
Admitted In
- Photo
-
-
J.D., 2012, Columbia Law School
-
B.A., 2009, Columbia College
- New York
Education
Admitted In
- Photo
-
-
J.D., 2014, Georgetown University Law CenterOrder of the Coif, magna cum laude
-
B.A., 2007, Duke UniversityPhi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude
- New York
Education
Admitted In
- Photo
-
-
M.B.A., 1992, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
-
LL.M., 1990, Georgetown University Law Center
-
J.D., 1986, Georgetown University Law Center
-
B.A., 1982, University of Arizona College of Law
Education
Related News & Insights
Deals & Cases
November 27, 2023
PG&E Secures California Supreme Court Victory Shielding Company from Liability for Public Safety Power Shutoffs
On November 20, 2023, the California Supreme Court held that Cravath client PG&E, the country’s largest utility, cannot be sued for losses incurred by customers during public safety power shutoffs that complied with the guidelines set forth by its regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”). In a unanimous decision, the Court held that such claims are barred because their adjudication would interfere with the PUC’s comprehensive supervision and regulation of safety shutoffs.
