motion to transfer

{00853071;v1 } 1

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

In re: Energy Future Holdings Corporation, et al.,

Debtors.

Chapter 11 Case No. 14- (---) Joint Administration Pending Objection Deadline: TBD Hearing Date: TBD

MOTION OF WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 & 1412 AND RULE 1014 OF THE FEDERAL RULES

OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE TO TRANSFER CASES TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (the “Trustee”), as successor trustee under that

certain indenture, dated as of October 6, 2010 (as amended or supplemented), among Texas

Competitive Electric Holdings, LLC (“TCEH”), TCEH Finance, Inc., the guarantors party

thereto, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A., as trustee (the “Indenture”),1

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1412, Rule 1014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy

Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”), and Section 105(a) of title 11 of the United States Code

(the “Bankruptcy Code”), hereby moves this Court (the “Motion”) to transfer the above-

captioned chapter 11 cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”) of Energy Future Holdings Corporation

(“EFH”) and its subsidiaries (together, the “Debtors”) to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas in the interests of justice and/or for the convenience of the parties. In

support of this Motion, the Trustee respectfully represents as follows:

1 As used herein, the terms “Second Liens” or “Second Lien Notes” refer to the senior

secured second lien notes issued pursuant to the Indenture.

Case 14-10978-CSS Doc 2 Filed 04/29/14 of 28

{00853071;v1 } 2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. It is settled law in this District that the Court may, in the interests of justice or for

the convenience of the parties, transfer venue of a pending chapter 11 case to another proper

district. Without in any way suggesting that this Court would be unable to adequately administer

the Chapter 11 Cases, the Trustee believes both tests independently, and together, substantially

favor the transfer of these cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Texas.2

2. As discussed herein, the Debtors’ only connection to Delaware is that certain of

the Debtors were formed under Delaware law. Such a thin connection (particularly in

comparison to the overwhelming connections to the Northern District of Texas), begs the

question as to why the Debtors would choose to pursue a course of action as important as these

restructuring cases so far away from the location of their headquarters, management, employees,

customers, businesses, and assets. The Debtors are likely to argue that Delaware would be more

convenient for certain professionals located in the Northeastern part of the country.

Respectfully, the Trustee suggests such a consideration should have little (if any) bearing.

Another reason for choosing Delaware may have been, regardless of the interests of creditors or

the needs of the business, to select the venue most advantageous to implementation of the

restructuring agenda favored by senior lenders and management. Those driving the forum

selection process may view it more likely this Court would, among other things, adopt, without

2 Presumably, upon transfer of these cases to the Northern District of Texas, they would

then be referred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. See United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Standing Order of Reference of Bankruptcy Cases and Proceedings, dated August 3, 1984. Upon information and belief, the Trustee believes the Debtors’ cases may be properly assigned to either the Dallas Division or Fort Worth Division within the Northern District of Texas.


{00853071;v1 } 3

significant additional scrutiny, a “market valuation” based on current distressed trading prices of

the Debtors’ debt securities. The Trustee believes such strategic motives do not justify the

significant expense, upheaval, and business disruption that would inevitably accompany

maintaining these important cases in this district.

3. The facts and circumstances of these cases make clear that transfer to the

Northern District of Texas would benefit substantially all parties in interest other than, perhaps,

professionals or senior lenders based in the Northeast, who would incur modest additional travel

burdens. The Debtors’ headquarters, located at Energy Plaza in Dallas, Texas, are within

walking distance of the Dallas division of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern

District of Texas. By comparison, if these cases remain in Delaware, critical management

personnel will be required to spend extended periods away from their offices when they should

be focused on addressing business issues critical to maximizing value for all creditors (not just

senior lenders with whom management has elected to negotiate).

4. The Debtors have substantially all of their assets, employees, customers, and trade

creditors in Texas (in the Dallas/Fort Worth area in particular). The Debtors are the largest

provider of electric power in North Texas, are subject to numerous Texas regulatory regimes,

have litigated (and continue to litigate) often in Texas courts, and have potentially significant

environmental clean-up obligations in Texas, which have come under increasing scrutiny in

recent months by regulators and Texas citizen watch groups. The Debtors’ only arguable nexus

to Delaware is that certain of the Debtors were formed as Delaware entities. Upon information

and belief, none of the Debtors has ever done business in Delaware; none of the Debtors’

employees resides in Delaware; few, if any, of the Debtors’ books and records are in Delaware;

few, if any, of the Debtors’ officers or directors are in Delaware; and Delaware has little, if any,


{00853071;v1 } 4

interest in the Debtors’ operations or these cases. In short, when the relevant factors are

considered, substantially all strongly favor the transfer of these cases to the Northern District of

Texas.

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY PREDICATES

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider this matter pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1334. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 157(b) and may be determined

by the Bankruptcy Court. For purposes of a hearing on this Motion, venue in this Court is proper

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The statutory predicates for relief sought herein are 28

U.S.C. § 1412, Bankruptcy Rule 1014 and Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

BACKGROUND

6. The Debtors are headquartered at Energy Plaza in Dallas, Texas, which is

approximately 0.4 miles (estimated to be a 9 minute walk) from the Bankruptcy Court in Dallas,

Texas. By contrast, Energy Plaza, where substantially all of the Debtors’ key management

members are located, is approximately 1,436 miles from the Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington,

Delaware. At a minimum, this involves a 30-minute ride from Energy Plaza to Dallas/Fort

Worth International Airport, approximately three hours flying time to Philadelphia International

Airport, and a 30-minute car ride from Philadelphia International to Wilmington, Delaware. The

foregoing does not take into account recommended early arrival times at airports for check-in,

flight delays, traffic, or the need for overnight stays in Wilmington.

7. The Debtors’ corporate forms include corporations and limited liability

companies formed in both Texas and Delaware. The Debtors’ corporate family includes the

following entities:


{00853071;v1 } 5

In April 2013, Energy Future Competitive Holdings Company, a Texas corporation and the

immediate corporate parent of TCEH, was converted to Energy Future Competitive Holdings

Company LLC (“EFCH”), a Delaware limited liability company.

A. The Debtors’ Operations And Customers Are All In Texas.

8. EFH, the parent entity of the affiliated Debtors, is a Dallas, Texas-based energy

company with a portfolio of competitive and regulated energy businesses in Texas, employing

approximately 9,100 full-time employees, as of December 31, 2012, of whom approximately

2,840 are under collective bargaining agreements. See EFH, Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Feb.

19, 2013) (“EFH 10-K”) (Appendix A), at 1, 2. EFH conducts its operations principally through

its TCEH and Oncor subsidiaries. See id. at 1. TCEH, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in

competitive electricity market activities in Texas including electricity generation, wholesale


{00853071;v1 } 6

energy sales and purchases, commodity risk management and trading activities, and retail

electricity sales. See id. Additionally, the Debtors are one of the largest purchasers of wind-

generated electricity in Texas. See id. at 1, 7. Their total wind power portfolio exceeds 900

MW, with projects involving transmission lines and power stations throughout Texas servicing

the state. See id. at 14, 51.

9. The Debtors operate primarily within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas

(“ERCOT”) market, whose members provide approximately 85% of the electricity consumed in

Texas. See id. at 2. ERCOT is governed by a board of directors and subject to oversight by the

Public Utility Commission of Texas (the “PUCT”) and the Texas Legislature, and its reliability

standards are enforced by Texas Reliability Entity, Inc.3 See About ERCOT,

http://www.ercot.com/about/ (last visited March 25, 2014) (Appendix B); EFH 10-K (Appendix

A), at 8. Concentrated in Texas, ERCOT and its members have “limited interconnections to

other markets in the US and Mexico[.]” EFH 10-K (Appendix A), at 3. Additionally, the

Debtors play a vital role in the ERCOT market, assisting ERCOT in its operations, as well as

working in concert with other ERCOT utilities to obtain regulatory approvals for, as well as plan,

design, and construct, new transmission lines in order to remove existing constraints on the

ERCOT transmission grid. See id. at 2.

10. The Debtors’ stated growth strategies are focused almost entirely on the Texas

and ERCOT markets, and on improving their respective positions within those markets. See id.

at 3-4 (committing to “[b]eing an integral part of the communities in which we live, work and

3 Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-approved

“Regional Entity” for the ERCOT region, as authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It is authorized by the PUCT to investigate compliance with the ERCOT Protocols and Operating Guides, working with PUCT staff regarding any potential protocol violations.


{00853071;v1 } 7

serve”; “expect[ing] to pursue growth opportunities across our existing business lines, including”

a focus on “generation development opportunities to help meet ERCOT’s growing electricity

needs over the longer term”; working with ERCOT “to develop policies and protocols that

provide appropriate pricing signals” that encourage the development of new generation to meet

rising demand within the ERCOT market; increasing the number of retail customers served

through the ERCOT market; and investing in transmission and distribution “to meet the needs of

the growing Texas market”). In the past five years alone, “Energy Future Holdings has

spent more than $10 billion in investments across Texas for new projects and to improve [its]

facilities.” See News Release, Energy Future Holdings Corporation, Luminant Response to

Ongoing Environmental Activism Campaign (Aug. 28, 2013) (Appendix C).

11. Through those investments and others, TCEH, through subsidiary TXU Energy,

serves approximately 1.75 million residential and commercial retail electricity customers in

Texas. See EFH 10-K (Appendix A), at 8. TXU Energy currently provides retail electric

service to all areas of the ERCOT market open to competition, including the Dallas/Fort Worth,

Houston, Corpus Christi, and lower Rio Grande Valley areas of Texas. See id. It is a licensed

retail electric provider under the Texas Electric Choice Act and, as such, subject to the

jurisdiction of the PUCT. See id. at 8.

12. TCEH has the largest generation fleet in Texas, and its continuing operation is

critical to serving customers and maintaining orderly electric service. In that regard, ERCOT is

in the final phases of a complex multi-year process to address generation resource adequacy and

system reliability that will have major implications for TCEH, millions of electric customers, and

system reliability. TCEH has been and is expected to continue to be a major participant in those


{00853071;v1 } 8

significant ERCOT proceedings and the results of those proceedings will have a major impact on

TCEH’s future business and revenues.

13. Additionally, Oncor, a subsidiary of EFH that operates the largest transmission

and distribution system in Texas, is responsible for an electric transmission and distribution

service territory that delivers electricity to more than 3.2 million homes and businesses and

operates more than 119,000 miles of transmission and distribution lines. See EFH 10-K

(Appendix A), at 1. Its transmission and distribution rates are regulated by the PUCT. See id. at

9. In particular, it is subject to detailed “ring fencing” provisions and other PUCT regulations by

which the PUCT must review and approve any significant restructuring activities that may

involve a change of control, debt incurrence, and/or dividend policies so as to protect the

interests of millions of Texas electric ratepayers.

B. Texas Regulators Have A Direct Interest And Will Have An Active Role In These Cases.

14. The Debtors are subject to a number of Texas state regulatory schemes, and Texas

regulators and authorities will have myriad interests in these cases. For example, in the Debtors’

April 15, 2014 Form 8-K filing, the Debtors noted the potential material impact of actions by,

inter alia, the Texas Legislature, the Governor of Texas, the Texas Reliability Entity, Inc., the

PUCT, the Railroad Commission of Texas (the “RRC”), and the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality. See Energy Future Holdings Corporation April 15, 2014 Form 8-K

(Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements). Actions by these parties could

be expected to affect the Debtors’ allowable pricing scheme, allowed rates of return, permitted

capital structure, rate structure, operations of the Debtors’ production facilities, operations of the

Debtors’ coal mines necessary to fuel certain of their plants, and/or acquisition or disposal of

assets or facilities, or decommissioning of assets. See id.


{00853071;v1 } 9

15. In particular, as a Texas utility, the Debtors are regulated by, among others, the

PUCT, whose rules “establish robust oversight, certain limits and a framework for wholesale

power pricing and market behavior.” See EFH 10-K (Appendix A), at 9. The Debtors are also

subject to the requirements of the ERCOT Protocols, including Nodal Protocols and ERCOT

reliability standards adopted and enforced by, among others, the Texas Reliability Entity, Inc.

See id. at 10. In fact, given the centralization of operations in Texas, certain of the Debtors and

their affiliates are governed solely by Texas regulatory authorities, and are not subject to federal

oversight. See id. at 11 (“As its operations are wholly within Texas, Oncor is not a public utility

as defined in the Federal Power Act and, as a result, it is not subject to general regulation under

the Act.”). The above Texas regulatory bodies will certainly be actively interested and involved

in the Chapter 11 Cases.

16. In addition to general environmental oversight by the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality,4 the Debtors are also subject to regulatory oversight by the RRC.

Luminant Generation Company LLC (“Luminant Generating”), a subsidiary of TCEH, is the

third-party guarantor of Luminant Mining Company LLC’s (“Luminant Mining”) self-bond for

certain coal mine sites in Texas. The self-bond assures performance of certain environmental

remediation obligations of Luminant Mining (estimated to range between $850 million to $1.1

billion in EFH’s November 1, 2013 10-Q), which arise under and are governed by, among other

statutory regimes, title 16 of the Texas Administrative Code (the “TAC”). Pursuant to TAC

4 Among other matters potentially affecting the Debtors, the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality is currently considering a petition seeking adoption and implementation of rules to limit emissions at three of the Debtors’ large coal-fired generation facilities in North Texas. See Dallas County Medical Society, Physicians Petition the State to Require EFH’s Legacy Coal-Fired Power Plants to Reduce Emissions to Current Standards to Protect Health of North Texans (Aug. 28, 2013) (Appendix D), http://www.dallas-cms.org/news/dcms_petitionTCEQ_final.pdf.


{00853071;v1 } 10

Section 12.314(b), the RRC, which is charged with, among other things, monitoring compliance

with the conditions of such bonds, may, inter alia: (a) increase the required amount of the

Debtors’ bonding obligations, see § 16 TAC 12.307(a) & (d); (b) require the Debtors to post

bonds in addition to, or in replacement of, the current self-bond, and prohibit the Debtors from

continuing mining operations until such new bond is in place, see § 16 TAC 12.309(j)(7); (c)

forfeit all or part of a bond if “the operator defaults on the conditions under which the bond was

posted” see 16 TAC § 12.314(b); and/or (d) through the office of the Texas Attorney General,

commence an action in Texas state court against the Debtors in order to compel their compliance

with RRC orders, see Texas Gov’t Code § 2001.202 and 16 TAC § 12.309(j)(5)(E). As the

Debtors’ note, in the event of a default under the self-bond, “TCEH may be required to post cash,

letters of credit or other tangible assets as collateral support in the amount currently estimated to

be approximately $850 million or $1.1 billion.” EFH 10-K (Appendix A), at 35. The Debtors

may therefore face additional (and substantial) liability to certain Texas agencies in the event the

RRC exercises any rights it may have to forfeit the self-bond to which the Debtors are a party,

and there is no question that the RRC will be an important case participant.

17. Accordingly, applicable Texas regulatory, legislative, and executive bodies will

be vitally interested in these reorganization proceedings, and their express regulatory approval

may be required for any ultimate plan or plans that may be proposed. Presumably, such parties

will take the position that their respective regulatory actions are exempted from the automatic

stay, and may proceed apace in Texas notwithstanding the filing of these Chapter 11 cases.

C. Litigants With Potentially Significant Claims In Texas Have An Interest In These Proceedings.

18. The Debtors are also involved in a number of lawsuits involving employment,

commercial, and environmental issues, and other claims for injuries and damages, among other


{00853071;v1 } 11

matters. See EFH 10-K (Appendix A), at 33. Of the over 200 proceedings in which the Debtors

have been a party since 2012, approximately 95% are (or were) being litigated in state and

federal courts across Texas, including certain cases alleging environmental liability. Of those

cases being litigated in Texas state courts, nearly all have been brought in Dallas County. Not a

single case over that period involved Delaware state or federal courts. Attached hereto as

Exhibit B is a chart depicting the legal proceedings to which the Debtors have been a party since

2012.

D. Delaware Has Nominal Connections With These Debtors.

19. In contrast to the Debtors’ deep Texas roots, the Debtors’ connection to Delaware

is nominal. Upon information and belief: a) the Debtors do not have any employees, assets, or

operations in Delaware; b) the Debtors do not conduct business in, or provide any services to,

Delaware; c) the Debtors are not subject to any Delaware regulatory oversight; and d) none of

the Debtors’ books, records, officers, or directors are located in Delaware. Even those entities

incorporated in Delaware, along with those corporations and limited liability companies

incorporated in Texas, are all headquartered in Dallas, Texas.5

RELIEF REQUESTED

20. By this Motion, the Trustee requests entry of an Order, substantially in the form

attached hereto as Exhibit A, transferring these Chapter 11 Cases to the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Texas in the interest of justice and/or for the convenience of

5 TCEH, EFCH, Energy Future Intermediate Holdings Company LLC (“EFIH”), and

Oncor Electric Delivery Company (“Oncor”) are organized as Delaware limited liability companies. Parent company EFH is a Texas corporation, and Luminant Generation Company LLC (“Luminant”) and TXU Energy Retail Company LLC (“TXU Energy”) are organized as Texas limited liability companies. As noted above, until April 2013, EFCH was a Texas corporation.


{00853071;v1 } 12

the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1412, Bankruptcy Rule 1014, and Section 105(a)

of the Bankruptcy Code.

BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED

21. Section 1408 of title 28 of the United States Code sets forth the venues in which a

case brought under title 11 may be commenced. That provision provides:

Except as provided in section 1410 of this title [pertaining to cases ancillary to foreign proceedings], a case under title 11 may be commenced in the district court for the district—

(1) in which the domicile, residence, principal place of business in the United States, or principal assets in the United States, of the person or entity that is the subject of such case have been located for the one hundred and eighty days immediately preceding such commencement, or for a longer portion of such one-hundred-and-eighty-day period than the domicile, residence, or principal place of business, in the United States, or principal assets in the United States, of such person were located in any other district; or

(2) in which there is pending a case under title 11 concerning such person’s affiliate, general partner, or partnership.

28 U.S.C. § 1408. Similarly, Bankruptcy Rule 1014 provides:

If a petition is filed in the proper district, the court, on the timely motion of a party in interest or on its own motion, and after hearing on notice to the petitioners, the United States trustee, and other entities as directed by the court, may transfer the case to any other district if the court determines that the transfer is in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties.

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1014.

22. Where venue is proper in multiple districts under Section 1408, a party-in-interest

may seek to have the case transferred to another proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1412 (“A district

court may transfer a case or proceeding under title 11 to a district court for another district, in the

interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties.”); see also In re Statewide Theatres

Corp., 4 F. Supp. 86, 87 (D. Del. 1933) (finding expansive standing for parties to challenge

venue when noting “‘parties in interest’ include not only general unsecured creditors but secured


{00853071;v1 } 13

creditors, the bankrupt, and every other party whose pecuniary interest is affected by the

proceedings”) (emphasis added).

23. The Court is authorized to transfer venue for a chapter 11 case where: a) the

transfer is in the interest of justice; or (b) for the convenience of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §

1412; see also The Paul H. Shield, MD, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. Northfield Labs. Inc. (In re

Northfield Labs. Inc.), 467 B.R. 582, 590 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) (BLS) (“Section 1412 is phrased

in the disjunctive and a proceeding is subject to transfer upon a sufficient showing that either the

interest of justice or the convenience of the parties is met.”); In re LaGuardia Assocs., L.P., 316

B.R. 832, 837 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2004) (“It has been observed that § 1412 is [ ] written in the

disjunctive, making transfer of venue appropriate either in the interest of justice or for the

convenience of parties, and that statutory provision creates two distinct analytical bases upon

which transfer of venue may be grounded.”) (citation omitted) (emphasis in the original).

24. Here, both prongs of this disjunctive test are satisfied. The Debtors are

headquartered and centralized in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, where bankruptcy cases are

administered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. The

Debtors’ connections to Delaware do not extend beyond paper. The Debtors’ primary trade

creditors, all of their customers, as well as the concentration of their assets, are located in Texas.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas is as well-suited, or

better-suited, to handle the numerous Texas-specific issues that will inevitably arise in these

cases given the integral role the Debtors play in one of Texas’ largest economic centers, the

Texas regulatory regimes to which the Debtors are subject, and the interests of the State of Texas

and millions of Texas electric customers in the Debtors’ restructuring effort.


{00853071;v1 } 14

25. Delaware courts will consider a host of factors, weighing those factors differently

based on the facts and circumstances of each case: (1) plaintiff’s original choice of forum; (2)

defendant’s forum preference; (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) location of books and

records and/or the possibility of viewing premises, if applicable; (5) convenience of the parties as

indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; (6) convenience of the witnesses; (7)

enforceability of the judgment; (8) practical considerations that would make the trial easy,

expeditious, or inexpensive; (9) the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting

from congestion of the courts’ dockets; (10) the public policies of the fora; (11) the familiarity of

the judge with the applicable state law; and (12) the local interest in deciding local controversies

at home. See Zazzali v. 1031 Exch. Grp. (In re DBSI, Inc.), 478 B.R. 192, 194-95 (Bankr. D.

Del. 2012); see also Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995) (listing

factors within the context of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)); In re Innovative Commc’n Co., LLC, 358

B.R. 120, 126-27 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006) (holding the Jumara factors relevant to transfers of

venue in the context of section 1412). In addition, courts also have “discretion to consider other

private and public interest factors.” In re Qualteq, Inc., No. 11-12572, 2012 WL 527669, at *5

(Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 16, 2012) (KJC). Considered both individually and collectively, these

factors overwhelmingly weigh in favor of granting the relief requested in the Motion.

A. Transferring The Chapter 11 Cases To The United States District Court For The Northern District Of Texas Would Be In The Interest Of Justice. 26. Of the host of factors considered by courts, “[i]t is oft-repeated that the factor

accorded the most weight is promotion of the economic and efficient administration of the

estate.” Id., at *6; see DBSI, 478 B.R. at 198 (noting that the forum in which the debtor has its

primary operations is favored); DHP Holdings II Corp. v. The Home Depot, Inc. (In re DHP


{00853071;v1 } 15

Holdings II Corp.), 435 B.R. 264, 275 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) (transferring venue after noting that

“[u]ltimately, however, the most important consideration is whether the requested transfer would

promote the economic and efficient administration of the estate”) (citation and quotations

omitted). Promotion of the economic and efficient administration of the estate is also the central

factor considered when evaluating the interest of justice. See Qualteq, 2012 WL 527669, at *6;

see Laguardia Assocs., 316 B.R. at 837 (“[T]he ‘interest of justice’ component of § 1412 is a

broad and flexible standard which must be applied on a case-by-case basis. It contemplates a

consideration of whether transferring venue would promote the efficient administration of the

bankruptcy estate, judicial economy, timeliness, and fairness. . . .”) (quoting Gulf States

Exploration Co. v. Manville Forest Prods. Corp. (In re Manville Forest Prods. Corp.), 896 F.2d

1384, 1391 (2d Cir. 1990)); see also Northfield Labs., 467 B.R. at 590 (listing the factors

typically considered in relation to the “interests of justice” test to “include: (i) whether transfer

promotes the economic and efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate; (ii) whether transfer

facilitates judicial efficiency; (iii) whether the parties will receive a fair trial in either venue; (iv)

whether either forum has an interest in deciding the controversy; (v) whether transfer would

affect enforceability of any judgment rendered; and (vi) whether the plaintiff's original choice of

forum should be disturbed”). In applying this test, a court “must consider what will promote the

efficient administration of the estate, judicial economy, timeliness and fairness.” Qualteq, 2012

WL 527669, at *6 (citation omitted).

27. At bottom, efficiency and fairness dictate that these Chapter 11 Cases be

transferred to the Northern District of Texas. From an efficiency point of view, transferring

these cases to the Northern District of Texas will allow key members of management to continue

doing their jobs, which is critical for value preservation, rather than spending extended time


{00853071;v1 } 16

traveling to and from Delaware where they will be far less productive. The Fifth Circuit

recognized the importance of centralizing restructuring efforts around a management team

during the restructuring process in the seminal case of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v.

Commonwealth Oil Refinery Co. (In re Commonwealth Oil Refinery Co.), 596 F.2d 1239 (5th

Cir. 1979) (“CORCO”):

On the efficiency side, San Antonio is clearly the favored district. The heart of the Chapter XI proceeding is working up a financial plan of arrangement acceptable to all the parties. The people charged with this responsibility in [the debtor’s] management are all located in San Antonio.

Id. at 1247. In addition, given the location and nature of the Debtors’ assets, substantially all of

which are located in Texas, most material witnesses will be located in Texas, a fact that weighs

heavily in favor of transferring these cases to the Northern District of Texas. See In re Lakota

Canyon Ranch Dev., LLC, No. 11-03739-8, 2011 WL 5909630, at *3 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. June 21,

2011) (transferring cases to Colorado after determining, among other things, that “[b]ecause of

the location and nature of the Debtor’s assets, the appraisers, and real estate sales experts will

most likely be from Colorado” and so the estate and secured lenders should not have to bear the

cost of transporting those witnesses, especially where the only material witness living in the

jurisdiction where the debtors filed was the member/manager of the Debtor’s limited liability

company). That those controlling the venue decision would choose Delaware, with its attendant

need for key management personnel and witnesses to be distanced from the locations where they

work and live, begs the question of what motive drove the venue decision in these cases.

28. While certain professionals based in the Northeast and/or lenders (including the

Trustee and the Second Liens) may have to travel farther, or participate telephonically, such is of

little moment if the goal is to maximize estate value and appropriately restructure the Debtors.

In a recent decision to transfer venue to Texas, this Court recognized that advances in technology


{00853071;v1 } 17

create a “relative measure of seamlessness” between professionals, regardless of their proximity

to the proceeding. See Transcript of Oral Argument at 86:18-87:3, In re Goldking Holdings,

LLC, No. 13-12820 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 20, 2013) (Appendix E). The same is true of

any secured lenders residing in the Northeast. See Transcript of Oral Argument at 76:22-77:2, In

re DesignLine Corp., No. 13-12089 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (Appendix F) (“[I]t is

important to make sure the unsecureds participate in the case to assure that everything [is] just

not railroaded through based on an assumption that the secured creditors are the only ones with

an interest”).

29. As to fairness, there is certainly nothing unfair about transferring these cases to a

venue in which state regulators, employees, customers, trade creditors, and numerous other

parties in interest may participate in the restructuring process. The Debtors are centralized in a

venue, the Northern District of Texas, that is well-positioned to handle these cases and readily

accessible to all parties in interest. The decision to file these cases so far from the location of the

Debtors’ businesses raises the specter of forum shopping to effect a particular restructuring goal.

30. Moreover, EFH, as the parent of the Debtor entities, is a Texas corporation based

in Dallas, Texas and employing approximately 9,100 full-time employees (substantially all in

Texas). TCEH’s approximately 1.75 million residential and commercial retail electricity

customers, who have a vested interest in the outcome of these Chapter 11 Cases, live across the

Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Corpus Christi, and lower Rio Grande Valley areas of Texas.

Nearly all, if not all, of the Debtors’ substantial assets are located in Texas, and nearly all of the

essential parties to the Debtors’ restructuring reside in Texas, including numerous trade creditors

and the Debtors’ key executives. Moreover, those Texas regulatory bodies, including the PUCT,

ERCOT, and the RRC, which are vitally interested in these Chapter 11 Cases, and, in some


{00853071;v1 } 18

cases, may have critical regulatory approval rights in connection with an ultimate plan of

reorganization, are obviously based in Texas. One of the members of the Debtors’ Sponsor

Group, TPG Capital, is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, which is within the Northern

District of Texas. Transferring the Chapter 11 Cases to the Northern District of Texas, where the

material parties to the restructuring are located, would promote the economic and efficient

administration of the estate, a factor Delaware courts have recognized as the one “accorded the

most weight.” Qualteq, 2012 WL 527669, at *6.

31. The other factors courts consider are similarly satisfied here. The Delaware

bankruptcy docket is significantly more congested than that of the Northern District of Texas,

meaning the requested transfer would promote judicial efficiency. See In re Apple, Inc., 602

F.3d 909, 915 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Docket congestion is a permissible factor to consider . . . .”); Gro

Master, Inc. v. Farmweld, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 2d 974, 993 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (“Factors that the

court has found are frequently relevant to the ‘interests of justice’ issue include . . . comparative

congestion of dockets.”). For the 12-month period ended December 31, 2013, there were 807

chapter 11 cases filed in this Court, compared with the 233 chapter 11 cases filed in the Northern

District of Texas. See U.S. Bankruptcy Courts – Business and Nonbusiness Cases Commenced,

by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, During the 12-Month Period Ending Dec. 31, 2013,

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/BankruptcyStatistics/BankruptcyFilings/2013/1213_

f2.pdf (last visited March 30, 2014) (Appendix H). The six judges sitting in the Bankruptcy

Court for the District of Delaware either were or are, on average, responsible for approximately

134.5 chapter 11 cases each in that 12-month period; the six judges sitting in the Northern

District of Texas were or are, on average, each responsible for 38.8 chapter 11 cases during the

same period.


{00853071;v1 } 19

32. The effect of transfer on the ability for the parties to receive a fair trial is, at best,

neutral. While the Trustee is confident both courts would fairly apply the uniform laws of the

federal Bankruptcy Code, a Texas bankruptcy court will have experience applying the myriad

Texas state laws that will arise in these cases. Also, based on the Debtors’ integration into the

State of Texas, including both the state’s economy and the continued development of the state’s

energy market, Texas is the forum that has a clear interest in adjudicating the Chapter 11 Cases.

See Northfield Labs., 467 B.R. at 590 (granting a motion to transfer venue after determining,

inter alia, that the venue to which the movant sought to transfer the case had “an interest in

deciding the controversy . . . that relates to occurrences within its jurisdiction”). Ultimately, the

Debtors’ deep Texas roots favor the transfer of venue, since there is a “local interest in deciding

local controversies at home.” In re Amendt, 169 F. App’x 93, 97 (3d Cir. 2006) (citation and

quotations omitted).

33. Texas is also the forum for nearly all of the Debtors’ pending state and federal

litigation. The Debtors are involved “in a number of lawsuits involving employment,

commercial, and environmental issues, and other claims for injuries and damages, among other

matters.” EFH 10-K (Appendix A), at 33. Of the over 200 proceedings in which the Debtors

have been a party since 2012, approximately 95% are being or were litigated in state and federal

courts across Texas, including certain cases alleging environmental liability. Of those cases

being litigated in Texas State courts, nearly all have been brought in Dallas County. No cases

are being litigated in Delaware state or federal courts.

34. To the extent those claims pending in other Texas state and federal courts may

affect the res of the estate, the interest of justice favors the transfer and consolidation of those

cases. See Brown v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 463 B.R. 332 (M.D.N.C. 2011) (granting motion to


{00853071;v1 } 20

transfer venue after determining that the interest of justice strongly favors transfer if pending

claims can be tried “concurrently with [a debtor’s] bankruptcy proceedings” because that “would

promote the economic and efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate”) (citation and

internal quotations omitted); Doss v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, No. 09-02130, 2009 WL 4730932, at

*5 (D. Az. 2009) (transferring case after noting that “cases should be transferred to districts

where related actions are pending”) (citation and quotations omitted). The need to transfer the

bankruptcy to the forum where pending actions exist may be particularly acute where the debtor

is subject to environmental liability in its home forum. See, e.g., In re Standard Tank Cleaning

Corp., 122 B.R. 174 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1990) (granting motion to transfer venue to District of

New Jersey where a majority of debtor’s creditors resided and debtor was party to an action for

environmental liability); see also Doehler-Jarvis Ltd. P’ship v. U.S. Die Casting & Dev. Co., No.

92-2206, 1993 WL 96528, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 1993) (granting motion to transfer venue

where there were existing lawsuits in the transferee forum rooted in environmental liability after

noting that the “existence of related litigation in the transferee court strongly supports a motion

to transfer”).

35. There is litigation pending in both Texas state and federal courts that, depending

on the outcome, may affect the size of the Debtors’ estate and, ultimately, recoveries for the

largely Texas-based body of trade creditors. Also, the Debtors may have liability to the State of

Texas in excess of $1 billion in the event certain conditions are satisfied that prompt the Railroad

Commission of Texas to forfeit the self-bond to which the Debtors are a party.

36. The Railroad Commission of Texas is but one of a number of the Texas state

agencies that have an interest in the outcome of these Chapter 11 Cases. The Debtors are deeply

involved in the ERCOT market, which is heavily regulated by the PUCT and the Texas


{00853071;v1 } 21

Legislature. ERCOT is in the final phases of a complex multi-year proceeding to address

generation resource adequacy and system reliability that will have major implications for TCEH,

millions of electric customers, and system reliability. TCEH has been and will continue to be a

major participant in those significant ERCOT proceedings

37. The PUCT also regulates the transmission and distribution rates of Oncor, a

subsidiary that operates the largest transmission and distribution system in Texas. Oncor is

subject to detailed “ring fencing” provisions and other PUCT regulations by which the PUCT

must review and approve any significant restructuring activities that may involve a change of

control, debt incurrence, and/or dividend policies so as to protect the interests of millions of

Texas electric ratepayers. Thus, the PUCT will necessarily be involved in these Chapter 11

Cases and may even have critical regulatory approval rights over an ultimate plan of

reorganization.

38. Proactive participation by such entities in a positive restructuring outcome of the

Debtors’ estates would likely be materially advanced if the cases were transferred to the

Northern District of Texas. Indeed, Moody’s Investor Services has commented that EFH

“[p]ursuing bankruptcy is a credit negative because it heightens the risk of regulatory

intervention.” Moody’s Investor Services, Energy Future Holdings’ Restructuring Would Risk

Regulatory Intervention, A Credit Negative (Aug. 8, 2013) (Appendix G). “[T]he closer

[EFH’s] bankruptcies get to Oncor,” EFH’s regulated utility unit, “the higher the likelihood for

political intervention and regulatory scrutiny over the bankruptcy restructuring process.” Id.

39. While the Debtors’ venue choice may be given some weight, all of the remaining

relevant factors overwhelmingly favor transfer. Accordingly, the “Court [should] accord [ ] little

weight to [the Debtors’] chosen forum . . . .” Northfield Labs., 467 B.R. at 591; see Clark v.


{00853071;v1 } 22

Chrysler Grp., LLC, No. 10-3030, 2010 WL 4486927, at *9 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2010)

(“consider[ing] Plaintiff’s choice of forum and the convenience afforded to Plaintiff in allowing

the parties to litigate the matter in Pennsylvania” but nevertheless transferring the action to the

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York because plaintiff’s choice of forum was

“outweighed by” those factors that promoted venue transfer in the interest of justice and for the

convenience of the parties); Doehler-Jarvis, 1993 WL 96528, at *2 (noting that “[s]ome

deference must be given” to plaintiff’s forum choice, but, where “nearly every other factor which

enters into the transfer of venue equation favors” transfer, the court will transfer venue); In re

Ocean Props. of Del., Inc., 95 B.R. 304, 305 (Bankr. D. Del. 1988) (granting motion to transfer

venue after explaining that, although “the debtor’s choice of forum is entitled to ‘great weight’”

where venue is proper, a venue transfer motion “requires balancing this factor with several

others,” including “the proximity of the court to interested parties as well as the location of

assets, the economics of administering the estate and the relative economic harm to debtor and

other interested parties”). Furthermore, this Court has categorically rejected the position that

Delaware is per se a superior jurisdiction for restructuring. See, e.g., Transcript of Oral

Argument at 67:18-68:6, In re Goldking Holdings, LLC, No. 13-12820 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del.

Nov. 20, 2013) (Appendix E) (noting that the Court had previously “categorically reject[ed] the

idea that . . . this Court, because of its experience, is a better forum”); Transcript of Oral

Argument at 187:24-188:2, In re Qualteq, No. 11-12572 (KJC) (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 16, 2011)

(“refus[ing] to accept t[he] proposition . . . that . . . a debtor has a much better chance of a

successful reorganization here than in other places”) (Appendix I).

40. Additionally, an element of judicial economy is whether either court has an

advantage on the “learning curve” relevant to the case. See In re EB Capital Mgmt. LLC, No.


{00853071;v1 } 23

11-12646, 2011 WL 2838115, at *5-6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2011) (granting motion to

transfer venue after finding, inter alia, that “there has been no ‘learning curve’ in this case

because this is the first motion pending before the Court”). Given the numerous Texas state law

issues that will arise in these cases, and the experience of the bankruptcy bench in the Northern

District of Texas in dealing with such issues, it is respectfully submitted that if any court has a

shorter learning curve, it is the Bankruptcy Court in Texas. In addition, as the Chapter 11 Cases

were just commenced, this Court likely has not yet had the opportunity to familiarize itself with

the complexities of the Debtors’ financial affairs or business. As such, in the interest of

promoting judicial economy, the Trustee submits that these cases should be transferred to Texas

as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary expenditures of this Court’s time and resources.

41. Moreover, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas

is the local court for the Debtors, their businesses, their customers, and the majority of their trade

creditors. These Chapter 11 Cases would benefit from being in “a venue where the judge

presiding would more likely have active familiarity with the community and the milieu in which

the [Debtors operate]. Such a judge would be in a much better position to gauge the likelihood

of an effective reorganization.” In re B.L. of Miami, Inc., 294 B.R. 325, 332 (Bankr. D. Nev.

2003). Although the Trustee is not suggesting that one court is superior to another in its ability

to preside over these proceedings, it does note that the Bankruptcy Courts in Texas have prior

experience in the conduct of chapter 11 proceedings involving debtors similar to these Debtors

(including the adjudication of complex valuation issues such as will likely be present in the

Debtors’ cases). See, e.g., In re Mirant Corp., Case No. 03-46590 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2003); see

also In re El Paso Elec. Co., Case No. 92-10148 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1992).


{00853071;v1 } 24

42. Considering all of the relevant factors, and focusing on promotion of the

economic and efficient administration of the estate, which Delaware courts consider the most

important factor in weighing the interest of justice, these cases should be transferred to the

Northern District of Texas.

B. Convenience Of The Parties Strongly Favors Transferring The Chapter 11 Cases To The Northern District Of Texas.

43. While the Trustee believes the “interest of justice” test is satisfied and justifies

transfer of the Debtors’ cases to the Northern District of Texas, consideration of the

“convenience of the parties” test provides an independent basis for transferring these Chapter 11

Cases to the Northern District of Texas. When evaluating whether a transfer of venue would

further the convenience of the parties, courts in this district typically consider: “(i) the location of

the plaintiff and defendant; (ii) the ease of access to necessary evidence; (iii) the convenience of

witnesses; (iii) the availability of subpoena power; and (iv) the expense of obtaining unwilling

witnesses.” Northfield Labs., 467 B.R. at 591 (focusing on where the causes of action arose, the

company’s primary place of business, the location of the company’s business records, and the

location of the parties to the action when determining the “convenience of the parties”); see

CORCO, 596 F.2d at 1242 (articulating what has been come to be known as the “CORCO

factors”); Qualteq, 2012 WL 527669, at *6, n.8 (noting that courts have adopted the “wellworn

‘six-factor’ test” that considers (a) proximity of creditors of every kind to the court; (b)

proximity of the debtor; (c) proximity of witnesses who are necessary to the administration of the

estate; (d) the location of the debtor’s assets; (e) the economic administration of the estate; and

(f) the necessity for ancillary administration in the event of liquidation).

44. Despite the Debtors having a corporate presence in Delaware, their headquarters,

operations, and books and records exist almost exclusively in Texas, as do substantially all of


{00853071;v1 } 25

their assets and employees. Nearly all of the Debtors’ officers and executives, who will be

necessary to any successful reorganization, reside and work in Texas. Given their importance in

the restructuring, it would be particularly onerous to require those officers to leave their home

offices and travel from Texas to Delaware to participate in these Chapter 11 Cases. But, even if

they were required to travel to participate in these proceedings, the convenience of other

interested parties is paramount. See Ocean Props. of Del., 95 B.R. at 307 (granting motion to

transfer venue after noting that, although a venue transfer may result in nominally higher costs

for the debtors to administer their estates, “[t]he cost to Debtors is considerably less than the total

cost other interested parties would have to incur to participate in these reorganizations”).

45. It appears that the only substantial creditors residing outside of Texas are certain

of the Debtors’ bondholders. This Court recently noted that the location of a debtor’s general

unsecured creditors was more important when determining whether a particular venue was

convenient for the parties. See Transcript of Oral Argument at 76:22-77:2, In re DesignLine

Corp., No. 13-12089 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (Appendix F) (rejecting argument that

convenience for secured lenders is of utmost importance and noting that “it is important to make

sure the unsecureds participate in the case to assure that everything [is] just not railroaded

through based on an assumption that the secured creditors are the only ones with an interest”).

Furthermore, as a practical matter, and as this Court also noted, secured lenders are “in the best

position to pay to go” to the state where the general unsecured, and typically not as well

financed, creditors reside. Id. at 77:7-11.6

6 Even giving due consideration to the convenience of those parties not residing in Texas,

including certain of the Debtors’ bondholders, there is little material difference between traveling from New York City to Wilmington, Delaware versus traveling from New York City to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. Upon information and belief, the majority of parties who are not already located in Texas, as well as their counsel and


{00853071;v1 } 26

46. That certain of the Debtors are incorporated in Delaware should bear little weight

in determining the convenience of the parties. See Innovative Commc’n, 358 B.R. at 127-28

(granting motion to transfer venue after weighing the interest of justice and convenience factors

and explaining that “the place of incorporation is not the controlling factor” in the court’s

analysis); In re Ofia Realty Corp., 74 B.R. 574, 577 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987) (granting motion to

transfer after finding that the debtor’s only connection to New York was its corporate registration

and the residence of the debtor’s sole shareholder and president, meaning Texas was the proper

venue, since its “managing agent, its assets and its creditors are located [in Dallas] and [that is]

where its business transactions were conducted”).

47. As previously stated, the Debtors are party to a number of pending lawsuits,

nearly all of which are being litigated in state and federal courts in Texas. Given that

substantially all of the Debtors’ operations, books and records, assets, and employees are located

in Texas, the convenience of the parties weighs in favor of transferring these Chapter 11 Cases to

the Debtors’ home state, where parties to the pending actions can participate in the bankruptcy

proceedings. See Northfield Labs., 467 B.R. at 590 (determining that convenience of the parties

is best served by trying cases in the forum where the alleged misconduct giving rise to those

claims occurred, especially where a number of parties to the proceedings were residents of that

forum, the defendant’s principal place of business and business records were located there, and

many of the defendants were present in that forum); In re Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 133 B.R. 585,

representatives, reside in the New York City area, not Delaware. Requiring those well-funded parties to travel three (3) hours by plane to Texas, rather than 1 1/2 hours by train to Delaware, is not overly burdensome in light of the location of most trade creditors in or around the Northern District of Texas. Accord Transcript of Oral Argument at 77:23-78:15, In re DesignLine Corp., No. 13-12089 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (Appendix F) (determining that there was no material difference between North Carolina and Delaware for the travel times of secured lenders and the debtor’s professionals residing in New York City and Atlanta).


{00853071;v1 } 27

588 (Bankr. D. Del. 1991) (considering the “inconvenience and additional expense in defending

[a] suit in a distant forum” as factors favoring venue transfer).

48. Based on the location of the Debtors’ assets, principal place of business,

executives, employees, customers, books and records, potential witnesses, regulators, and trade

creditors, the convenience of the parties overwhelmingly favors granting the relief requested in

this Motion.

NO PRIOR REQUEST

49. No prior motion for the relief requested herein has been made to this Court or any

other court.

NOTICE

50. Notice of this Motion has been given to (a) counsel to the Debtors; (b) the Office

of the United States Trustee; (c) the Debtors’ postpetition lenders; and (d) parties who have filed

notices of appearance. The Trustee respectfully submits that no other or further notice need be

given.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Trustee respectfully requests that this

Court enter an Order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1412, Bankruptcy Rule 1014, and

Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A: (i)

transferring these Chapter 11 Cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District

of Texas; and (ii) granting the Trustee such other and further relief as this Court may deem just

and proper.


{00853071;v1 } 28

Dated: April 29, 2014 /s/William P. Bowden Wilmington, Delaware ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. William P. Bowden [I.D. #2553] Gregory A. Taylor [I.D. #4008] 500 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 Facsimile: (302) 654-2067

- and - BROWN RUDNICK LLP Edward S. Weisfelner (pro hac vice pending) Seven Times Square New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 - and - Jeffrey L. Jonas (pro hac vice pending) Andrew P. Strehle (pro hac vice pending) Jeremy B. Coffey (pro hac vice pending) One Financial Center Boston, Massachusetts 02111 Telephone: (617) 856-8200 Facsimile: (617) 856-8201 - and - Howard L. Siegel (pro hac vice pending) 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6501 Counsel to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, solely in its capacity as successor Indenture Trustee for the Second Liens


{00853071;v1 }

Exhibit A

Proposed Order

Case 14-10978-CSS Doc 2-1 Filed 04/29/14 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

In re: Energy Future Holdings Corporation, et al.,

Debtors.

Chapter 11 Case No. 14- (---) Joint Administration Pending Related to Docket No. ___

ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE OF THESE CHAPTER 11

PROCEEDINGS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Upon consideration of the motion, dated April 29, 2014 (the “Motion”),1 of

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB as successor trustee under that certain indenture, dated

as of October 6, 2010 (as amended or supplemented), among Texas Competitive Electric

Holdings, LLC (“TCEH”), TCEH Finance, Inc., the guarantors party thereto, and The Bank of

New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A., as trustee, for an order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and

1412, Rule 1014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) and

Section 105(a) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”), transferring venue

of the above captioned chapter 11 cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”) to the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Texas, as set forth in the Motion; and it appearing that the

Court has jurisdiction over this matter; and due and proper notice of the Motion has been given,

and no other or further notice is required; and it further appearing that the relief requested in the

Motion is in the best interests of the Debtors, their estates, and their creditors; and after due

deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefore; it is

ORDERED that the Motion is granted; and it is further 1 Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed to

them in the Motion.


{00853071;v1 } 2

ORDERED that the Chapter 11 Cases are hereby transferred to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Texas; and it is further

ORDERED that the Debtors are authorized and empowered to take such actions

as may be necessary and appropriate to implement the terms of this Order.

Dated: Wilmington, Delaware ____________, 2014 ____________________________________ UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE


�

�

��

��

�


Litigation: Source Documents The Source Documents section shows up to 250 of the most recent court documents for litigation events included in the company's Litigation Profile report. To view the full text of a document on Westlaw, click its citation.

No. Document Title Doc. Type KNOS Court State Date WL Citation

1. CITY OF DALLAS v. MATTHEW MILLARD, ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC, DALLAS COUNTY

Docket 390.20 - Real Property -> Condemnation

Texas - County Court - Dallas County

TX 03/12/2014 CC-14-01188-B

2. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC v. EDUARDO CARMONA

Docket - Texas - District Court - Dallas County

TX 03/10/2014 DC-14-02435

3. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC v. ISABEL GAMINO


TX 03/10/2014 DC-14-02436

4. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC v. KEVEN MONZON, JULIO C. MONZON

Docket 430 - Torts/Negligence Texas - County Court - Denton County

TX 02/28/2014 CV-2014-00398

5. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC v. LATOYA FOREST

Docket 390 - Real Property Texas - District Court - Dallas County

TX 02/28/2014 DC-14-02054

6. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC v. ANA ESCOBAR


TX 02/07/2014 DC-14-01326

7. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. JACKIE DEASON


TX 02/07/2014 DC-14-01234

8. ROBERTO MUNOZ v. RAUL RIOS, JR., ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC

Docket 430.87 - Torts/Negligence -> Property Damage 430.87.05 - Torts/Negligence -> Property Damage -> Motor Vehicle


TX 02/04/2014 CC-14-00564-A

9. JAMES MILTON SCHUNKE v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC

Docket - Texas - Supreme Court TX 01/30/2014 14-0087

10. IN RE: ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC


TX 01/13/2014 DC-14-00291

11. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JOHN DOE ET AL

Docket 430.75 - Torts/Negligence -> Personal Injury

Texas - District Court - Dallas County

TX 01/10/2014 DC-14-00255

12. STATE FARM LLOYDS AS SUBROGEE OF HORTENSE HAYNES v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC


TX 01/10/2014 DC-14-00229

13. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. EMELY ESCOBEDO ET AL



TX 01/08/2014 DC-14-00151

14. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC v. MAGS TRUCKING, INC.


TX 01/07/2014 DC-14-00077

15. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC v. PERIMETER INTERNATIONAL


TX 01/06/2014 DC-14-00056

16. ESTELLA RAMSEY, ET AL v. RANDALL SIMON, ET AL

Docket 430.72 - Torts/Negligence -> Motor Vehicle


TX 12/30/2013 DC-13-15205

17. CITY OF DALLAS v. DP RESOURCES, LLC, ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, DALLAS COUNTY, IN ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, AND DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND, DALLAS COUNTY ...



TX 12/23/2013 CC-13-07113-A

18. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. PRECISION FENCING LLC


TX 12/18/2013 DC-13-14815

19. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. ARTURO REYES


TX 12/18/2013 DC-13-14844

20. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC v. Schunke Opinion - Texas - Court of Appeals

TX 12/18/2013 2013 WL 6672494

21. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. ROBIN CARLSON, ET AL


TX 12/18/2013 DC-13-14826

22. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. KYNOI SENESOURY, ET AL



TX 12/16/2013 DC-13-14832

23. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., LLC v. Brockriede Opinion - Texas - Court of Appeals

TX 12/12/2013 2013 WL 6564276

24. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. WILLIAM E. BROWN AND HELEN W. BROWN AS TRUSTEES OF THE WILLIAM E. BROWN AND HELEN W. BROWN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST


Texas - Court of Appeals

TX 12/10/2013 07-13-00428-CV

25. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC Docket 390.20 - Real Property -> Texas - Court of TX 12/10/2013 07-13-

(C) Thomson Reuters 1


v. WILLIAM E. BROWN AND HELEN W. BROWN AS TRUSTEES OF THE WILLIAM E. BROWN AND HELEN W. BROWN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST

Condemnation Appeals 00427-CV

26. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. CRISTOBAL QUINTARO-PALACIO, ET AL



TX 11/27/2013 DC-13-14038

27. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. VERNETTA BETHANY, ET AL



TX 11/04/2013 DC-13-13411

28. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JORGE ECHEVESTE



TX 11/04/2013 DC-13-13213

29. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. MARIA MURGUIA



TX 11/04/2013 DC-13-13162

30. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JOHN DOE, ET AL



TX 11/04/2013 DC-13-13163

31. MIGUEL CARABELLO v. LUMINANT ENERGY COMPANY LLC, ET AL

Docket 430.80 - Torts/Negligence -> Premises Liability


TX 10/29/2013 DC-13-13001

32. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. MAURA CHAVEZ



TX 10/23/2013 DC-13-12692

33. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. R S FOUNDATIONS



TX 10/16/2013 DC-13-12450

34. Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. E.P.A. Opinion - U.S. - Supreme Court 10/07/2013 134 S.Ct. 387

35. MCKINNEY AVENUE PARTNERS, LTD. v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY,LLC.ET AL

Docket - Texas - County Court - Dallas County

TX 10/03/2013 CC-13-05713-D

36. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. LUIS PATZAN-LIMA, ET AL



TX 10/02/2013 DC-13-11931

37. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., LLC v. Murillo Opinion - Texas - Court of Appeals

TX 09/26/2013 2013 WL 5372544

38. CITY OF DALLAS v. DCSJ EDWARDS, LLC, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC.ET AL



TX 09/18/2013 CC-13-05440-C

39. CITY OF DALLAS v. CAROLYN PARKER SCHUM, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE SCHUM LIVING TRUST, LEE CAMERON ADAMS, ALLEN KENT ADAMS.ET AL



TX 09/18/2013 CC-13-05442-D

40. MARIO GARCIA v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC


TX 09/17/2013 DC-13-11135

41. GTE Southwest Inc. v. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., LLC

Opinion - Texas - Court of Appeals

TX 09/17/2013 2013 WL 5234244

42. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. BARBOSA A CONSTRUCTION INC



TX 09/10/2013 DC-13-10699

43. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. HEATHER BAGLEY



TX 09/10/2013 DC-13-10709

44. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. SUMMIT STEEL FABRICATORS INC



TX 08/22/2013 DC-13-09645

45. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LUMINANT GENERATION COMPANY LLC ET AL

Docket 200 - Environmental 340.65 - Other Federal Statutes -> Environmental Matters

U.S. - District Court - Texas N.D.

TX 08/16/2013 3:13-CV-03236

46. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C v. JOSE JACQUEZ

Docket 130.05 - Contracts -> Breach of Contract


TX 08/13/2013 CC-13-04720-E

47. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. BOBBY SPEARS

Docket - Texas - District Court - Parker County

TX 08/12/2013 CV13-1125

48. LUMINANT GENERATION COMPANY LLC v. JENNIFER MORRISON,T JEFF STONE,T JEFF STONE & ASSOCIATES LLC

Docket 140 - Banking/Finance Texas - District Court - Collin County

TX 08/12/2013 416-03151-2013

49. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. NATIONAL TRANSLINE INC



TX 08/07/2013 DC-13-09229

50. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. TEXAS PREFERRED ROOFING



TX 08/07/2013 DC-13-09147

51. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. IAN KRUGER, ET AL



TX 08/07/2013 DC-13-09068

52. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. ANGELA MABERY



TX 08/06/2013 DC-13-09145

53. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. ARTURO MARTINEZ



TX 08/06/2013 DC-13-09039

54. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. DFW SHREDDING INC



TX 08/06/2013 DC-13-09136

55. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC Docket 430.75 - Torts/Negligence -> Texas - District Court - TX 08/06/2013 DC-13-



v. DRIVER PIPELINE COMPANY INC Personal Injury Dallas County 0914256. LUMINANT GENERATION CO., L.L.C, ET AL v.

EPADocket 030 - Appeals U.S. - Court of Appeals

- 5th Circuit 07/31/2013 13-60538

57. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Docket 430.77.10 - Torts/Negligence -> Personal Property -> Other Personal Property Damage

U.S. - District Court - Texas N.D.

TX 07/22/2013 3:13-CV-02847

58. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. MALIN N J ASSOCIATES LLC



TX 07/18/2013 DC-13-07908

59. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. RKM UTILITY SERVICES INC



TX 07/18/2013 DC-13-07976

60. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JOSUE ARMILLA, ET AL



TX 07/18/2013 DC-13-07985

61. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. EDUARDO SAUCEDO, ET AL


TX 07/17/2013 DC-13-07940

62. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. BUD COLEY TRUCKING INC



TX 07/16/2013 DC-13-07842

63. HUGO PADILLA, LAURA SANCHEZ, IND., AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF YANIXA SANCHEZ, A MINOR v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC, JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ

Docket 430.87.05 - Torts/Negligence -> Property Damage -> Motor Vehicle 430.87 - Torts/Negligence -> Property Damage


TX 07/09/2013 CC-13-03989-C

64. LUMINANT GENERATION COMPANY LLC, ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docket 030 - Appeals U.S. - Supreme Court 06/24/2013 12-1484

65. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC v. Public Utility Com'n of Texas

Opinion - Texas - Court of Appeals

TX 06/14/2013 2013 WL 3013899

66. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. ANNIE BAXENDALE

Docket 430.72 - Torts/Negligence -> Motor Vehicle


TX 06/06/2013 DC-13-06403

67. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. JAMAL KEJUNA VICKERS, SHERLEY CAREY

Docket 430.87.10 - Torts/Negligence -> Property Damage -> Non-Motor Vehicle


TX 05/15/2013 CC-13-02852-C

68. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. NANCY VERENICE DOMINGUEZ



TX 05/15/2013 CC-13-02853-E

69. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. TEXAS MANUFACTURING



TX 05/13/2013 CC-13-02796-E

70. LUMINANT GENERATION COMPANY, ET AL v. EPA

Docket 030 - Appeals U.S. - Court of Appeals - DC Circuit

05/10/2013 13-1178

71. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C v. ALFREDO CORDERO, ALFREDO T CORDERO



TX 04/25/2013 CC-13-02430-B

72. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. CHRISTOPHER C GEDERS, YRC WORLDWIDE INC.



TX 04/25/2013 CC-13-02431-D

73. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. ADELANTE MOVING SERVICES, LLC, TIME WARNER CABLE, LLC, TIME WARNER CABLE TEXAS, LLC.ET AL



TX 04/22/2013 CC-13-02333-B

74. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. ALEX LAMBERD, BETEL TRUCKING, INC.



TX 04/09/2013 CC-13-02093-D

75. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. OSCAR ALEXANDER GUTIERREZ, BONIFACIO MANZANAREZ



TX 04/02/2013 CC-13-01977-C

76. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. JESUS VARELA, GREGORY R VANKATWYK



TX 04/02/2013 CC-13-01979-B

77. AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. EME HOMER CITY GENERATION, L.P., ET AL.


78. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. v. EME HOMER CITY GENERATION, L.P., ET AL.


79. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC v. HASEN DESIGN BUILD AND DEVELPMENT, INC.

Docket 430.87.10 - Torts/Negligence -> Property Damage -> Non-Motor Vehicle 430.75.20 - Torts/Negligence -> Personal Injury -> Non-Motor Vehicle

Texas - County Court - Collin County

TX 03/25/2013 003-00708-2013

80. CITY OF DALLAS v. 635-I20 JOINT VENTURE, ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, DALLAS COUNTY, IN ITS OWN BEHALF AND



TX 03/19/2013 CC-13-01705-E



ON BEHALF DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, AND DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND, DALLAS INDEPE...

81. CITY OF DALLAS v. GEORGE F. LUCAS IRREVOCABLE TRUST, ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, DALLAS COUNTY, IN IT'S OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, AND DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUN...



TX 03/19/2013 CC-13-01704-D

82. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., LLC v. Brockriede Opinion - Texas - Court of Appeals

TX 03/18/2013 2013 WL 1339539

83. RUSSELL THORBURN v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC



TX 03/04/2013 DC-13-02582

84. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. MELVIN BENITEZ, JOHANA IRAHETA



TX 03/01/2013 CC-13-01389-E

85. CITY OF DALLAS v. MARGARET MARIE GIDDENS, ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY, COMPANY, LLC, DALLAS COUNTY, IN ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, AND DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATIION FUND, AND CI...



TX 03/01/2013 CC-13-01378-B

86. BRUCE GRUY v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC

Docket 430.75.20 - Torts/Negligence -> Personal Injury -> Non-Motor Vehicle 430.87.10 - Torts/Negligence -> Property Damage -> Non-Motor Vehicle

Texas - District Court - Denton County

TX 02/28/2013 2013-10171-16

87. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC v. BRENDA STONE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE RAMMING LAND TRUST, AND GREG STONE

Docket - Texas - Court of Appeals

TX 02/26/2013 02-13-00072-CV

88. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC v. CARL H. BROCKRIEDE


TX 02/26/2013 02-13-00071-CV

89. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. KEVIN LAMON JACKSON, CASSANDRA BURNS



TX 02/20/2013 CC-13-01031-A

90. TEXAS FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANIES v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC



TX 02/12/2013 DC-13-01755

91. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. CEDRIC GLENN GREEN, "JOHN DOE"



TX 02/11/2013 CC-13-00777-A

92. Sierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corp. Opinion - U.S. - District Court - Texas W.D.

TX 02/06/2013 2013 WL 485363

93. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. JOSE RAMIREZ, JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ, JOHN DOE



TX 02/01/2013 CC-13-00598-A

94. CITY OF DALLAS v. MAIN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, DALLAS COUNTY, IN ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, AND DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND, DALLAS...



TX 01/29/2013 CC-13-00525-A

95. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JAMES MILTON SCHUNKE



TX 01/28/2013 04-13-00067-CV

96. JOHNSON v. ONCOR ENERGY DELIVERY COMPANY ET AL

Docket 340.30 - Other Federal Statutes -> Commercial/ICC Rates/ Etc.

U.S. - District Court - Texas W.D.

TX 01/25/2013 6:13-CV-00022

97. SIERRA CLUB, ET AL v. EPA, ET AL Docket 030 - Appeals U.S. - Court of Appeals - DC Circuit

01/18/2013 13-1014

98. DREW v. ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORPORATION

Docket 340.75 - Other Federal Statutes -> Other Federal Statutory Actions

U.S. - District Court - West Virginia S.D.

WV 12/14/2012 3:12-CV-09022

99. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JAMES MILTON SCHUNKE



TX 12/14/2012 03-12-00816-CV

100. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C v. SANDY LUNA, JUAN LAUNA

Docket 430.87.10 - Torts/Negligence -> Property Damage -> Non-Motor


TX 12/13/2012 CC-12-07405-C



Vehicle 101. Brantley v. Oak Grove Power Co. LCC Opinion - Texas - Court of

AppealsTX 11/29/2012 2012 WL

5974032102. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY,

L.L.C. v. TIMCO LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, INC, TIMCO LOGISTICS, INC, TIMCO TRANSPORTATION, INC.



TX 11/26/2012 CC-12-07063-B

103. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. HUMBERTO VALENZUELA AND DIEGO A. MORALES

Docket 430.75 - Torts/Negligence -> Personal Injury 430.87 - Torts/Negligence -> Property Damage

Texas - County Court - Grayson County

TX 11/21/2012 2012-2-157CV

104. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. GLM DFW INC

Docket 140 - Banking/Finance Texas - District Court - Dallas County

TX 11/08/2012 DC-12-13226

105. Adams v. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., L.L.C. Opinion - Texas - Court of Appeals

TX 10/31/2012 2012 WL 5351237

106. CITY OF RICHARDSON, TEXAS v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC


TX 10/26/2012 DC-12-12696

107. Luminant Generation Co., L.L.C. v. U.S. E.P.A. Opinion - U.S. - Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit

10/24/2012 490 Fed.Appx.

657108. KIDD v. PUC Docket 030 - Appeals Texas - District Court -

Travis CountyTX 09/28/2012 D-1-GN-

12-003059109. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY,

L.L.C. v. TUAN DUC TO AND CARLOS ANGEL VELASQUEZ

Docket 300 - Motor Vehicles Texas - County Court - Denton County

TX 09/28/2012 CV-2012-02610

110. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. LUMINANT MINING SERVICES COMPANY ET AL

Docket 110.25 - Civil Rights -> Employment U.S. - District Court - Texas W.D.

TX 09/26/2012 6:12-CV-00314

111. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. LUMINANT MINING SERVICES COMPANY ET AL

Docket 110.25 - Civil Rights -> Employment U.S. - District Court - Texas W.D.

TX 09/26/2012 1:12-CV-00895

112. HARSCO CORPORATION v. STRELSKY ET AL Docket 190.15 - Labor & Employment -> ERISA


TX 09/13/2012 1:12-CV-00850

113. LUMINANT GENERATION CO., L.L.C, ET AL v. EPA, ET AL

Docket 030 - Appeals U.S. - Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit

09/11/2012 12-60694

114. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. SOUTHERN FOODS GROUP D/B/A SCHEPPS DAIRY

Docket 390 - Real Property Texas - Court of Appeals

TX 09/06/2012 05-12-01223-CV

115. IN RE LONE STAR TRANSMISSION, LLC Docket - Texas - Supreme Court TX 08/24/2012 12-0689116. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C

v. MARIANA LIMONDocket 430.87.10 - Torts/Negligence ->

Property Damage -> Non-Motor Vehicle


TX 08/21/2012 CC-12-05134-B

117. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. MICHAEL NICHOLS, JOHN DOE



TX 08/21/2012 CC-12-05133-C

118. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ, DAVID OMO, JR.



TX 08/09/2012 CC-12-04910-B

119. LUMINANT GENERATION COMPANY, ET AL v. EPA

Docket 030 - Appeals U.S. - Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit

08/06/2012 12-60617

120. NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION, ET AL v. EPA, ET AL


08/06/2012 12-1343

121. UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP v. EPA Docket 030 - Appeals U.S. - Court of Appeals - DC Circuit

08/06/2012 12-1342

122. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. SWISHER PARTNERS, L.P.

Docket 390.50 - Real Property -> Eminent Domain


TX 08/01/2012 001-02133-2012

123. HARTFORD LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC



TX 07/31/2012 DC-12-08457

124. TCEQ v. YOUNG CHEVROLET INC Docket - Texas - District Court - Travis County

TX 07/30/2012 D-1-GN-12-002297

125. McLennan v. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC Opinion - U.S. - District Court - Texas N.D.

TX 07/30/2012 2012 WL 3079063

126. HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, AS SUBROGEE OF DAVID'S PATIO LTD. v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC

Docket - Texas - County Court - Parker County

TX 07/25/2012 CIV-12-0698

127. STATE FARM LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC


TX 07/12/2012 DC-12-07715



128. BENNY EUGENE PADDOCK AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF SAMUEL EUGENE PADDOCK,VONNY O PADDOCK v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY,ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, INC.,ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC,ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY ADMINISTRATION CORP.,ONCOR ELECTRIC ...

Docket - Texas - District Court - Grayson County

TX 07/06/2012 CV-12-1072

129. McLennan v. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC Opinion - U.S. - District Court - Texas N.D.

TX 07/06/2012 2012 WL 3072340

130. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. RKM UTILITY SERVICES, INC.

Docket 430 - Torts/Negligence Texas - County Court - Denton County

TX 07/03/2012 CV-2012-01801

131. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. JACOBSON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.



TX 06/29/2012 CC-12-04048-B

132. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Opinion - Texas - Supreme Court TX 06/22/2012 2012 WL 2361726

133. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. BRITTANY NICHOLE MYERS



TX 06/08/2012 CC-12-03503-B

134. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. DAVIS EXCAVATION, INC



TX 06/08/2012 CC-12-03497-D

135. LESHAWNA WILLIS v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC



TX 05/22/2012 DC-12-05648

136. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. CHERYL GAYLE CAWTHON A/K/A CHERYL GAYLE CAWTHON COPENING AND CARLA SUE CAWTHON A/K/A CARLA SUE CAWTHON JAMAL AND GARY EDWIN CAWTHON



TX 05/09/2012 001-01316-2012

137. CHARLES BAILER v. AT & T RISK MGT INC., AT & T INC., ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC.ET AL



TX 05/02/2012 CC-12-02664-C

138. SIERRA CLUB v. ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORPORATION ET AL

Docket 200 - Environmental 340.65 - Other Federal Statutes -> Environmental Matters


TX 05/01/2012 6:12-CV-00108

139. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. DONALD E. BOWLES, JR., ET AL


TX 04/27/2012 CV-12-0723

140. GLENN BRANTLEY v. OAK GROVE POWER COMPANY LCC, LUMINANT GENERATION COMPANY LCC, LUMINANT AND ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP.


TX 04/27/2012 10-12-00135-CV

141. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. BRASFIELD & GORRIE, L.L.C.



TX 04/26/2012 CC-12-02566-D

142. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC



TX 04/26/2012 CC-12-02564-D

143. LUMINANT GENERATION COMPANY, ET AL v. EPA, ET AL


04/20/2012 12-1203

144. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. SUNSET TRANSIT, INC.



TX 04/13/2012 CC-12-02320-D

145. LUMINANT GENERATION COMPANY, L, ET AL v. EPA


04/10/2012 12-1167

146. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. CCM FARMS, LP, A TEXAS DOMESTIC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


TX 04/09/2012 CV-12-0608

147. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. ROBERT LEE SITZES


TX 03/27/2012 CV-12-0548

148. Luminant Generation Co., L.L.C. v. U.S. E.P.A. Opinion - U.S. - Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit

03/26/2012 675 F.3d 917

149. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. VICTOR MARTINEZ, JR., CASTILLO FIDELIA FRAGO



TX 03/20/2012 CC-12-01829-A

150. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. MICHAEL THOMAS-DUREN BELL, KEETRA NICKERSON



TX 03/20/2012 CC-12-01827-B

151. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JAMES KENNETH GRIFIN,DEBORAH SUZANNE GRIFFIN


TX 03/20/2012 CV-12-0505

152. DAVID MINKU CHON, DOING BUSINESS AS DAIRY QUEEN OF DESOTO v. YSMAEL IZQUIERDO, SERGIO BABOSA, AT & T

Docket 430.87 - Torts/Negligence -> Property Damage 430.87.05 - Torts/Negligence ->


TX 03/19/2012 CC-12-01800-B



CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS AT & T EAST CORP.ET AL

Property Damage -> Motor Vehicle

153. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. ROBERT LEE SITZES


TX 03/06/2012 CV-12-0410

154. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. LEE R JONES,NEIL JONES


TX 03/06/2012 CV-12-0405

155. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. LUCILLE BLOCK MAY


TX 03/06/2012 CV-12-0409

156. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. WESTON 183 PARTNERS LTD AND HERITAGE LAND BANK, FLCA, LIENHOLDER



TX 03/05/2012 001-00650-2012

157. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. MARSHALL MASH,MAUDINE MASH

Docket 360.20.10 - Probate, Trusts & Estates -> Distribution of Property -> Real Property

Texas - Probate Court - Denton County

TX 03/02/2012 PR-2012-00190

158. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. N & M SCHLUTER FAMILY LP



TX 03/02/2012 PR-2012-00191

159. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. MARSHALL MASH,MAUDINE MASH



TX 03/02/2012 PR-2012-00190

160. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. N & M SCHLUTER FAMILY LP



TX 03/02/2012 PR-2012-00191

161. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JFB GUNTER/2003, LTD.


TX 02/23/2012 CV-12-0347

162. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. ELAINE SCOGGIN GAYLE,SANDRA ANDERSON,GRAYSON SCOGGIN,STEPHAINE SCOGGIN


TX 02/23/2012 CV-12-0349

163. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. SALEM RADIO PROPERTIES, INC.


TX 02/23/2012 CV-12-0350

164. MCLENNAN v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC ET AL

Docket 110.25 - Civil Rights -> Employment U.S. - District Court - Texas N.D.

TX 02/21/2012 3:12-CV-00531

165. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. ARMAD JERMAIN PAGE



TX 02/16/2012 CC-12-01096-E

166. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JOHN E AUTRY


TX 02/16/2012 CV-12-0306

167. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. LMB, LP, SUNTEX CONSTRUCTION, INC.



TX 02/16/2012 CC-12-01095-A

168. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C v. MPG MADEAN TRUCKING, L.L.C



TX 02/16/2012 CC-12-01082-D

169. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C v. JORGE ALBERTO VALDERAMA-CONTRERAS, FELIPE BALDERRAMA

Docket 430.87 - Torts/Negligence -> Property Damage


TX 02/16/2012 CC-12-01080-C

170. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C v. MARK TIMOTHY LEE, JR., JOHN DOE



TX 02/15/2012 CC-12-01079-E

171. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. THOMAS REY,KELLY REY


TX 02/15/2012 CV-12-0294

172. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. DON KENT SWINDLE


TX 02/14/2012 CV-12-0289

173. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. GRAYSON CORRIDOR INVESTORS, INC.


TX 02/14/2012 CV-12-0288

174. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. ALBERT J. TESTA



TX 02/13/2012 PR-2012-00137

175. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. GRAYSON RANCH CREEK INVESTMENT, L.P., AKA GRAYSON CREEK INVESTMENT, LP


TX 02/13/2012 CV-12-0283

176. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLCVS. ALBERT J. TESTA



TX 02/13/2012 PR-2012-00137

177. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JFS HOLDINGS PARTNERSHIP


TX 02/10/2012 CV-12-0264

178. HARTFORD LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC



TX 02/09/2012 DC-12-01538

179. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. CHARLES R. HOTZE, III,BARBARA A. HOTZE


TX 02/09/2012 CV-12-0238



180. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. MICHAEL L GOOCH,CHRISTINE K GOOCH,REMINGTON MORTGAGE, LTD, LEINHOLDER



TX 02/08/2012 001-00420-2012

181. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. DARRELL LANZ AND KIM LANZ AND INDEPENDENT BANK



TX 02/07/2012 001-00408-2012

182. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. L AND M WAGGONER FAMILY TRUST



TX 02/07/2012 001-00406-2012

183. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. LARRY S WAGGONER TRUST



TX 02/07/2012 001-00409-2012

184. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. TEODORO DIAZ,MARIA G DIAZ,CTX MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC



TX 02/07/2012 001-00407-2012

185. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, v. RANDALL LEE JOHNSON


TX 02/06/2012 CV-12-0217

186. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, v. F LAZY 7 LTD, A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


TX 02/06/2012 CV-12-0216

187. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JACK WALL, TRUSTEE AND JACK WALL, INDIVIDUALLY


TX 02/03/2012 CV-12-0204

188. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. SALLY B. SIMS


TX 02/03/2012 CV-12-0207

189. IN RE: TRANSDATA INC SMART METERS PATENT LITIGATION

Docket 260.10 - Intellectual Property -> Patent

U.S. - District Court - Oklahoma W.D.

OK 02/02/2012 5:12-ML-02309

190. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. LOU ANN AUTRY JACKSON


TX 02/02/2012 CV-12-0194

191. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JOHN E AUTRY,LUJUANA S. AUTRY


TX 02/02/2012 CV-12-0196

192. MEDSTAR FUNDING v. HOADLEY Docket - Texas - District Court - Travis County

TX 02/01/2012 D-1-GN-12-000264

193. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC.



TX 02/01/2012 CC-12-00556-B

194. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. MARIA ARROYO



TX 02/01/2012 CC-12-00553-E

195. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, v. SPARLING FINANCIAL CORPORATION,CHANDLER RYAN STRAWN


TX 01/31/2012 CV-12-0181

196. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, v. LARRY WAYNE JACKSON,LOU ANN AUTRY JACKSON


TX 01/31/2012 CV-12-0180

197. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. LONE STAR PARTNERS, C. KENT ADAMS AND FRANKLIN OVID BIRMINGHAM MEMORIAL LAND TRUST



TX 01/31/2012 001-00316-2012

198. TRANSDATA INC v. CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC LLC ET AL

Docket 260.10 - Intellectual Property -> Patent

U.S. - District Court - Oklahoma W.D.

OK 01/27/2012 5:12-CV-00101

199. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, v. FELIX LAND PARTNERS, L.P.,


TX 01/25/2012 CV-12-0151

200. KEFA N MITCHELL v. ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP, DOING BUSINESS AS LUMINANT



TX 01/23/2012 CC-12-00389-E

201. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. JOHN R FOSTER,LYNN E FOSTER



TX 01/20/2012 001-00226-2012

202. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. TRIPLE C PARTNERS, LTD



TX 01/20/2012 001-00227-2012

203. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. EFFA, INC, TOM DRASIL



TX 01/20/2012 CC-12-00339-B

204. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, L.L.C. v. JONATHAN LOMBARDO, JOHN DOE



TX 01/20/2012 CC-12-00340-D

205. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC v. BILLIE CARLTON BENNETT,DEBBY ANN


TX 01/11/2012 CV-12-0049

