FIGHT FOR CONTROL OF PROFITABLE WEST VIRGINIA POWER PLANT ESCALATES WITH MOTION TO DISMISS BANKRUPTCY
Omnis Fuel Technologies challenges Chapter 11 filing of 1,278-MW Pleasants Power Station after $75.64 million payoff was rejected and state court denied lenders' bid for emergency relief
WILMINGTON, Del., Aug. 17, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A bitter fight over control of one of West Virginia's largest power plants escalated Friday when its owners asked a federal bankruptcy judge to throw out the plant's Chapter 11 case, arguing that the profitable 1,278-megawatt facility never needed bankruptcy protection and was placed into Chapter 11 without proper corporate authority.
The motion follows an extraordinary sequence in which payment was tendered repeatedly to lenders associated with investor Tony Robbins, an independent director was purportedly removed, the lenders unsuccessfully sought emergency relief in West Virginia state court, and the power plant was placed into bankruptcy two days later.
The lenders and current management, led by Robbins, dispute that account. They contend the attempted payoff was ineffective, that the director remained properly in control, and that Chapter 11 was necessary to stabilize the company and conduct an orderly sale.
The August 14 Motion to Dismiss filed by Omnis Fuel Technologies, LLC and Quantum Pleasants, LLC, together with a detailed supporting declaration from Omnis Fuel Technologies President Charles Gassenheimer, now puts those competing accounts squarely before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
If the court declines to dismiss the case, the owners are asking it to appoint an independent Chapter 11 trustee. The motion also seeks to vacate the court's Interim Cash Collateral Order.
Why Is a Profitable Power Plant in Chapter 11?
At the center of the motion is a basic question: Why does an operating power plant generating substantial cash require Chapter 11 protection?
According to the filing, Pleasants had approximately $13 million in liquidity when the bankruptcy petition was filed and was cash-flow positive. Current management's own projections cited in the motion show capacity revenues from PJM Interconnection of approximately $119 million to $123 million annually in coming capacity years, compared with approximately $45 million in annual fixed operating costs.
Current management has credited operational, financial and management changes instituted this year with improving the plant's performance.
The Omnis filing offers a different explanation. It argues that much of the plant's earlier financial difficulty resulted from a temporary structural problem: Pleasants initially lacked PJM capacity revenue because the plant's previous owner had planned to close the facility and had not entered it in the applicable capacity auctions.
Once those capacity payments began, Omnis contends, the economics changed dramatically.
A $75.64 Million Payoff That Didn't End the Fight
The new filings also provide a detailed account of an attempted repayment that occurred ten days before bankruptcy.
TRAG and RGE, investment entities associated with Robbins and Ajay Gupta, had provided financing to entities in the Omnis corporate structure and acquired substantial governance rights under forbearance agreements while those obligations remained outstanding.
According to the motion and Gassenheimer declaration, a July restructuring proposal identified approximately $75.64 million as the aggregate amount associated with the outstanding obligations.
Financing was obtained.
On July 16, a check for $75.64 million was delivered to counsel for TRAG and RGE.
The payment was not accepted.
The parties now sharply dispute the legal significance of that tender. Omnis contends it constituted or effected "Payment in Full" under the governing agreements and terminated extraordinary temporary governance rights held by the lenders. TRAG and RGE contend the attempted payment was deficient and did not satisfy the contractual requirements.
That unresolved question sits near the center of the bankruptcy fight.
The Debtor Didn't Borrow the Money, Motion Says
The Motion to Dismiss also focuses attention on an unusual feature of the case: According to Omnis, the company actually in bankruptcy did not borrow the outstanding TRAG/RGE money.
Omnis Pleasants owns the power plant and is the Chapter 11 debtor. The motion says the outstanding TRAG/RGE loans were made principally to parent or affiliated companies and that Omnis Pleasants itself is neither a borrower nor guarantor of those obligations.
TRAG and RGE assert security interests against assets of the power plant.
The distinction matters because Omnis argues that Chapter 11 is being used to resolve a financing and control dispute involving parties above the operating company rather than to restructure the debts of a financially distressed Pleasants Power Station.
Friday Court Ruling, Sunday Bankruptcy
Perhaps the most striking part of the new filing is its chronology of the final week before bankruptcy.
After the $75.64 million tender, Quantum Pleasants asserted that Payment in Full had occurred. On July 20, it purported to remove Gilbert Nathan as director of Omnis Pleasants and appoint Gassenheimer as interim director.
TRAG and RGE disputed those actions and went to West Virginia state court seeking emergency injunctive relief to preserve Nathan's position.
On Friday, July 24, the court denied the requested injunction.
The ruling did not decide the underlying merits of whether Payment in Full had occurred or whether Nathan had been validly removed.
On Sunday, July 26, Nathan authorized Omnis Pleasants to file for Chapter 11 protection in Delaware.
Omnis contends Nathan no longer possessed authority to authorize the filing. The Motion to Dismiss advances an additional corporate-governance argument that the bankruptcy required participation or consent at the Quantum ownership level that was never sought or obtained.
Current management maintains that Nathan remained properly authorized.
Bankruptcy Fight Now Extends to Who Should Control the Case
The dispute is no longer limited to whether Pleasants should have entered Chapter 11.
If the Bankruptcy Court determines that the case should continue, Omnis and Quantum are asking the judge to appoint an independent Chapter 11 trustee to administer the company and any sale process.
The motion also asks the court to vacate its Interim Cash Collateral Order and raises questions concerning whether the governance conflicts that preceded bankruptcy have continued into administration of the Chapter 11 case.
Current management has already begun pursuing a court-supervised sale process. On August 13, it filed a motion seeking approval of auction and bidding procedures. According to the Motion to Dismiss, that filing did not identify a stalking-horse bidder or other prospective purchaser.
Omnis maintains that serious potential purchasers and financing alternatives existed before bankruptcy and argues that Chapter 11 is adding substantial professional costs while disrupting rather than facilitating efforts to maximize the plant's value.
Two Accounts Now Before the Court
When Omnis Pleasants entered Chapter 11, current management said bankruptcy was the best path for protecting stakeholders, maintaining normal operations and conducting a transparent sale. David Hindman, the company's current CEO, also filed a detailed declaration alleging serious financial, operational and related-party problems under prior management.
Omnis disputes many of those allegations.
The owners' new filing asks the Bankruptcy Court to focus first on more immediate questions: whether Pleasants itself required bankruptcy protection, whether the lenders at the center of the dispute were actually creditors of the debtor, whether the attempted $75.64 million repayment terminated their special governance rights, and whether the bankruptcy was properly authorized.
"This case should ultimately be about the interests of Pleasants Power Station, its employees, its legitimate creditors and the State of West Virginia," Gassenheimer said. "We believe the record now before the court raises fundamental questions about why this profitable operating company was placed into bankruptcy, who had authority to put it there, and whether the present process is serving the company itself."
The Motion to Dismiss is Docket No. 93 in In re Omnis Pleasants, LLC, pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Gassenheimer's supporting declaration is Docket No. 94.
SOURCE Omnis Energy
Share this article