Securities Fraud Class-Action Lawsuit Commenced Against PG&E Corporation By Law Offices of Douglas A. Ames

Apr 17, 2001, 01:00 ET from Law Offices of Douglas A. Ames

    LOS ANGELES, April 17 /PRNewswire/ -- A securities fraud class-action
 lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of the publicly-traded
 common stock of PG&E Corporation (NYSE:   PCG).  Also named as a defendant in
 the Complaint is PG&E Corp.'s utility subsidiary, Pacific Gas & Electricity
 Company ("Pacific Gas").  It is expected that the portion of the complaint
 concerning Pacific Gas, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 6,
 2001, will be stayed.
     The Complaint charges Defendants with securities fraud violations of the
 Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder.  The false
 representations are contained in PG&E Corp.'s financial statements which it
 published for the second and third quarters of 2000, including a net income
 for the parent of $753 million for the nine month period ending
 September 30, 2000.
     However, PG&E Corp. has now admitted in filings with the Securities and
 Exchange Commission and in the press that it will be taking a $4.1 billion
 dollar write-off for the fourth quarter and full year 2000.  At the same time
 that it was reporting huge earnings, it was in fact incurring massive
 multibillion dollar operating losses due to the fact that it was buying power
 for billions of dollars more than it could sell it.  PG&E Corp. knew that its
 second and third quarter financial results were false when issued, and its
 officers and directors continue to know that these financial representations
 are false.  Nevertheless, it did nothing to correct the statements, with the
 result that financial analysts, until very recently, continued to report large
 profits for PG&E Corp.'s year 2000.
     Through its loses of every major regulatory and judicial proceeding, PG&E
 Corp. now harbors no realistic hope that it will somehow be able to
 retroactively collect from its customers the $2.9 billion in
 "undercollections" which it capitalized as of September 30, 2000 on its
 financial statements.  As alleged in the Complaint, if PG&E Corp. had issued
 non-fraudulent statements in the second and third quarters of 2000, investors
 would have been fully apprised of the financial catastrophe during the alleged
 class period, from June 1, 2000 to March 26, 2001.  Instead, PG&E Corp. went
 ahead with borrowing billions of dollars in November 2000 and continued to
 suck hundreds of millions of dollars out of the subsidiary, Pacific Gas.  PG&E
 managed to maintain its lofty share price of the upper $20 per share during
 2000.  This constitutes a pure financial fraud and charade that Defendants
 have perpetrated on its shareholders, investors, and the public stock market.
     A "Notice of Related Case" was filed with the PG&E Complaint to
 Stubblefield v. Edison International et.al., Case No. 00-11516 AHM (RZx) (C.D.
 Cal., originally filed on October 30, 2000).  Edison International's ticker
 symbol is "EIX."  Both the PG&E and Edison actions allege knowing, intentional
 falsification of financial statements issued in the second and third quarters
 2000.  In both PG&E and Edison, the Defendants fraudulently capitalized
 billions of dollars into an artifice known as the Transition Revenue Account
 ("TRA").  This TRA was used to capitalize billions of dollars in operating
 losses which the corporations had suffered as a result of the difference
 between the enormous run up in wholesale electricity prices and the fixed
 retail rates which the utilities could charge to their customers.  Both
 lawsuits were filed by Law Offices of Douglas A. Ames on behalf of named and
 unnamed class members.
     A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other
 class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
 plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claims are typical
 of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will
 adequately represent the class.  One or more class members may together serve
 as the "lead plaintiff."  Not later than 60 days after the date on which this
 notice is published, any member of the purported class may move the Court to
 serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not,
 however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
 plaintiff.
     The Law Offices of Douglas A. Ames has been retained by an investor in PCG
 Securities to represent the class.  To the best of this firm's knowledge, no
 other class-action securities fraud complaint has been filed against PG&E
 Corp. based on the allegations summarized above as of the date of this
 Release.  Douglas A. Ames already has extensive experience litigating against
 utilities, including a $6.35 million jury verdict against Southern California
 Edison on behalf of a small energy efficiency company, Transphase Systems,
 Inc.
     If you would like to discuss this action, or if you have any questions
 concerning this notice or your rights as a potential class member or lead
 plaintiff, you may contact either Douglas Ames or Kelly Zucha, litigation
 assistant, at the Law Offices of Douglas A. Ames, 2134 Main Street, Suite 130,
 Huntington Beach, CA 92648.  Telephone number: (714) 536-7244, Facsimile
 number: (714) 960-7640.  A copy of the Complaint is available from the Law
 Offices of Douglas A. Ames, or directly from the Court.
 
 

SOURCE Law Offices of Douglas A. Ames
    LOS ANGELES, April 17 /PRNewswire/ -- A securities fraud class-action
 lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of the publicly-traded
 common stock of PG&E Corporation (NYSE:   PCG).  Also named as a defendant in
 the Complaint is PG&E Corp.'s utility subsidiary, Pacific Gas & Electricity
 Company ("Pacific Gas").  It is expected that the portion of the complaint
 concerning Pacific Gas, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 6,
 2001, will be stayed.
     The Complaint charges Defendants with securities fraud violations of the
 Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder.  The false
 representations are contained in PG&E Corp.'s financial statements which it
 published for the second and third quarters of 2000, including a net income
 for the parent of $753 million for the nine month period ending
 September 30, 2000.
     However, PG&E Corp. has now admitted in filings with the Securities and
 Exchange Commission and in the press that it will be taking a $4.1 billion
 dollar write-off for the fourth quarter and full year 2000.  At the same time
 that it was reporting huge earnings, it was in fact incurring massive
 multibillion dollar operating losses due to the fact that it was buying power
 for billions of dollars more than it could sell it.  PG&E Corp. knew that its
 second and third quarter financial results were false when issued, and its
 officers and directors continue to know that these financial representations
 are false.  Nevertheless, it did nothing to correct the statements, with the
 result that financial analysts, until very recently, continued to report large
 profits for PG&E Corp.'s year 2000.
     Through its loses of every major regulatory and judicial proceeding, PG&E
 Corp. now harbors no realistic hope that it will somehow be able to
 retroactively collect from its customers the $2.9 billion in
 "undercollections" which it capitalized as of September 30, 2000 on its
 financial statements.  As alleged in the Complaint, if PG&E Corp. had issued
 non-fraudulent statements in the second and third quarters of 2000, investors
 would have been fully apprised of the financial catastrophe during the alleged
 class period, from June 1, 2000 to March 26, 2001.  Instead, PG&E Corp. went
 ahead with borrowing billions of dollars in November 2000 and continued to
 suck hundreds of millions of dollars out of the subsidiary, Pacific Gas.  PG&E
 managed to maintain its lofty share price of the upper $20 per share during
 2000.  This constitutes a pure financial fraud and charade that Defendants
 have perpetrated on its shareholders, investors, and the public stock market.
     A "Notice of Related Case" was filed with the PG&E Complaint to
 Stubblefield v. Edison International et.al., Case No. 00-11516 AHM (RZx) (C.D.
 Cal., originally filed on October 30, 2000).  Edison International's ticker
 symbol is "EIX."  Both the PG&E and Edison actions allege knowing, intentional
 falsification of financial statements issued in the second and third quarters
 2000.  In both PG&E and Edison, the Defendants fraudulently capitalized
 billions of dollars into an artifice known as the Transition Revenue Account
 ("TRA").  This TRA was used to capitalize billions of dollars in operating
 losses which the corporations had suffered as a result of the difference
 between the enormous run up in wholesale electricity prices and the fixed
 retail rates which the utilities could charge to their customers.  Both
 lawsuits were filed by Law Offices of Douglas A. Ames on behalf of named and
 unnamed class members.
     A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other
 class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
 plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claims are typical
 of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will
 adequately represent the class.  One or more class members may together serve
 as the "lead plaintiff."  Not later than 60 days after the date on which this
 notice is published, any member of the purported class may move the Court to
 serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not,
 however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
 plaintiff.
     The Law Offices of Douglas A. Ames has been retained by an investor in PCG
 Securities to represent the class.  To the best of this firm's knowledge, no
 other class-action securities fraud complaint has been filed against PG&E
 Corp. based on the allegations summarized above as of the date of this
 Release.  Douglas A. Ames already has extensive experience litigating against
 utilities, including a $6.35 million jury verdict against Southern California
 Edison on behalf of a small energy efficiency company, Transphase Systems,
 Inc.
     If you would like to discuss this action, or if you have any questions
 concerning this notice or your rights as a potential class member or lead
 plaintiff, you may contact either Douglas Ames or Kelly Zucha, litigation
 assistant, at the Law Offices of Douglas A. Ames, 2134 Main Street, Suite 130,
 Huntington Beach, CA 92648.  Telephone number: (714) 536-7244, Facsimile
 number: (714) 960-7640.  A copy of the Complaint is available from the Law
 Offices of Douglas A. Ames, or directly from the Court.
 
 SOURCE  Law Offices of Douglas A. Ames