the lawsuit, has vigorously defended the suit, and that a case management conference is scheduled; and 5) that he became aware of the proposed Settlement on March 26, 2015. Id. Mr. Sobiech also included with his Notice of Intervention a pleading styled, Statement . . . and Request for (Public Statement), in which he explained “Public Hearing” his position concerning the proposed Settlement. Mr. Sobiech is opposed to Commission approval of the Settlement. He takes the position that the Settlement is not in the best interests of the customers or Company’s the citizens of the Commonwealth. This position is based on the fact that, in Mr. Sobiech’s opinion, the proposed Settlement exceeds the authority of the Commission. The inter alia, objection of Mr. Sobiech is mostly grounded upon the fact that the Settlement includes a provision, discussed that would require any participating customer to sign a general infra, release, purporting to release Pa. G&E from all private causes of actions in a civil court of law that the customer may have against Pa. G&E, including claims for breach of contract, as a condition of receiving a refund from a refund pool that is to be established under the terms of the proposed Settlement. Mr. Sobiech any customer of The Company to states, “[f]or take advantage of the proposed settlement, said customer is required to execute a general release that would discharge The Company from any and all claims for liability regardless of whether the PUC has jurisdiction over said Public Statement at 2. See claims.” In the Public Statement Mr. Sobiech also expresses his opposition to the Settlement based on its alleged insufficiency. Mr. Sobiech relies on the fifth criterion of the Factors and Standards for Evaluating Litigated and Settled Proceedings, Commission’s 52 Pa. Code § 69.1201 (Commission and also references comments Settlement Guidelines), of I&E and the Company as taken from their Statements in Support of the Settlement, to assert that all of Pa. customers may have been affected by the conduct alleged in the G&E’s Complaint. Yet, the Statements in Support do not disclose how many customers were, in by Pa. G&E. To Mr. Sobiech, the number of customers who were fact, “defrauded”
the lawsuit, has vigorously defended the suit, and that a case management conference is scheduled; and 5) that he became aware of the proposed Settlement on March 26, 2015. Id. Mr. Sobiech also included with his Notice of Intervention a pleading styled, “Public Statement . . . and Request for Hearing” (Public Statement), in which he explained his position concerning the proposed Settlement. Mr. Sobiech is opposed to Commission approval of the Settlement. He takes the position that the Settlement is not in the best interests of the Company’s customers or the citizens of the Commonwealth. This position is based on the fact that, in Mr. Sobiech’s opinion, inter alia, the proposed Settlement exceeds the authority of the Commission. The objection of Mr. Sobiech is mostly grounded upon the fact that the Settlement includes a provision, discussed infra, that would require any participating customer to sign a general release, purporting to release Pa. G&E from all private causes of actions in a civil court of law that the customer may have against Pa. G&E, including claims for breach of contract, as a condition of receiving a refund from a refund pool that is to be established under the terms of the proposed Settlement. Mr. Sobiech states, “[f]or any customer of The Company to take advantage of the proposed settlement, said customer is required to execute a general release that would discharge The Company from any and all claims for liability regardless of whether the PUC has jurisdiction over said claims.” See Public Statement at 2. In the Public Statement Mr. Sobiech also expresses his opposition to the Settlement based on its alleged insufficiency. Mr. Sobiech relies on the fifth criterion of the Commission’s Factors and Standards for Evaluating Litigated and Settled Proceedings, 52 Pa. Code § 69.1201 (Commission Settlement Guidelines), and also references comments of I&E and the Company as taken from their Statements in Support of the Settlement, to assert that all of Pa. G&E’s customers may have been affected by the conduct alleged in the Complaint. Yet, the Statements in Support do not disclose how many customers were, in fact, “defrauded” by Pa. G&E. To Mr. Sobiech, the number of customers who were
1421997.docx