u/Bruegemeister

These two documents were filed today, October 6, 2026, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey under the lead Chapter 11 case FIHPNP LLC, et al. (Case No. 26-20876).

1. Docket No. 133: Notice of Appearance

Ropes & Gray partner Rachel Strickland officially entered this appearance on behalf of Siemens Mobility, Inc.. The filing formally requests that Siemens be served with a copy of every single motion, order, pleading, budget update, or objection filed in the case. Page 2 and 3 include standard but critical protective bankruptcy language. Siemens explicitly reserves its right to a jury trial and notes that appearing in this court does not waive any jurisdictional objections, ensuring they can defend their trainset manufacturing agreements globally if needed.

2. Docket No. 135: Pro Hac Vice Application

Because Ropes & Gray's core restructuring teams operate nationally, this is a formal legal application to allow Chicago-based associate Lucas S. Smith, Esq. to practice in the New Jersey bankruptcy venue for this specific case. The document notes that Mr. Smith is an Illinois bar member in good standing and has been explicitly chosen due to his deep familiarity with the specific facts, rolling stock supply contracts, and manufacturing assets relevant to Siemens' partnership with Brightline.

Siemens is the lifeblood of Brightline's physical rail grid, they manufacture the locomotives, higher-speed passenger coaches, and trainsets used throughout the Florida corridor, and are slated to build the 220-mph trainsets for Brightline West. By establishing a formal presence on the docket, Siemens' legal team is positioning itself to audit the ongoing restructuring talks and guarantee that their multi-million dollar rolling stock supply and maintenance contracts are fully honored, assumed, and funded by the newly reorganized company.

Docket No. 102, titled the Objection of Florida Power & Light Company, marks the first major operational collision in the Brightline holding company bankruptcy cases (In re: FIHPNP LLC, et al., Case No. 26-20876). Filed on October 5, 2026, by FPL's legal teams at Cullen and Dykman LLP and the Law Firm of Russell R. Johnson III, PLC, the 17-page filing aggressively rejects Brightline’s proposed utility protection guidelines as entirely inadequate and illegal under the Bankruptcy Code.

Brightline’s global "Utility Motion" asked the court to approve a centralized escrow account containing just $87,967 to protect all of its utility providers combined. Out of that pot, Brightline allocated a meager $37,453 to satisfy FPL. FPL’s objection exposes that because it operates on a strict monthly billing cycle followed by a 20-day mailing window, a single post-petition payment failure means Brightline can easily rack up over 60 days of unpaid electricity consumption before FPL can legally shut off power. FPL is formally demanding that the judge reject Brightline's custom bank escrow and force the railroad to provide a full, upfront two-month cash deposit totaling $150,430 directly under FPL's control.

FPL explicitly notes on Page 10 that it currently holds $117,068 in existing prepetition cash deposits from Brightline. FPL informs the court that it possesses an absolute statutory right under Section 366(c)(4) to immediately sweep that existing cash to completely satisfy Brightline's old pre-bankruptcy debt ($82,368.39). Only the remaining crumbs left after that recoupment can be rolled over to fund post-petition accounts.

In its most devastating revelation, FPL’s financial analysts audited Schedule 1 of Brightline’s newly approved interim financing package (which maps out their 13-week operating cash flow projection through the week ending December 25, 2026). The budget contains absolutely zero line-items or dedicated allocations for the payment of post-petition utility charges. FPL is using this structural blind spot to argue that the railroad’s vague, boilerplate promises to pay their daily bills in the ordinary course of business cannot be legally trusted.

FPL explicitly targets the rank hypocrisy of Brightline's elite legal teams at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Cole Schotz P.C.. The objection highlights an absurd double standard: Brightline is actively trying to squeeze its critical local power providers down to a token two-week escrow account, while simultaneously securing a massive, bulletproof $7.5 million professional fees carve-out to guarantee the bankruptcy lawyers get paid in full even if the railroad defaults on its bankruptcy financing. FPL argues it is operationally ridiculous to shield lawyers over the literal power grid keeping the physical passenger stations illuminated and running daily.