The Documents Were Not Missing

The evidentiary record from First Brands’ combined confirmation and disclosure-statement hearing has been cataloged. The hearing ran 28-30 July. On 12 August, the debtors and participating objecting parties filed a joint exhibit list at the court’s direction, recording what was admitted and on what basis. As of the most recent public reporting, the court had not yet ruled.

What was admitted is the interesting part.

Among the Katsumi exhibits: the receivables purchase agreement, its amendments and joinders – and a true-sale opinion.

Among the Carnaby exhibits: credit, sale, purchase and manufacturing agreements; pledge, security and cross-collateralization agreements; closing, solvency, holdings and compliance certificates; UCC filings and a lien search; floating-lien pledge agreements; and March 2024 borrowing bases, including the Excel versions.

Many of the documents the market relies on to evidence structure, collateral and compliance appear in that record.

They now sit in a case involving allegations of fabricated or inflated invoices and receivables financed more than once.

The documentation was not absent.

But the list does not establish who relied on which document, when, or whether the representations underlying them were independently verified. Those questions are still contested.

Which is the practitioner’s point.

A true-sale opinion addresses legal characterization, subject to stated facts and assumptions – not that each receivable exists.

A borrowing base reflects collateral data supplied under the facility; its existence does not prove the assets behind it.

A UCC search returns public filings, not substantive ownership.

The debtors also put in a Rule 1006 summary of transfers and payments backed by hundreds of underlying documents, including acquisition agreements – consistent with a tracing exercise.

On knowledge: several 2023 emails were admitted for limited non-hearsay purposes rather than for their truth. One was treated more granularly – assertive portions against the LAM parties as party-opponent statements subject to a Rule 105 restriction, the top portion only to show receipt.

Many exhibits are under seal.

The list records evidentiary rulings; it does not resolve the underlying fraud, knowledge, or transaction disputes.

But it shows something worth absorbing: extensive transaction, collateral and compliance documentation can coexist with serious disputes about what was actually happening underneath the structure.

That is why operational due diligence at Tenzor Ltd is not box-ticking.

A complete file tells you the expected documents exist.

It cannot tell you the receivable exists, that it has been financed only once, or that collections will flow where the structure says.

Our work is establishing what is actually happening – before it bites.

In re First Brands Group, LLC, No. 25-90399 (CML), Bankr. S.D. Tex. – Joint Exhibit List for Combined Hearing Held July 28-30, 2026 (Doc. 3644)

Zaks’ latest publication, Global Trade Receivables Finance Penetration Study: 2006 vs. 2024, is now available via BCR. The study examines how receivables finance penetration has evolved globally across the past two decades and can be accessed here:
Global Trade Receivables Finance Penetration Study: 2006 vs. 2024

Order the World Factoring Yearbook 2026 here.

Igor Zaks, CFA, President, Tenzor Ltd. tenzor.ca | Toronto