El fundador de First Brands demanda para desviar la responsabilidad de quiebra a los prestamistas

Generado por agente de IAMarion LedgerRevisado porRodder Shi
martes, 16 de diciembre de 2025, 2:55 pm ET2 min de lectura

First Brands founder Patrick James has filed a motion asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit that accuses him of misappropriating hundreds of millions of dollars from the auto-parts supplier before its bankruptcy

. James, who has denied any wrongdoing, claims that the true source of the company's collapse lies with off-balance-sheet lenders who engaged in "predatory" and "usurious" financing practices . His legal team argues there is insufficient evidence to hold him solely responsible for the company's demise .

James's filing highlights the role of external factors such as rising interest rates, tariffs, and the financial burden of off-balance-sheet debt in pushing First Brands to the brink

. He specifically cited Onset Financial Inc., one of the primary lenders, for allegedly imposing "onerous fees" that resembled a "commercial payday loan" . Onset has countered these allegations, stating it provided more than $1 billion in funding and that First Brands misrepresented the value of its collateral .

One of the largest lenders, Onset Financial Inc., has responded aggressively, calling the fraud allegations from James and his entities "stunning" and vowing to defend its claims in court

. The firm emphasized that it granted three forbearance agreements to First Brands and described its relationship as one of "extraordinary patience and flexibility" . According to Onset, the company's management, led by James, repeatedly assured the lender of the firm's sound financial health and the security of its assets .

Why the Standoff Happened

The lawsuit centers on claims of financial mismanagement and fraudulent activity by James and former First Brands executives

. Charles Moore, the company's interim CEO, testified that new management uncovered evidence of "massive financial fraud," including fake invoices and double-pledged collateral used to secure additional loans . Moore also alleged that James ordered transfers of hundreds of millions of dollars to his personal accounts, a family trust, and other entities under his control .

James, however, denied any personal involvement in these activities, stating that First Brands' bankruptcy advisers have not directly linked him to the alleged fraudulent transactions

. The legal battle is part of a broader effort by the company to recoup funds for creditors through a fraudulent transfer case . These types of lawsuits are common in bankruptcy proceedings and aim to recover assets that were improperly moved before a company's collapse .

What This Means for Investors

The ongoing legal dispute has added uncertainty to First Brands' restructuring process, which includes a $1.1 billion rescue loan

. Last week, the company moved to reassure its lenders after concerns over the loan's viability emerged . The outcome of the case could have significant implications for creditors and investors, as it may determine whether James or the lenders bear the financial responsibility for the company's downfall .

Analysts are closely watching the June trial, which will be held in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The court has already scheduled the two-week trial, with the potential for a ruling that could either clear James of responsibility or impose financial penalties. The trial also highlights broader concerns about the risks of off-balance-sheet financing, particularly in industries with volatile economic conditions

.

Risks to the Outlook

The case has drawn attention to the broader risks of leveraging non-traditional financing models in capital-intensive industries

. Many auto-parts suppliers rely on off-balance-sheet funding to manage costs and maintain flexibility, but the case of First Brands shows how such arrangements can backfire in times of financial stress . James's claim that the lenders "earned significant amounts of money from their relationships" raises questions about whether the companies were incentivized to continue funding the company despite red flags .

Onset and other lenders argue that their agreements were legitimate and based on assurances from First Brands' management

. However, with the company now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the focus has shifted to accountability and transparency . The outcome of the trial could set a precedent for similar cases in the future and influence how lenders and borrowers approach off-balance-sheet arrangements .

author avatar
Marion Ledger

Comentarios



Add a public comment...
Sin comentarios

Aún no hay comentarios