💥Tariff Derangement Syndrome?💥
Traeger Inc. ($COOK) + a 23andMe Update.
"…the tariff panic, or, as I like to call it, tariff derangement syndrome, was overdone. We’re seeing earnings growth. We’re seeing a good path for interest rates. So I think the economy is looking pretty good." — US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
Let’s take stock of where things stand as we kick off the second half of ‘25.
The most recent reads of PPI and CPI from mid-June showed just a 0.1% increase in inflation from April to May, underscoring — to Secretary Bessent’s point 👆 — that worries about tariff-related price increases have been … gulp … maybe? … overblown … 🤷♀️?
This was the fourth month in a row where the US Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CPI reading came in lower than anticipated, implicating a late-June Personal Consumption Expenditures (“PCE”) report — which is, itty bitty reminder #1, the Fed’s preferred gauge. In mid-June, economists expected headline PCE to land at a 0.1% gain and core (ex food/energy) at 0.14%.
These numbers were revised upwards in the lead-up to the PCE release:
Rightfully so.
On June 27, 2025 the PCE figures came out and the price index rose 0.14% in May versus April, with the core gauge (ex-food/energy) up 0.18%. In total, prices are up 2.7% over the past 12 months excluding food/energy and 2.3% inclusive. So, yes, on one hand the PCE increased and, more than that, increased more than expected. But, on the other hand, it didn’t increase by very much. This, therefore, sparked an obvious question:
“TACO” — which has its own Wikipedia page, lol — has obviously had a big part to play in all of this as the readings would almost surely be worse if President Trump’s initial policy decisions stuck.
Reminder #2: the 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs enacted back in April expires on July 9, 2025, 😬, so time is of the essence for those ongoing US/China trade talks.
Reminder #3: the administration promised 90 trade deals in 90 days. We 👀 the UK and some progress with China and … looks right … looks left … that’s it (for now … President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick say deals are imminent, including with India and the EU, 🤞, but not with Japan).
Reminder #4: even without those reciprocal tariffs snapping back into effect, tariffs will remain higher than they were … say … before January ‘25 … and higher than they’ve been for decades … and so fears of increased go-forward inflation readings persist as several big name companies have indicated that price increases are on the horizon (especially after built-up inventory depletes). We’re looking at you Costco Wholesale Corp. ($COST), Walmart Inc. ($WMT), Target Inc. ($TGT), Ford Motor Co. ($F), etc.
Among many others, FedEx Corp. ($FDX) declined to offer guidance for the rest of ‘25, saying that its profit would be worse than expected due to uncertain global demand. General Mills Inc. ($GIS) also projected lower profit as consumers retrench. We could go on and on: companies left and right are raising alarms. Not that the stock market seems to give a flying f*ck.
“Over the first half of this year, historic swings in tariff policy elevated uncertainty, which has obscured the signals from both soft and hard economic data. The actual effect of tariff hikes still lie ahead. In the coming months, we expect slow growth and rising inflation as businesses pass through at least some of the tariff tax hike on to consumers. While the fiscal bill may provide incremental new stimulus, it is unlikely to offset the drag from tariffs.”
Due in part to expected tariff-driven inflation, Morgan Stanley ($MS) forecasts a slowdown in consumption growth through ‘26:
Though that could also be due to what appears to be a slowing labor market. Recurring applications for unemployment benefits rose the highest since November ‘21 over the past month and initial jobless claims have been ticking up — though they came down slightly the week of June 21, 2025 and the most recent JOLTS survey reflected a decline in layoffs in May. This, however, lurks:
Still, consumer inflation expectations fell in May for the first time in ‘25, according to the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations. Similarly positive, the preliminary University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment index for June exploded 8.3 points to 60.5, surprising by nearly eight points.
On June 24, 2025, however, the Conference Board released its Consumer Confidence Index and consumer giddiness in April/May took a turn for the worse in May/June, falling 5.4 points. What’s that mean? You wouldn’t know it from the stock market but, according to this survey, apparently consumers are increasingly pessimistic about their economic prospects. While these surveys tend to skew along political lines, the most recent survey reflected a large decline among Republicans as well. The market may be TACO-disregarding tariffs but they continue to be on consumers minds — at least according to some of the soft data (read: surveys).
Confused yet? 🤷♀️. If you’re coming away from this so far with the notion that the data is all over the place, you’re not wrong. Yesterday, citing even more data than we have room for here, Bloomberg’s Tracy Alloway appeared flumoxxed, “I know it’s become a cliché to say that the outlook is cloudy right now. But boy! The outlook really is cloudy right now.”
It doesn’t get clearer. Interestingly, small businesses also rediscovered optimism in May with a number of surveys pointing to increased confidence …
… though, as you can see, 94 is still a relatively high reading. In contrast, however, midsize businesses showed some cause for concern (“About a quarter of executives reported declines in gross revenue and lower net earnings. There was also a 20% drop in capital expenditures, or spending on buildings, machinery, long-term projects and more. Hiring also slowed and executives expressed more economic pessimism.”):
A recent Fuqua School of Business survey reflects concern about growth and CFOs are saying they’ve postponed or canceled capex:
Retail sales figures justify a lot of concern — this 👇was the weakest reading since March ‘23 — though a large driver, pun intended, behind this drop was a massive decline in auto sales (for obvious reasons):
Note the sales decline at bars and restaurants. Why? There shouldn’t be any tariff effect for services and yet … 🤷♀️🤔.
*****
Back to Guggenheim:
“In terms of inflation, we find ourselves in the eye of the storm — the policy changes have hit, but the impact on prices is still on the horizon. We anticipate the year-over-year gain in core personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price inflation will rise above 3 percent by the fourth quarter. However, we continue to see this as a one-time price boost and not an enduring source of inflation. Underlying fundamentals point to further disinflation, with housing and wage inflation continuing to cool. There is some risk of a broadening out of price pressures to services or rising inflation expectations. So far, most longer-term inflation expectations are anchored, and over time we expect the rising unemployment and the hit to consumer buying power from higher tariff costs to contain inflation pressures.”
On Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Jerome POW-ell and the Federal Open Market Committee kept rates steady for the fifth straight time while also signaling there’d be, at best, two rate cuts this year and one next year. POW-ell blamed higher inflation ("The reason we're not [cutting rates] is forecasts ... that do expect meaningful inflation over the course of the next year.") and weaker growth. Notably, on June 26, 2025, the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicated that Q1 GDP showed, after two revisions, a 0.5% contraction, suggesting stagflation is a real concern.
Back to POW-ell:
“Inflation has eased significantly from its highs in mid-2022 but remains somewhat elevated relative to our 2 percent longer-run goal. Estimates based on the consumer price index and other data indicate that total personal consumption expenditures (PCE) prices rose 2.3 percent over the 12 months ending in May and that, excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 2.6 percent. Near-term measures of inflation expectations have moved up over recent months, as reflected in both market- and survey-based measures. Respondents to surveys of consumers, businesses, and professional forecasters point to tariffs as the driving factor. Beyond the next year or so, however, most measures of longer-term expectations remain consistent with our 2 percent inflation goal.”
There isn’t, however, 100% consensus. Some governors — most notably Trump-appointees Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman — indicated that they think cuts ought to commence as soon as July, in response to which POW-ell said, “…if it turns out that inflation pressures do remain contained, we will get to a place where we cut rates sooner rather than later."
In the aftermath of the meeting, here’s where the market stood:
President Trump? He. Was. Not. Happy. He basically declared that Jerome POW-ell has enriched himself to 60% uranium, 😜.
It got hot as hell out there, 🔥.
Check out the change in just two weeks👇 — practically a full quarter point difference:
As of July 1, 2025, the market is pricing in a 21.7% chance of a 25 bps target rate cut at the Fed’s July meeting — up 3.1% from Friday (when the PCE came out); it is also pricing in a 19.2% change of a cut to 375-400 at the September meeting — up from 16.6% on Friday.
All of which means one of two things. One, that, generally speaking, investors simply believe that the Fed is lagging behind where policy should be. Or, two, investors increasingly think Jerome POW-ell will disregard the conflicting data and get bent.
We hope Mr. POW-ell has time for a few good burgers and beers this weekend because the coming stretch is going to be R.O.U.G.H.
🔥One To Watch? Maybe? Traeger Inc. ($COOK)🔥
Since we’re on the topic of tariffs, let’s look at a name with some tariff exposure that see-sawed considerably back in April as a result of the administration: Traeger Inc. ($COOK)(“Traeger”), Johnny’s fave company this side of Solo Brands (lol).
Traeger is a Salt Lake City, Utah-based maker of wood pellet grills (plus the pellets and grilling accessories that go with it). Back in ’87, Traeger invented its wood pellet grill — a sort of outdoor smoker-grill-oven combo that burns compressed hardwood pellets in lieu of gas or charcoal to make meats and veggies extra smoky. Traeger’s modern grills offer a variety of special features that automate much of the work and enable chefs to control and monitor their grills from afar.
The grills, which accounted for 54% of Traeger’s FY24 revenues, start around $500 and go up to $4,300. Traeger also sells wood pellets, rubs, and sauces (the “Consumables” segment, 20% of FY24 Revenue) and a variety of grilling tools and accessories like a smart thermometer called MEATER (part of the “Accessories” segment, 26% of FY24 Revenue). The company generates 90% of its revenues in North America, with its sales split 80/20 between retail and direct to consumer channels. Its top three customers represent 50% of sales; they are not disclosed, but prime suspects include major hardware stores like Home Depot Inc. ($HD) and big box stores like Costco Wholesale Corp. ($COST) — both of which feature Traeger products on their websites.
The founding Traeger family sold out in ’06 for $12.4mm to investor and movie producer Keith Barish, who then served as chair of the board for a number of years. In ’13, Trilantic Capital Partners, a private equity firm spun out of Lehman Brothers Merchant Banking in ’09, acquired a minority interest. The following year, Jeremy Andrus, then the CEO of Skullcandy, took over as Traeger’s CEO, in addition to co-investing in the company alongside the Barish family and Trilantic. In ’17, AEA Investors acquired a majority stake in Traeger with Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan co-investing. Trilantic and Andrus re-invested in the company at that time as well. AEA, Ontario Teachers, Trilantic, and Andrus are all still invested in the company, and each have representation on the board.
As you might expect, Traeger took off during COVID, growing revenue 50% in ’20 and another 44% in ’21, as consumers, flush with cash and stuck inside, decided to spend on their homes and learn to smoke their own meat. Traeger capitalized on the boom, refinancing its capital structure in June ’21 and opportunistically going public in July ‘21.
The company issued a $560mm First Lien Term Loan at S+325 due June ’28 and a $125mm revolver at S+325 due June ’26. (Morgan Stanley is now agent after taking over from Credit Suisse (RIP) in April ’24.)
The boom unfortunately turned out to be more of a flash in the pan than a sustainable trend. The stock peaked at $29.21 a week after the IPO and steadily traded down over the next year. It’s muddled along below $5 ever since.
Sales dropped in ’22 and have remained around $605mm for the last two years. FY24 Revenue was down 0.3% YOY to $604mm vs. $606mm in FY23, as increased grill sales (+9%) and consumable sales (+4%) were offset by lower accessory sales (-17%). Grill sales increased due to 30%+ volume growth, offset by “high double digit” decreases in average selling price. The decrease in the average selling price of grills was driven by pricing actions and mix shift to lower priced grills and to direct import sales (which are higher margin). Traeger was projecting sales to be flat again in FY25 before withdrawing its guidance on the 1Q25 earnings call in light of tariff uncertainty. 1Q25 Revenue was down 1.1% to $143mm due to lower accessory and consumable sales, offset by higher grill sales. Grill sales were up +13%, with 40%+ volume growth offset by 20%+ lower selling prices again from mix shift.
Gross profit and EBITDA fell sharply in ’22, due to lower revenue, increased promotional activity, higher transportation costs, and operational de-leveraging. The steep drop in ’22 EBITDA combined with the need for additional borrowing sent leverage soaring: First Lien Net Leverage shot up from 3.8x at the end of ’21 to 10.5x in ’22. By late ’22, Traeger had already started cutting marketing and G&A costs, both of which had swelled over the prior years. EBITDA, after falling by more than half in ’22, began to steadily recover.
FY24 Gross Profit increased 14% YOY to $255mm (42.3% margin) vs. $224mm (36.9%) in FY23. The improvement was driven by lower supply chain costs and lapping higher warranty costs in FY23 related to a grill recall. FY24 Adj. EBITDA was up 34% to $82mm vs. $61mm in FY23, driven mainly by the improvement in gross margins and declines in G&A.
1Q25 Gross Profit was down 5% YOY to $59mm (41.5% margin) vs. $63mm (43.2%) in 1Q24, due to mix shift and increased promotional activities, offset by lower supply chain and warranty costs. The decline in gross profit drove 1Q Adj. EBITDA down 8% YOY to $23mm (15.7% margin) vs. $24mm (16.8%) in 1Q24.
It appeared that Traeger had stabilized just in time for the latest and greatest shock to the system – tariffs. The company estimates that roughly 50% of its sales come from goods imported from China to the U.S. The company manufactures 80% of its grills (again, which accounted for 54% of FY24 Revenue) in China and the remainder in Vietnam. It manufactures the majority of its accessories (26% of FY24 Revenue) in Taiwan. The whipsaw of tariff negotiations makes it difficult to predict the direct impact these tariffs will have on the company’s margins. As it stands today, per Bloomberg, imports from most countries, including Vietnam and Taiwan, are subject to a 10% “reciprocal” tariff, and imports from China are subject to a 30% “reciprocal” tariff, down from 145% following the 90-day pause. In early July, the rates for Vietnam and Taiwan will go up to 46% and 32%, respectively, in absence of a new deal. Importantly, the 90-day pause does not apply to Section 232 tariffs, which impose a 25% tax on non-U.S. steel a.k.a. Traeger’s grills. Fortunately for Traeger, it produces its wood pellets, most of the Consumables segment (20% of FY24 Revenue), in the U.S.
On the 1Q25 earnings call on May 1, 2025, CEO Jeremy Andrus expressed that Traeger believed it offset the majority of the tariff impact via its mitigation efforts. Standard & Poor’s was not convinced. In its May 14 ratings action, it estimated that tariffs will cause gross margin contraction of 260bps and a $50mm hit to EBITDA.
Beyond the direct impact of tariffs, the company faces a worsening U.S. macroeconomic picture, in particular uncertain and potentially waning consumer confidence, as it heads into its peak spring and summer selling season. Wood pellet smokers are firmly in the “consumer discretionary” category, and Traeger has already begun to see consumers trade down to its lower priced grills and forgo accessory purchases in FY24 and 1Q25. Its consumables business, which should benefit from a larger installed base and is the one area unaffected by tariffs, also saw declines in 1Q25 and faces stiff competition from sometime partner, Costco, and other barbecue companies, who offer wood pellets for as low as half the price of Traeger’s wood pellets.
Traeger has (i) a $125mm 1L revolver, currently undrawn, at S+325 due June ’26; (ii) the Morgan Stanley-agented $404mm 1L term loan at S+325 due June ’28; and (iii) $25mm drawn on a separate MUFG-agented A/R facility due August ’27. The 1L TL priced down from 91c on the dollar to stressed territory at 82c on April 4, 2025; it stayed in the low 80s for April before it began to trade up in early May from 83c to 88c; it hit 89c on May 20, 2025, and has basically hovered around there since.
The $125mm revolver is subject to a springing first lien net leverage covenant that requires Traeger to maintain leverage of less than 6.2x if the revolver is more than 35% drawn ($42.5mm), limiting Traeger’s ability to draw upon it especially if EBITDA falls. Traeger ended 1Q25 with only $12mm of cash on hand, less than full capacity under its $125mm due to the covenant, and $31mm available under its A/R facility.
Traeger has its work cut out for it with respect to the regulatory environment and soon it will need to address its upcoming June ’26 revolver maturity; it is far from cooked at this point but its hopes of rebuilding from its post-COVID lows, and managing its heavy debt burden, are directly correlated to the Trump administration and resultant consumer confidence.
We’ll be thinking about this over some good ol’ bbq this weekend.
⚡️Update: 23andMe Holding Co. ($ME)⚡️
A couple of weeks ago, we updated y’all on the proposed $305mm sale of 23andMe Holding Co. ($ME) and its 11 affiliates (collectively, the “debtors”) to TTAM Research Institute (“TTAM”) and predicted that “after putting up with what’ll probably be a couple hours of taxpayer-funded nonsense, Judge Walsh won’t have any problem overruling the states, approving the sale, and putting the debtors on a value-distributing liquidation path.”
We were right on all counts … except the, uh, B-RU-T-A-L length of the hearings, which stretched 2.75 hours on June 18, 2025 and a whopppppppppping NINE hours on June 20, 2025.
We’ll be honest: Johnny skimmed the sh*t out of that audio because it was booooooooooooooooorrrrring AF, featuring (i) hours of dull testimony from independent director Thomas Walper, former CEO and TTAM founder Anne Wojcicki, data privacy expert Professor Fred Cate, the debtors’ interim data privacy officer Peter Lefkowitz, and consumer privacy ombudsman Professor Neil Richards, and (ii) heaps of argument from certain states* about the propriety of legal testimony and the transaction’s merits. All-in, we’d recommend you just …
Because there ain’t a lot you couldn’t learn from Judge Walsh himself, who, after collecting his thoughts and writing a rambling 38-page opinion on the states’ objections and issuing one, two, three separate orders, approved the sale on June 27, 2025, pursuant to … um … section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code? We’d be clearer if we could, but he didn’t do us any favors there:
“[C]onsummation of the Sale Transaction is permitted pursuant to section 363(b)(1) or 363(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. To the extent, if any, that the Sale Transaction is not authorized pursuant to section 363(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, and after appointment of the CPO and having given due consideration to the Final CPO Report, the Cate Report, the facts, circumstances, and conditions of the sale and that no showing has been made that the sale would violate applicable nonbankruptcy law (including applicable Privacy Laws), the Court concludes that the sale is permitted pursuant to section 363(b)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.”
Here’s a mid-drafting shot we received of Judge Walsh’s clerk:
Regardless of the applicable prong, the decision is in large part driven by the fact that (i) it’s a killer deal for the estates, (ii) “[a] typical customer’s relationship with TTAM after closing will be essentially the same as the customer’s relationship with the Debtors today,”** and (iii) almost certainly the most important, the debtors and TTAM can “… produce exactly the same structure …” and outcome (!!) under a chapter 11 plan, which purchase-agreement-contemplated pivot would completely render moot the states’ objections at the cost of an incremental $20mm in estimated fee burn. And short of pumping the profits of debtors’ counsel Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, what would be the point of that?
But not absolutely everything went the debtors’ way. The court declined to fully grant their request to wipe the 14-day Bankruptcy Rule stay imposed on the disposition, reducing it instead by only four days, meaning we won’t see a closing until at least July 8, 2025. In the interim, objecting states can take a shot at an appellate stay, although, per the court, “[i]t is not clear that they have the right to appeal[.]” That said, it was all but a grand slam for the debtors because the likelihood of that happening in the next six-odd days, with a long holiday weekend interposed, is remote.
The market appears to agree because ME’s share price jumped ~19.8% to $5.21 when trading kicked off on June 30, 2025 before settling back to $4.93 for a ~$135.8mm market cap.
G-ddamn shareholders must be thrilled. Just a few short months ago, Ms. Wojcicki – effectively the same purchaser and then fully in control – offered a 12x-less 41c per share (🖕).
Which brings us to the request for an official equity committee (the “equity committee”). The debtors be gettin’ one. On June 30, 2025, the court approved a stipulation among the debtors, the official committee of unsecured creditors, and the ad hoc group of equity holders represented by Brown Rudnick LLP. Under the deal, the equity committee’s work will be limited to claims administration and negotiating a chapter 11 plan and the fees of its profs will be capped at $2.55mm, subject to going up pursuant to party agreement, further court order, or if a plan hasn’t gone effective by September 30, 2025.
Provided the sale doesn’t derail over the next week, that’s ample time for a plan process and we don’t need a draft on file to tell you it’ll liquidate remaining assets, including any estate claims against Ms. Wojcicki,*** and distribute proceeds down the waterfall.**** Congrats again to equity holders, after a long and sh*tty lead up to the BK, on the massively-improved outcome.
*The court’s opinion only addressed the objections of California, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. Prior to that, other objecting states – Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin – plus D.C. stood down and filed a “limited and conditional acceptance” to the TTAM sale. Although we don’t think their objections would’ve fared any better, we’re still grateful (🙏) because g-d only knows how much longer the hearings might’ve gone.
**As the court noted, “TTAM will have the same business lines, employees, trade name, security practices, and privacy policies as the Debtors have now … [and] Ms. Wojcicki, who co-founded the Debtors, will be the principal of TTAM.”
***TTAM’s purchase agreement expressly carves out claims against Ms. Wojcicki, related entities, and insiders of the debtors from the sale.
****The plan will also provide that TTAM will serve as a stalking horse sponsor for the debtors’ telehealth platform Lemonaid for a purchase price of $2.5mm, which is included in the headline $305mm figure. Because no one else was all that interested in Lemonaid during the sale process, including backup bidder Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ($REGN), it seems likely that winds up being the final figure.
📤 Notice📤
Ashley Gherlone (Associate) joined Latham & Watkins LLP from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.
Ingrid Bagby (Partner) joined Haynes Boone from Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP.
Jonathan Levine (Partner) joined Winston & Strawn LLP from McDermott Will & Emery LLP.
Michele Maman (Partner) joined Haynes Boone from Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP.
Paul Labov (Partner) joined Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP from Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP.
Robert Ramirez (Managing Director) joined G2 Capital Advisors from Guggenheim Securities.
🍾Congratulations to…🍾
Brown Rudnick LLP (Robert Stark, Kenneth Aulet, Bennett Silverberg, Jeffrey Jonas, Eric Goodman) and Genova Burns LLC (Daniel Stolz, Donald Clarke, Susan Long, Jaclynn McDonnell) for securing the legal mandate on behalf of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the Powin LLC chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
FTI Consulting Inc. (Clifford Zucker) for securing the financial advisor mandate on behalf of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the Mosaic Sustainable Finance Corporation chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
Gordon Brothers on its acquisition of SOLIC Capital Advisors.
Greenberg Traurig LLP (Dennis Meloro, Shari Heyen, Emily Nasir) for securing the legal mandate on behalf of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the VWS Holdco Inc. chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
Jonah Peppiatt on his promotion to Partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.
Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Global Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers — a list that is obviously too obnoxiously long and patently ridiculous for us to spell out each recipient individually. If you are a partner at a major firm and you’re NOT on this list, that means you’ve failed Lawdragon’s “…time-honed process combining terrific nominations, independent research and vetting with peers” and you need better firm admins and, more generally, friends. We love how Lawdragon was “…particularly struck this year at the emergence of Liability Management as a new focus for many in this group” and yet Kirkland & Ellis LLP’s David Nemecek is nowhere to be found on this list. F*cking joke. Time to dust off this gem: stay tuned next week for PETITION LLC’s 5,000,000 Leading Global Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers, Paralegals, Spouses, Mistresses & Pets, an honor of all honors, 🖕. If you post this honor on your LinkedIn page we reserve any and all rights to make fun of you ceaselessly until the end of days.
Lowenstein Sandler LLP (Jeffrey Cohen, David Posner, Eric Chafetz) and Blank Rome LLP (Regina Stango Kelbon, Stanley Tarr, Jordan Williams) for securing the legal mandate on behalf of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the Boundless Broadband LLC chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
McDermott Will & Emery LLP (Kristin Going, Darren Azman, Charles Gibbs, R. Ethan Dover, Joshua Lee) for securing the legal mandate on behalf of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the Everstream Solutions LLC chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
Nathan Smith on his promotion to Senior Director at Province LLC.
Paul Hastings LLP (Kristopher Hansen, Jonathan Canfield, Gabriel Sasson, Marcella Leonard) and Morris James LLP (Eric Monzo, Jason Levin, Siena Cerra) for securing the legal mandate on behalf of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the Marelli Automotive Lighting USA LLC chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
Province LLC (Sanjuro Kietlinski) for securing the financial advisor mandate on behalf of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the Harvest Sherwood Food Distributors Inc. chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
Torquest Partners on their acquisition of GlassRatner Advisory & Capital Group LLC from B. Riley Financial Inc.
White & Case LLP (Philip Abelson, Gregory Pesce, Dominic Litz) and Tucker Ellis LLP (Manju Gupta, Thomas Fawkes, Jason Torf) for securing the legal mandate on behalf of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the AmplifyBio LLC chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (Brett Miller, Dennis Jenkins, James Burbage, Betsy Feldman, Jennifer Hardy) and Blank Rome LLP (Joseph Welch, Ira Herman, Michael Schaedle, Matthew Kaslow) for securing the legal mandate on behalf of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the Sunnova Energy International Inc. chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (Brett Miller, Todd Goren, James Burbage, Joseph Brandt) yet again (🔥), this time for securing the legal mandate on behalf of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the Azul S.A. chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.