Prepared 2026-05-25 for Maxwell Nides · Anchorage / Pat McGrath interview
Purpose. These are the names where Anchorage is publicly confirmed in the capital structure right now — either as a steerco member, ad hoc lender, DIP holder, or post-emergence control equity. They are not names to volunteer as your pitch (master prep doc covers that — Saks stays the pitch). They are names you need to know cold in case Pat probes, because every one of them is on his desk in some form.
Order of importance for the interview: 1. First Brands Group — Anchorage bought DIP paper January 2026. This is the live one. 2. Gabe's — Aug 2025 control equity, Pat-typical playbook 3. At Home Group — Oct 2025 control equity (you already knew, sharpened here) 4. Finance of America — 2024 LME, Anchorage holds the new first lien; Nov 2026 maturity coming 5. Cumulus Media — likely AHC member, recently emerged 6. Instant Brands / Corelle Brands — NOT publicly an Anchorage name (user-flagged "Intrent Brands"; see Section 6)
This is the closest analog you'll find to Pat's "I want a complex deal with documentary leverage" thesis. It hits every Anchorage criterion: - Mid-cap secured creditor lane ✓ - Documentary complexity (SPV structure, fraud overlay, conduit unwind) ✓ - Senior-secured position bought into at a discount ✓ - Cooperation-agreement / steerco dynamics — UCC fight + 81-lender coordination ✓ - US, $1B+ DIP scale = sweet spot, not Apollo-mega-deal lane ✓
"First Brands is the most interesting thing in your active book to me because of how you entered — secondary DIP purchase in January, after the worst of the fraud disclosure and the UCC fight had already broken open the case. The question I'd love to understand is how you underwrote the recovery on what was top-of-waterfall paper, but with $2.3B of fabricated receivables in the estate — was the thesis that the SPV-conduit unwind delivers enough non-debtor recoveries to clear the rollup, or were you pricing it primarily off the going-concern asset value of FRAM and Autolite as separable brands? Because those are two very different underwrites."
The question signals: (a) you read the case, (b) you understand DIP-secondary mechanics, (c) you can articulate the recovery dichotomy between asset realization and non-debtor / litigation recoveries, (d) you're not asking him to teach you Ch11 basics.
"Gabe's and At Home both closed within two months of each other and both put Anchorage on the cap table next to Redwood/Farallon/Brigade. To me that reads as a sector thesis — off-price/discount retail benefits from tariff-driven trade-down and from the post-COVID home-goods normalization. Is that the right read, or is it more idiosyncratic deal selection?"
This question (a) shows pattern recognition across two of his 2025 deals, (b) gives him space to push back if the thesis is wrong, (c) doesn't force him to confirm/deny anything proprietary.
The RSA was structured as a "double dip" transaction (per Debtwire) — same mechanic that's been controversial in Wesco, Robertshaw, etc. If Pat dwells on At Home, he may want to talk about whether double-dip structures continue to work or whether courts/co-ops are pushing back. Have an opinion: the J.Crew → At Home arc suggests that when 96%+ of holders are in the RSA pre-petition, the structure holds; the resistance comes when there's a meaningful holdout AHC fighting it (Wesco-style).
Master prep's J.Crew/At Home pattern-recognition opener works exactly as written. Don't rewrite.
"FOA is interesting as a counter-example — the 2024 exchange got you from unsecured to first-lien secured, and the operating turn since means the 2026 maturity is most likely a refi rather than a re-distress. Which to me is the upside case of LME-as-extension: if the underlying business genuinely had a maturity-wall problem and not a fundamental cash-flow problem, the exchange lets the equity get to the other side. Do you find that the cleanest LMEs are the ones where the business was always solvent, just over-levered for the maturity profile?"
This question lets you (a) demonstrate you understand LME's two regimes — fix-the-maturity-wall vs. buy-time-to-shrink — and (b) get Pat talking about his framework, which is the whole game.
Don't volunteer this name. If Pat brings up Cumulus, say:
"I saw it close last month — the 2029 holder group looked sophisticated, Gibson Dunn-led. I didn't see Anchorage publicly named in the AHC but the cohort and structure looked consistent with your playbook."
The "I'm not going to claim I know you're in it" framing is correct here. Pat will respect that more than overclaiming.
You wrote "Intrent brands" — the only distressed credit name that matches phonetically is Instant Brands (Instant Pot / Pyrex / CorningWare / Snapware). There is no other matching name in any restructuring database.
After deep search of court filings (Rule 2019), AHC press releases, DIP orders, and post-emergence ownership disclosures: Anchorage is NOT publicly identified as a lender, ad hoc group member, or equity holder in either the pre-petition term loan, the DIP, or the post-emergence Corelle Brands cap table.
The named holders / players were: - Ad hoc TL group (Rule 2019, June 2023): PIMCO 21.3% / AGL Credit 9.9% / Aegon 9.3% — ~66% combined. Advised by Ropes & Gray. - Appliances buyer (Instant Pot brand): Centre Lane Partners — accumulated TL in secondary at distressed levels (~11-19¢), credit-bid the 363 sale. - Housewares equitized owners (Corelle Brands): the same TL lender cohort (PIMCO/AGL/Aegon + others) took 100% of new equity.
Three possibilities: 1. It's secondary now — exit term loan (~$160M) is private, illiquid, may have changed hands since emergence in Feb 2024 without disclosure. Possible Anchorage entered via secondary. Not provable from public sources. 2. "Intrent Brands" means something else — I checked Intertape Polymer, Intrum, Internap, Inotiv, Endeavor, Intrepid Brands. None are currently in active distress with Anchorage involvement. If you meant a different name, tell me. 3. Desk gossip — Max's source may have flagged Anchorage was looking at it, not that they're in. Treat as a "watching, not yet positioned" name.
"My read is that Anchorage isn't publicly in this name — the ad hoc was PIMCO/AGL/Aegon, and Centre Lane took the appliances side via secondary credit-bid. But the case is instructive for the desk: it's a textbook PE-driven dividend recap collapse, the bifurcated 363/plan mechanics let the lender group separate the strong brand (Instant Pot) from the cyclical cash-burner (Pyrex glass), and 18 months post-emergence the housewares side is closing plants — which to me looks like a Ch22 candidate by 2027. If you ever did get into the secondary on the exit TL, that's where the entry would be."
This frames Instant Brands as a case study you've thought about, not a position you're falsely claiming Anchorage holds.
| Name | Use case | Risk if you over-claim |
|---|---|---|
| First Brands | THE name to ask about. Demonstrates you know the live book. | None if you stick to public facts (DIP secondary buy, Jan 2026). |
| Gabe's | Pair with At Home for off-price-retail pattern recognition. | None — well-documented control deal. |
| At Home | Pair with Gabe's; "double dip" RSA mechanics as a deeper question. | Don't claim Anchorage led — Redwood was lead. |
| FOA | Counter-example for "LME-as-clean-refi" framing. | None — public exchange. |
| Cumulus | Mention only if Pat raises it. Soft framing only. | Big risk — don't claim AHC membership. |
| Instant Brands | Case study, NOT a position. | Big risk — Anchorage not publicly in it. Don't lie. |
Both let Pat say "no" cleanly without making you look wrong.
You said "Intrent Brands" — I'm 90% confident that's Instant Brands phonetic-typo, but Anchorage isn't publicly in that name. Three possibilities: - (a) You have desk info that Anchorage is in the post-emergence Corelle TL secondary → tell me and I'll re-frame - (b) You meant a different name (Intrepid? Inotiv? Intertape?) → name it - (c) Source was wrong → drop it, lean on First Brands as the live name
Tell me which and I'll sharpen accordingly.