The financial collapse of first brands has quickly become one of the most talked-about corporate failures of 2025. Once considered a formidable player in the automotive aftermarket, the company’s downfall has not only shaken its industry but also rattled global credit markets. For Millennium, one of its biggest creditors, the bankruptcy represents a staggering $100 million loss, a figure that underscores the risks of complex financing structures that appeared stable—until they weren’t.
Table of Contents
First Brands Bankruptcy: A Turning Point in the Auto Aftermarket
For years, first brands operated as a well-known supplier in the automotive aftermarket. Its range of products and wide distribution network gave it a reputation for reliability. Behind the scenes, however, the company had been carrying an enormous debt load.
By late September, the burden became too heavy. First brands filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, reporting liabilities in the tens of billions of dollars while declaring assets that were far smaller. The filing exposed deep cracks in its financial foundation, with lenders left scrambling to assess what, if anything, could be recovered.
The bankruptcy doesn’t just mark the end of an era for a once-thriving auto supplier. It also signals a pivotal moment for the financial structures underpinning today’s supply chains.
Why First Brands Collapsed
Several interconnected forces pushed first brands to the brink:
- Excessive Leverage: The company’s debt ballooned over time, leaving little flexibility when market conditions shifted.
- Fragile Financing Models: Heavy reliance on supply chain financing and receivables factoring created exposure to confidence shocks.
- Double-Pledging Allegations: Lenders began to worry that the same invoices or inventory were used to secure funding from multiple sources.
- Economic Pressure: Higher borrowing costs and softer aftermarket sales amplified the company’s inability to cover its obligations.
When trust among lenders weakened, the liquidity pipeline closed almost overnight. Without consistent access to short-term financing, bankruptcy became inevitable.
Millennium’s Costly Exposure
The downfall of first brands hit Millennium especially hard. Its exposure—estimated at around $100 million—was tied to supplier invoice-linked facilities that collapsed alongside the company.
For Millennium, the loss is not just financial. It also raises tough questions about risk oversight, due diligence, and the broader implications of investing in heavily leveraged firms. While $100 million may not cripple the institution, it’s a significant enough blow to spark internal reviews and recalibration of its credit strategies.
The recovery path for Millennium is uncertain. Creditors in bankruptcies of this size often receive only partial repayments or are offered equity stakes in a reorganized entity. The complexity of first brands’ financial web means the process will be lengthy and contentious.
The Role of Supply Chain Finance
One of the most striking aspects of this collapse is the role of supply chain finance. First brands leaned heavily on this structure, where companies receive upfront cash by pledging invoices or inventory as collateral.
In theory, this practice helps businesses free up working capital. In reality, it can become a house of cards if the same receivables are pledged to multiple lenders or if credit confidence erodes.
Estimates suggest first brands’ supply chain financing exposure was close to $866 million, spread across multiple creditor groups. When scrutiny intensified, trust evaporated—and with it, the company’s access to funding.
This downfall may serve as a warning for other firms that lean too heavily on opaque financial mechanisms. Transparency and stronger oversight could be key lessons drawn from this episode.
Affiliates Dragged into Bankruptcy
The collapse wasn’t confined to first brands alone. Several affiliated entities, including Carnaby Capital Holdings, also filed for bankruptcy protection. These affiliates carried billions in combined liabilities, much of it guaranteed by the parent company.
The simultaneous filings underscore the interconnected nature of corporate financing today. Problems at one entity can cascade quickly across an entire corporate group, leaving creditors in multiple jurisdictions grappling with the fallout.
For first brands, the web of guarantees and intercompany obligations makes restructuring far more complicated. Creditors will likely face drawn-out negotiations to determine the priority of claims.
Debtor-in-Possession Financing: A Lifeline
Despite its collapse, first brands has managed to secure $1.1 billion in debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing. This temporary funding is essential to keep its U.S. operations running while the restructuring plays out in bankruptcy court.
DIP financing reassures suppliers, employees, and customers that the company can maintain some level of activity during bankruptcy. However, it does not solve the underlying debt problem. It merely buys time for negotiations and restructuring efforts.
Broader Market Impact
The failure of first brands reverberates far beyond its own balance sheet. It sends a warning signal to financial markets already jittery about rising defaults and weakening credit quality.
Investors are beginning to question the stability of similar structures in other sectors, from retail to technology. Lenders are expected to demand stricter transparency standards and stronger collateral checks before extending credit.
The collapse also adds pressure on other leveraged firms. With borrowing costs climbing, companies that relied heavily on cheap debt and complex financing may soon face similar difficulties.
Lessons for Creditors and Investors
The first brands saga offers several key lessons for the financial community:
- Transparency Matters: Opaque financing structures can hide risks that only surface during a crisis.
- Diversification of Risk: Overexposure to a single borrower, as Millennium experienced, can result in outsized losses.
- Scrutiny of Supply Chain Finance: Lenders will likely demand greater oversight of invoice pledging and receivable factoring.
- Market Sensitivity: Confidence can collapse quickly, turning a manageable issue into a full-blown crisis.
For creditors, the takeaway is clear: aggressive financing may promise high returns but comes with risks that can materialize suddenly and severely.
Numbers Behind the Collapse
| Category | Estimate |
|---|---|
| Liabilities | $10–50 billion |
| Assets | $1–10 billion |
| DIP Financing | $1.1 billion |
| Supply Chain Finance Exposure | ~$866 million |
| Millennium’s Loss | ~$100 million |
What Comes Next for First Brands
The restructuring process will now play out over months, if not years. Key milestones to watch include:
- Court Hearings: Bankruptcy court will decide on the terms of DIP financing and set deadlines for restructuring proposals.
- Creditor Negotiations: Lenders like Millennium will push for recovery options, possibly including equity stakes in a restructured company.
- Investigations: Probes into invoice financing practices could uncover misconduct, sparking further legal disputes.
- Operational Stability: Suppliers, customers, and employees will watch closely to see if the company can continue operations through bankruptcy.
The outcome will shape not only the future of first brands but also market perceptions of similar companies.
The Road Ahead for Millennium
While Millennium can absorb a $100 million loss, the incident is expected to reshape its approach to risk management. The firm may reduce exposure to opaque financing deals, diversify its portfolio further, and demand greater disclosure from borrowers.
The bigger question is whether other financial institutions will take similar steps, creating a tighter credit environment for companies reliant on supply chain financing.
Conclusion
The collapse of first brands stands as one of the most dramatic business failures of 2025. With billions in liabilities, affiliates dragged into bankruptcy, and lenders like Millennium suffering heavy losses, the case highlights the vulnerabilities of today’s credit markets. It is a reminder that aggressive financing strategies, while lucrative in good times, can unravel with devastating speed.
The story is still unfolding, and its ripple effects will continue to shape credit and supply chain financing in the months ahead. What do you think about the collapse of first brands and its impact on the financial world? Share your thoughts below and stay engaged as this story develops.