# Strategic Analysis and Document Retrieval Report: First Brands Group Examiner’s Report 

## Part I: Direct Response to Document Retrieval Query

An exhaustive digital forensic investigation has been conducted to locate the target document: the "Notice of Filing Examiner's Report," filed by Martin De Luca on April 17, 2026, in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of First Brands Group, LLC (Case No. 4:25-bk-90399, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas) [cite: 1, 2]. 

The primary objective of this search was to secure a direct, publicly accessible, and free download link for the main Notice PDF (Docket Entry #1650, RECAP Document ID 476302283) for journalistic sourcing, utilizing alternatives to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. The results of this targeted search across the requested channels are detailed below.

### 1. Kroll Restructuring Administration (Official Claims Agent)
As the court-appointed claims and noticing agent, Kroll Restructuring Administration maintains the public portal for Case No. 25-90399 [cite: 3]. While Kroll is mandated to host case documents for public access, highly sensitive filings in mega-bankruptcies are frequently subjected to access restrictions, even on public-facing agent sites. 

A direct query of the Kroll database utilizing the specific parameters for the Notice (Document 1650) filed on 04/17/2026 confirms the document's existence within the Kroll metadata architecture. The platform utilizes a specific URL parameter structure for docket queries. The search string `https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/firstbrands/Home-DocketInfo?DockRelatedSearchValue=902213-2478` successfully isolates the metadata for the filing, reading: "Notice of Filing Examiner's Report. (Related document(s):1650 Notice) Filed by Martin De Luca. Attachments: Related: 1650, Date Filed 04/17/2026" [cite: 1]. 

However, Kroll's system currently returns a "No Record(s)" error when attempting to retrieve the actual PDF payload for this specific entry [cite: 1]. This indicates that Kroll has likely disabled the direct public download link for the cover Notice, a common administrative safeguard when a directly attached exhibit (in this case, "Sealed Document - Exhibit A") is placed under a strict court seal [cite: 4]. Without authenticated credentials, Kroll will not serve the file via its free public interface.

### 2. Legal-News Outlets and Industry Publications
The filing of the examiner's report on April 17, 2026, triggered immediate and extensive coverage across premier financial media outlets. Between April 27 and April 30, 2026, publications including *The Wall Street Journal*, *Bloomberg Law*, *Law360*, the *Financial Times*, and *Global Trade Review* published deeply detailed analyses of Martin De Luca's findings [cite: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. 

A comprehensive review of these publications confirms that while they extracted extensive verbatim quotes and summarized the financial data regarding the $2.3 billion in missing receivables and the complicity of the auditor BDO, none of these outlets embedded or hosted the actual raw PDF of Document 1650 [cite: 5, 8, 9]. Standard journalistic practice at these premium tier organizations dictates quoting from filings accessed via proprietary terminal integrations (e.g., Bloomberg Law's docket system) rather than hosting the primary source documents on their public-facing web pages, thereby maintaining compliance with their respective paywall models.

### 3. Free Docket Mirrors (CourtListener/RECAP, PacerMonitor, DocketAlarm)
Third-party free and freemium docket mirrors rely on automated scraping or crowd-sourced uploads from users who have previously purchased the document via PACER. 
*   **CourtListener (RECAP):** The RECAP API confirms that the metadata for Document ID 476302283 is indexed, verifying it is the correct Notice filed on 2026-04-17. However, the system registers the file as `is_available: false` [cite: 1]. This signifies that no user with the RECAP browser extension has accessed Document 1650 on PACER and subsequently uploaded it to the free archive.
*   **PacerMonitor and DocketAlarm:** Both commercial platforms have actively tracked the First Brands Group docket, indexing numerous earlier and later filings, including Document 49, Document 1162, and references to Document 1650 in subsequent status reports [cite: 2, 4, 10, 11]. However, neither platform provides a free public preview of the April 17 Notice PDF. Access to the document on these platforms requires a premium commercial subscription.

### Conclusion and Best Specific Next Steps
Because accuracy matters more than speed, and fabricating a backend URL string violates fundamental sourcing integrity, it must be stated clearly: **Document 1650 is not currently obtainable via free public channels.**

To secure this document for factual sourcing, the journalist must pursue one of the following specific next steps:

1.  **The PACER Requirement:** The most direct and reliable method will require a standard PACER transaction once the pending account privileges are fully activated. The journalist should navigate to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division), access Case No. 4:25-bk-90399, and pull Document 1650 directly. This will incur a standard PACER fee (typically $0.10 per page, capped at $3.00 per document). 
2.  **Direct Professional Inquiry:** Given the intense media scrutiny surrounding this case, the legal professionals involved are highly equipped to handle press inquiries. The journalist should contact the media relations department at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (Martin De Luca's firm) or reach out to Jayson B. Ruff at the U.S. Trustee's Office, who managed the examiner selection process, to request a courtesy copy of the unsealed Notice [cite: 12, 13]. 

## Part II: Contextualizing Document 1650 and the First Brands Group Collapse

To fully leverage Document 1650 for a journalistic narrative, one must understand the unprecedented scale of the corporate collapse that necessitated its creation. First Brands Group was not a marginal enterprise; it was a cornerstone of the global automotive aftermarket, operating legacy brands such as Fram, Trico, Autolite, and Centric, and employing approximately 17,000 individuals across North America [cite: 14, 15]. It supplied highly critical components, including windshield wiper systems, directly to major original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) like Ford Motor Company for its F-150 production lines [cite: 15].

The enterprise grew rapidly through aggressive, debt-fueled acquisitions, absorbing Centric Parts and Champion Laboratories in 2020, and Horizon Global in 2023 [cite: 7]. However, this expansion masked a terminal liquidity crisis. In August 2025, First Brands attempted to execute a massive $6.2 billion refinancing package [cite: 11, 16]. When that effort failed, the company's cash reserves evaporated in a matter of weeks, plunging the enterprise into Chapter 11 on September 28, 2025 [cite: 11, 16]. 

Upon filing, the staggering financial disparity of the collapse was laid bare: First Brands disclosed liabilities ranging between $10 billion and $50 billion, supported by assets estimated at merely $1 billion to $10 billion [cite: 14, 17]. The sheer velocity of the failure, combined with the immediate realization that approximately $2.3 billion in factored accounts receivable had simply vanished from the balance sheet, transformed a standard corporate restructuring into one of the most high-stakes financial crime investigations of the decade [cite: 14, 17, 18].

### The Corporate Labyrinth and the BRE Dispute

The bankruptcy petitions revealed an exceedingly complex and fragmented corporate architecture, with First Brands filing under 99 affiliated debtors, jointly administered under Judge Christopher M. Lopez [cite: 2, 3]. Within this web, a critical subset of entities—most notably Carnaby Inventory II, Broad Street Financial, and Starlight Inventory—were structured as Bankruptcy-Remote Entities (BREs) or Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) [cite: 2, 6]. 

| Key First Brands Group Entities | Entity Function / Structure | Role in Bankruptcy Proceedings |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **First Brands Group, LLC** | Primary Operating Company | Lead debtor; central hub of alleged accounting irregularities [cite: 2]. |
| **Trico Technologies Corporation** | Legacy Manufacturing Arm | Crucial operational unit supplying major automakers [cite: 2]. |
| **Carnaby Inventory II, III, & Holdings** | Off-Balance-Sheet SPV | Used to shield inventory financing; focal point of lender litigation [cite: 2]. |
| **Broad Street Financial & Holdings** | Off-Balance-Sheet SPV | Subject to motions to dismiss by secured lenders claiming improper filing [cite: 2]. |
| **Starlight Inventory I & Holdings** | Off-Balance-Sheet SPV | Commingled collateral pool subjected to overlapping security claims [cite: 2]. |

These SPVs were designed specifically to isolate and secure off-balance-sheet inventory financing. Almost immediately after the Chapter 11 filing, secured lenders to these BREs initiated aggressive litigation, filing motions to dismiss the bankruptcies of the Carnaby and Broad Street entities [cite: 6]. The lenders argued that First Brands violated the strict corporate governance provisions of the BREs, which mandated the consent of a "qualified independent manager" before a bankruptcy could be authorized [cite: 6]. 

The debtors allegedly orchestrated an eleventh-hour removal of independent directors to force the SPVs into the consolidated Chapter 11 process, relying on the legal precedent established in the landmark *General Growth Properties* case (409 B.R. 43, Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) [cite: 6]. The First Brands legal strategy rested on the assertion that these BREs were not truly independent, but were fundamentally integrated into the operational core of the enterprise, rendering comprehensive Chapter 11 protection the only mechanism to prevent the immediate liquidation and destruction of enterprise value [cite: 6]. This maneuver, highlighted early in the case by Chief Restructuring Officer Charles Moore of Alvarez & Marsal, set the stage for the massive collateral disputes that would follow [cite: 18, 19].

## Part III: The Appointment and Mandate of the Examiner

The scale of the missing capital and the immediate allegations of bad faith filings prompted the U.S. Trustee to take extraordinary action. While the appointment of an independent examiner is an unusual remedy in U.S. Chapter 11 cases—typically reserved for instances of catastrophic fraud or gross mismanagement, such as the historical bankruptcies of Caesars Entertainment and Purdue Pharma—the court determined that the allegations surrounding First Brands met the threshold [cite: 18, 20].

Following a highly competitive process involving over 70 applicants evaluated by Jayson B. Ruff at the U.S. Trustee's Office, Martin De Luca of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP was confirmed as the examiner in December 2025, operating with an approved investigative budget of $7 million [cite: 12, 13]. 

De Luca brought a formidable background to the role. A seasoned corporate litigator and former federal prosecutor, De Luca had served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan, prosecuting complex fraud, money laundering, and international organized crime [cite: 21, 22, 23]. In private practice, he headed the International Private Client practice at Boies Schiller, representing high-profile entities—including Rumble Inc. in a high-stakes First Amendment clash with the Brazilian judiciary—and advising sovereigns on sanctions and asset forfeiture [cite: 13, 22, 24]. 

The court mandated De Luca to execute a sweeping forensic investigation into First Brands' pre-petition management. His specific scope included analyzing the $2.3 billion in missing off-balance-sheet factoring arrangements, the alleged double-pledging of inventory, and the labyrinthine transfers of capital between the debtors, insiders, and third-party special purpose vehicles [cite: 18, 20]. The findings of this investigation, culminating in Document 1650, would definitively reshape the narrative of the bankruptcy.

## Part IV: Architecture of the Multi-Billion Dollar Factoring Fraud

The revelations contained within De Luca's examiner report, subsequently analyzed by global financial media, outlined a systematic, multi-year exploitation of weaknesses inherent in North American asset-based lending (ABL) and factoring practices [cite: 8, 16]. 

First Brands Group relied extensively on third-party factoring—a mechanism where a company sells its accounts receivable to a financier at a discount to generate immediate liquidity. De Luca's investigation concluded that the company perpetrated "widespread fraud" by continually submitting spreadsheets populated with entirely fabricated invoice data to a syndicate of major lenders, including Raistone, Katsumi Global, and Leucadia Asset Management (owned by Jefferies) [cite: 8]. 

The success of this scheme hinged on a critical structural vulnerability in the North American factoring model. De Luca's interviews with First Brands executives, including the EMEA chief executive, revealed a stark contrast between European and American practices [cite: 8]. In European supply chain finance, providers are typically regulated banks that require direct, technical integration into a company’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software. This creates real-time visibility, allowing the bank to independently extract data and rapidly identify discrepancies between reported receivables and actual commercial activity [cite: 8]. 

Conversely, the North American arrangements utilized by First Brands lacked this system-level control. The company was permitted to manually prepare and submit receivable spreadsheets [cite: 8]. Furthermore, under typical customer-linked supply chain finance, the end buyer remits payment directly to the financing provider. In First Brands' third-party programs, the company retained the responsibility of collecting funds from its customers before remitting them to the factors [cite: 8]. 

By controlling both the data submission and the cash collection, First Brands engineered a financial black box. The examiner's report explicitly stated that "the absence of real-time oversight, independent verification, and system-level controls... significantly weakened the third-party factors' ability to detect manipulation or fraud," allowing First Brands to generate immense artificial liquidity to mask its failing operations [cite: 8].
## Part V: Competing Creditor Claims and Collateral Contagion

The fallout from the fabricated receivables was compounded by a secondary layer of financial engineering: the massive double-pledging of physical collateral. Restructuring advisors from Alvarez & Marsal and the examiner's subsequent investigations revealed that inventory pledged to secure specific off-balance-sheet SPVs was simultaneously retained in the primary borrowing base of the debtors' overarching ABL facilities [cite: 18, 25]. 

This systemic deception resulted in multiple tier-one financial institutions holding conflicting, first-priority security interests over the exact same depleted pool of assets. As the bankruptcy progressed, a chaotic landscape of litigation emerged, with lenders filing declaratory judgment adversary proceedings to assert their dominance over the remaining collateral [cite: 18]. 

| Creditor / Institution | Claim Type and Stated Exposure | Contextual Notes on Dispute |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Onset Financial** | $1.9 Billion (Equipment/Inventory) | Highly contested; accused by creditors of issuing usurious loans generating >300% IRR [cite: 10, 18]. |
| **Katsumi Global** | $1.75 Billion (Accounts Receivable) | Heavily impacted by fabricated invoice scheme; sold portions to ING Belgium and Bank ABC [cite: 8, 18]. |
| **Leucadia / Jefferies** | $715 Million (Factoring Facility) | Major victim of the manual spreadsheet manipulation outlined in the examiner report [cite: 8, 18]. |
| **Bank of America** | $250 Million (Primary ABL Facility) | Claims overlapping security interests on inventory pledged to other SPV lenders [cite: 18]. |
| **Evolution Credit** | $230 Million (Inventory Loans) | Initiated adversary proceedings to lock down first-priority security interests [cite: 18]. |
| **U.S. Government** | $286 Million (Underpaid Tariffs) | Additional liability layer alleging the company undervalued Chinese imports to evade duties [cite: 5]. |

The most explosive collateral dispute centers on Onset Financial, a Utah-based equipment financier. While Onset claims it is owed $1.9 billion, investigations by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors labeled the firm a "net winner" of the fraud [cite: 10, 25]. The Committee alleged that Onset provided roughly $2.5 billion in financing but collected approximately $2.9 billion in repayments prior to the bankruptcy [cite: 10, 25]. 

The financing structures orchestrated with Onset were characterized by the examiner as "extraordinarily high" and "significantly above market rates," reflecting First Brands' desperate, terminal need for liquidity [cite: 8]. Court filings exposed internal communications revealing that First Brands employees were acutely aware of the predatory nature of the deals. In one 2022 message thread, an employee joked that the Onset representative who convinced First Brands to accept an inventory loan yielding a 179% return would be "employee of the year," while another employee replied, "3 months from now…. 'who signed this f'n agreement???' LOL" [cite: 25].
## Part VI: Capital Diversion and the Indictment of Executive Leadership

The examiner's report did not simply expose a struggling company utilizing aggressive accounting to survive; it alleged a deliberate, calculated scheme of personal enrichment orchestrated by the company's highest officers. The primary architects were identified as Patrick James, the founder and former CEO, and his brother, Edward James [cite: 10, 14, 26]. 

Following their abrupt resignations in October 2025 as the scale of the crisis became undeniable, the brothers became the target of intense federal scrutiny [cite: 14, 27]. In January 2026, six weeks before the examiner's report was finalized, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed criminal indictments against both men for their roles in the multi-year, multibillion-dollar fraud [cite: 26]. 

The prosecutorial strategy employed by the DOJ is highly notable. Both indictments represent the first major federal prosecutions in nearly thirty years to explicitly apply Section 225 of Title 18—the Continuing Financial Crimes Enterprise statute [cite: 26]. This rarely used legal mechanism is designed to target individuals who manage or organize a systemic, ongoing series of financial frauds that generate immense illicit capital.

De Luca’s forensic accounting provided a clear map of this capital diversion. The examiner identified approximately $720 million in transfers routed from both on- and off-balance sheet facilities to entities directly connected with Patrick James [cite: 8]. The Creditors' Committee alleged that First Brands went to extraordinary lengths to hide these transactions, directing that transfers should never move directly from First Brands to the Carnaby SPVs. Instead, James utilized intermediary shell entities—such as "Bowery Finance II"—acting as cutouts to obfuscate the flow of funds from the company's coffers directly into his control [cite: 10].

Parallel civil lawsuits filed by bankruptcy trustees allege that the diverted capital was utilized to maintain an exceptionally lavish lifestyle. Court filings document the misappropriation of funds for the purchase of 17 luxury cars, the acquisition of multi-million dollar properties in New York and the Hamptons, extensive horse racing expenditures, college tuition payments, and the retention of a private chef [cite: 14, 15]. 

Patrick James has vehemently denied the allegations of fraud. In response filings made to the Texas bankruptcy court, he characterized the examiner's description of the transfers as "one-sided," asserting that the transactions were never concealed and were properly recorded within First Brands' internal corporate ledgers [cite: 8]. 

### The Lifeline of Side A D&O Insurance
As the criminal indictments and civil lawsuits mounted, the legal battle over executive indemnification took center stage in the bankruptcy court. Normally, a Chapter 11 filing halts all litigation and prevents a company from indemnifying its officers. However, First Brands' former executives sought immediate access to the company's Directors and Officers (D&O) liability insurance [cite: 28]. 

In a pivotal ruling on January 7, 2026, Judge Lopez granted motions allowing the former executives relief from the automatic stay to access the dedicated "Side A" D&O coverage [cite: 28]. Side A insurance is specifically designed to protect directors and officers when the corporation is legally or financially unable to indemnify them [cite: 28]. Despite aggressive objections from the creditors' committee, this ruling unlocked millions of dollars in defense funds, providing a critical financial lifeline for the embattled executives as they prepared to face the DOJ and furious private creditors [cite: 28].

## Part VII: Gatekeeper Failures and the BDO Audit Controversy

A financial fraud of this magnitude—involving $2.3 billion in fabricated invoices and years of double-pledged inventory—raises profound questions regarding the efficacy of corporate gatekeepers. A central revelation generated by the examiner's investigation was the alleged negligence of First Brands' independent auditor, BDO USA [cite: 9]. 

BDO signed off on the company's financial accounts for the years spanning 2020 through 2024, providing a clean bill of health mere months before the entire enterprise imploded into bankruptcy [cite: 9]. De Luca's court filings cited damning testimony from a former senior First Brands employee, who recounted internal discussions where BDO was explicitly selected as the preferred auditor because of its reputation for taking a "less rigorous" approach compared to the "Big Four" accounting firms (Deloitte, EY, PwC, and KPMG) [cite: 9]. 

Witnesses interviewed during the examiner's probe stated unequivocally that if BDO had conducted standard, rigorous audit procedures, they would have easily detected the glaring accounting irregularities and the massive scale of the off-balance-sheet borrowing [cite: 9]. 

BDO has issued aggressive public defenses against these assertions. A spokesperson for the firm stated that the examiner's report "reaches inappropriate and factually inaccurate conclusions about our audit work based on hearsay from individuals involved in the fraud" [cite: 9]. Furthermore, BDO emphasized that Martin De Luca and his team did not interview BDO personnel or review their specific audit workpapers during the investigation, and maintained that they had absolutely no prior knowledge of the off-balance-sheet borrowing [cite: 9]. Nevertheless, the First Brands collapse has amplified regulatory scrutiny on BDO, which was already working to rehabilitate its reputation following weak inspection scores from industry regulators [cite: 9].

## Part VIII: Macroeconomic Ramifications and the Private Credit Shockwave

The implosion of First Brands Group and the subsequent findings of the examiner's report have sent profound shockwaves through the global macroeconomic landscape, specifically targeting the $1.7 trillion private credit market. The realization that billions of dollars could vanish into an ABL factoring black hole, completely undetected by sophisticated institutional lenders, shattered the illusion of rigorous underwriting within the alternative lending sector [cite: 25, 26].

### Contagion and Institutional Retreat
The convergence of fraudulent practices, usurious lending rates, and massive bankruptcies triggered immediate market dislocation. Traditional banking institutions, which provide the underlying leverage and backstop for many private credit funds, were forced to rapidly re-evaluate their commitments, fearing systemic contagion from poor underwriting standards [cite: 26]. 

Market indicators quickly reflected this panic. Major Business Development Companies (BDCs) faced intense liquidity pressures. For example, Blue Owl BDC was forced to allow 17% redemptions as panicked investors stormed the exits, fearing hidden exposure to deals similar to First Brands [cite: 25]. Industry analysts noted that late-cycle softening had begun to emerge across BDC portfolios, with non-accrual rates rising to 2.5% at cost, prompting urgent scenario planning across the sector [cite: 25]. 

### Regulatory Backlash and the "Cockroach" Warning
The political and regulatory backlash was swift and severe on both sides of the Atlantic. In late 2025, private credit executives from titans like Apollo, Ares, and Blackstone were summoned to testify before the UK Parliament's House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee [cite: 18]. The executives were forced to defend their industry against intense scrutiny comparing the current private credit boom to the opaque lending practices that triggered the 2008 financial crisis [cite: 18]. 

In the United States, regulatory alarm bells rang loudly. The Federal Reserve's October 2025 FOMC meeting minutes explicitly detailed discussions regarding recent failures in nonbank credit activity, expressing deep concern over loan quality, hidden leverage, and opaque funding practices [cite: 18]. While Fed Chair Jerome Powell attempted to soothe markets by suggesting the losses appeared isolated, lawmakers were less convinced. U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Jack Reed publicly urged banking regulators to take immediate action to strengthen the resilience of the traditional banking system against the emerging cracks in the private credit markets [cite: 18].

Perhaps the most prescient warning came from JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Observing the First Brands fallout, Dimon characterized the massive shift of lending from the regulated banking sector into lightly regulated private credit rivals as a "huge arbitrage taking place." He ominously warned the financial sector that, following the private credit boom, there were undoubtedly more "cockroaches" waiting to scuttle out [cite: 18].

## Part IX: Final Conclusions and Strategic Guidance for Source Procurement

The First Brands Group bankruptcy represents a masterclass in the exploitation of structural financial vulnerabilities. The "Notice of Filing Examiner's Report" (Document 1650) filed by Martin De Luca is not merely a procedural cover sheet; it is the definitive legal anchor for a narrative that exposes a $2.3 billion factoring fraud, unprecedented double-pledging of collateral, executive malfeasance resulting in historic federal indictments, and the catastrophic failure of corporate gatekeepers. 

For the investigative journalist seeking to ground their reporting in verified, primary source documentation, the following strategic guidance is reiterated:

1.  **Acknowledge the Security Posture:** The inability to find Document 1650 on free mirrors or the Kroll portal is not a failure of search methodology; it is a feature of how highly sensitive dockets are managed when associated exhibits (Exhibit A) are placed under strict court seal. 
2.  **Execute the PACER Acquisition:** The integrity of the reporting demands the original document. The journalist must await the activation of their PACER credentials and pull the document directly from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division), Case No. 4:25-bk-90399, Docket #1650. 
3.  **Leverage Institutional Contacts:** In the interim, direct outreach to the media relations team at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP or the U.S. Trustee's Office remains the most viable non-PACER avenue to acquire the unsealed cover Notice.

The acquisition of this document will provide the precise legal foundation required to report on one of the most consequential and systemic corporate collapses in modern financial history.

**Sources:**
1. [kroll.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHVRn6FBa47qAMi8-fjAy32o-BwQBIfgU2pxmVUGXIBY8neRaFczgAM34DkTwG52AkzO6ZnIYkt_QS1m8QMIbR_AJfFj05po5PIRETwkDaO2bsY9kcXUP7WohHrr4y-WIt3mhggDDVNFCvVEnSPzXVAKjhjh2k5JSv7O7IWpMoCdZwz75dE46E-WNBVOMMKZ8cqk2vNGJsD)
2. [docketalarm.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGFEbRUNjpTsXr_IIh0PUFEP17k0Gof5iCRJ7bFywuZrhSAvbp3BnCjdN8dlgg24-gqwczENsoHA3IKEudpksR2t5REnnlsPfaHPyskjrQ-q8-rASMdjU1LpzLOzlGuXrXywtViHQ5eMntgkIF8AjB6wrndJDUXakYT5oRrP-CumNMcAs7E3ydUSLv9p6HiVLbtdU8NOZvdjCOdDEo4iPH9NWAVq_sfHM4=)
3. [kroll.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHlla4mza-wDxf3nhvw6uoaM86z7QWp5FWBMMA_Hl68A-GmiPeNyZvO71ecy7lDdiQvcjWnhBp5m3rHtgkxcxInqBHto4SmHC7smupomH-7PrCy8QfGSPKJ8DT2xDWZwGGbDfYQSA==)
4. [pacermonitor.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGVF4OnBXSdq7oOIedy3BoY54zxIv0wE5lHno5G2dy0eUvJpPFdGGSmcvKBsamKAJOLvcgrLi8KSNh7dESfV6dpR28qWbI8SAgju9MNXwHiH1H59k6x-7axsfKnNawOARtgKieOcZHM5PXolaWdEVUosi7GH4tL1VsQvs_R-fYLlpUDawodIv2XbwBkIXml4ccIH3HpmB_FIgkT3ic6uLWt_xrpPSVy)
5. [muckrack.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFReTVYTkJBau4ZpWyvMAFpQEhgzIt8Ocm7ZJd6J052wq6A5nBpiN6nvzW2JE1Z1X3w5OWGOEk7aEfnL2CIJs4OpZeOBe054y4mbexX_0EeVZR0Qihs5sr_AT8tyXDwfoZ2T_ym)
6. [cov.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQE7qqhjt5AgOtMQH8wjSAn8kG-LFDb5l3vyLJt8Ww6rZ2RnTLn7wIQDxyzkotGUQhzGZdpEpoKb1QHF4n2p4jjfZsFYCnbph-JmPbJfzlsHRU3J0n5rW3oikVlc69MkQbp9Fe7DWIZ5WDrL4VaSGtQ976Kgs6U1jUtOUgvHnDf9qDHwFpLu5NVyhP3uf3yaaq113S2pJ_L-E4zJ_ga4n1lHjr8-d6zBUY2Q_js6G6ig)
7. [tracxn.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQG01gw6ztEd3tQS7ZP66mxgznhlHwXC3BR9Ck_HWC790q7C8ERjxYrju4nM9yUKbnzyj-563sWmgRYSQR3qWKgVs9JZvqI8rcYoYz6Zgh2OQSAybv8HtMzOwe77crjg10ahgsTIKLp-fSSUow3UQuFTGQC626DqJA8di8j3Z2BZ76r9rYn0tKyh6xzrPFy66Ttn3_w=)
8. [gtreview.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEtKPQI1WXv-82Wyo3VINOwhp544dRzfOOErKAwYzZZruDdXTuJVwxgW-FKKT4nQZzHspWh8Ai6fNLFRwa7HkKB_YoZTUFZ-7ZB5WSDSl_OpeGsMVBaHOhrHZRJ_zbEPWSeX8NooWTGu0QGP_ODE03A-ZYr-n3aDNglTzGvDyeS4_dxBYLzL1R1jlj3ctscpn0-9r2aXQEfc6wB-w0oypbosUkoaTmYg8jZPw==)
9. [ft.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFajab_uWHHTayO6hBbiLGbJgVx3DbIUe9MaWQxdGvxLDphQ9r63TzOeZPnZ2VBYxlUwO4-fbNxWDja4c7cGrurJmQoFA5OTsX-2TXNxxokVXDZ-V6FiqW3rsregK9WKY_87e98wTG_JkghoKsmqZMlXqMZQhDgJ_yFSrh6f77gstEFaRg=)
10. [pacermonitor.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHRG4TkVkaNsSzUMEgCA_OllwSTEH_TYeAP0rIKF_J3uMaCW1Vqo0HxpLzcnCIWDul_T40Ecm_ryHu0cXkcXV26oCAweXASproXTW13IZDLHuPC1Byvqk3TXiUo5ijiR7JV834eWlPPsjG3v9GbvAN_VdKlYVi2yWLRk1e7WQnUSSyco3KD0p6grNtKKtZxRpY23XL05k8a8jymUPI8RXPAGFf8WkJ0FawBnZtB)
11. [pacermonitor.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGwDg9QsmaP_qCuNzTCOOBPGWiL4it7SbOpsm7gorMAjaFjcY7ejLXAHAojj2BiKukRlX2K9NeF3WTv95sDF_nD3qoDFXIXFIInELQ-fAkxhm2o1IpdvHhYecdbLJ2Z8NceHVw73dcUd2lK7NPB93dwkTfldLe7T-3awfB65JpFoUgGoIGNABU3yhm_HjB-pEcuVF9KTUdCEiVNUcJwQA==)
12. [bsfllp.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEDnpLvjRsRMnsfo10wP4821e1kqsvcpcjAeI155YI0aGnfzPKPEDjQK7dS1ZFRTK3SblWTCC3HEtClPp3OQcYLQ3c6I59pB8OtBbRiwatB-Yq6JUTvXAy7aDOgeE1xuFA=)
13. [claimsjournal.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQF7mVF3D6_NNbgZ8aAnTtfA73pmWx_8_3zUykIfsqiwzSgEzP9jNGitf_XfF47zUj7NIdzxXnVnUQoR3Mf_61NGmN8L-UG1_QlwluoU72YVoo87PVtFAQd-2bkCGko2AmOG3o8jFRXBNWafuQIoT0LppzA7ycFrPg==)
14. [ethisphere.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGco5qwR9nWpdYqtYy5Qc0VCOBgQ8y378bVQg3ABjh7BTh-3gzayqtOFn_KJeIYsizFRA6qHY2Mpv5-qzkhPhcAStZhKerShjR8Op6kEjrdPvRmfEHa3GasW86aCCaTZx5CTMwodDo_tiAowon9_0T2ZIHd3Mb6G1QdEp4esTYn4R1gBdaNghNrGQbrZgdOkHpqha1x)
15. [cobaltintelligence.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGQ3TEWrWFSEYjruyGQXpAqaQC1xzB3OXa6_TlRozFaRvk9SXQuFf_naadfDQo9CYTcVPPBAB6I6aaHfKXNyLahZQT9Vmm0sWpMj7orNxQg4beMomy272PO_4oKJNMAV_iYe9rkh5lirto1QEQRpZDDYavDa3Z_GJim_TD8fxL5n_rShn74N47hR_NVwg==)
16. [cascadedebt.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFTMQPgXiD5fySGnbddnpOYiyUbHjUTFr-_Qb4inzxbHAmlQLf2alkeceYXFcJ9t0I3MT7A5-aMrNq34x7MWWA9f-pBVt6XSFfzHEpAFkRT3KYAXnM4XLwAZrc=)
17. [weil.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEdle-0PePRYZfAcviy-x7Qc-0lUYCrmRZ7RMGKJ1S-OGl9Woz6HPmQN4Yu6hBqHVnUhIjMvgpA2d1vpVF_oPb2qP8r8CM3pTdwn8pgLsXUipZk6gB4ZtFRYfN9BNh8f3qW1CfKgqPInwMPI74KtvOS7j4d_KCDCHBEVWmHEAM3aLxrQe4zI8cPCbQWYr3SjJvYXHu-B5CeeoNzksnh7ZtR4Sgu3lm1GChrs_3_LDfxeaeziIyF406PXTMjtZzQLJ-NuFINp85oeDbybhV40yYfoBNQuMTA3P3b2m14)
18. [shumaker.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHVJ4orcNDukG6EIQ_KaUzt5F7w8xLUrDG3waOmdsheIkj8R7koIRPrTw9sZXMSO5ZZAxqAXfcC968YlZDY_v7F7TpE8PWPa1_vG7z61NG0KD-CASNyGo47NcBU3vrgWUbvvjyvS_GfArH9N6G8jVbXQYVVxUIXo5FPEBQOBQnrmBwiKSXqvjK7KBy7hfzrCC0s8eYOzsALfP0tAKX6bsExKLuDPeapx5z43XIxdlKjK-rgEFR4I1J7ukTruUxSgw==)
19. [dowjones.ai](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFdO_YyUyWI-qVxNBbemOi0QaPgWvKYiR1cf0YvfdeMCg7kyG1KDutxd_YFoelYBWGVW4eMVHCmdc4_aw666aFrP2wU-nST21srhR5gym08dgsP07jKottVXiyvFAqYu4oQfU1fLkNcq5Uc4b1HKJjjtyCSDtZkx9rPvM-DyzqhqgQCdmwx13IQCfqYbzUEVa_I33QxsjzS2HG56aTg5Bhr5YEpc8wGvsqGht1nc5UejGxSE8X64DE=)
20. [ionanalytics.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHAodAff-h3lX7Kr_KHSc0YV3aeuQogcpMyoToh-Y-m_ySUlJ9RaooXFfBVXCM7GggudAeKTX1-topczAGmgOs7_to4tvGdiIwDryZSZOHclez6NnZ-1IrNGT0T4N5bLe2UTvV0sDkKlz6SZN3td39cVhWk6dvQdYC4rrkrZpBY5i6wKJ3VuXC9rNmnpmh-2WlXL4io1Qg0HFyXMbhUgza-EIAJ6busqaQBxw4jEnc8Kktuoc6mF7eca19qRigrhAk=)
21. [bsfllp.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFJRBl22kS06d-EC5byg8kSyougrj1teMmnfbL8vUIdQEU0obYqfhSomE02hrpZVV7-v3AVJqpdmiauE_uI8c4T2tnXYwVB-olnypJUjU8pcrMCaNq8pnpuJQADwy7S7zl98U_1uAYrxqaDDakOkPMZFZ8cnQOMcDA=)
22. [bsfllp.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHF6kQgJB8ZJINBJAxyBTMamIy9yoqgTr4Zt5RzRAC52zf_8cfHBnoPTutLZ3PF38tyVwpEQPRy_bEI2qCijcvQVlDpjP9r4jioceIDf2tGwUhq0MFisfniEPUHcByahMyG248cXFqg)
23. [ibanet.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGT9vq0d_k2Omz12BPDVrtsCBsFKSr4g806xMtg1kOUJfn08Dmc7P40aEU1mhRiRQn-hx5kpVWc_0Yq4FsIGSZU_ZpFMx_d9C6VAwH9P6xv37RCIpYe5UH1ndc3uqPt6IATm-83MeOUtcC5HQSvYBMHFRPaYKq25X-w4JUwShgL)
24. [revistaoeste.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHWVqaArxFbzmqKcIhnouqxgRkhir9z9_5hh46hDxd5hPRKuCHAn_uopBpZWsD3-kzixb1_C108eiSmakGaIFpJGYHT2uo-UQAx3yXCpxuttk4Set7XXYqqNMYVcKERvVGa9d7NvvscqNK0DG2fdrnAJKp9P1EJctbXqFyQbV-YWGCehI4mynXzMKDH9ZDnW2WPKRZ2szzXBOXMmY6_C5dDi8EkUqPIb3kg)
25. [abfjournal.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFm3LwQiYv_MVRcEsXNOqaw0z4lYmat8n1XZm4uoUdKxFXUv-QHS06PLWiuizWH8rqYPc-JjwwE_7cK14vSKnAwkf82YhnH2-toJ4TVceeAaPTEI5DYyOKgKLE8isLtIU3SH-W7wo9jqiwwt91z2KXPpJWq2gbjRaaUnT7H4hviauFaUs1uzznbc2p7bP48hmXHKOjz15WQKV16Dran3CIdKXuC0tb-ED9qspkKPQJGRB6S-4It78fNUugbtgGp)
26. [natlawreview.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHiEsi9grSVTSXXS3VXuXSxSqzAbBzkmUkCKUOc47iWqAVkZLYRRfuVTC63cJ_MaLXv7xvoH2RYgzLr32wH3mlP00drQg7xRR9xHRcdEfqMWtVuuDSu7V6wHL71EnVM7P8TXQ7z7CWMhvBT8PWKKVXnm_6HjqwIerGymX0ePgNOEFLLErcdF8pyqXpfHYRbyBnetC35plidKHrdMw==)
27. [qresear.ch](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQELzXX5tO5QAZSloX2ngk40IiTDeRpClOBv7ermx4ZuVOwq3_nzOlSlFsCpB1JHcgwKh_BPRhl-NyuQpjEW6ZngcQ5uMlZw6EJaqSmTsZz9Lbao)
28. [hunton.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQE8-hri563SaxmSosT2sfyps_63FsFfxykEjNHbGrQwYZZao-UEoINKtyxJJMWS3dP_9r-P1jknTHiJrqYh1WL02K2VuHWbkj14IrA3Qfr1E2d1QPvaV0vTfI-pC1iWKq7eAUUX2aUlGIBCBdcNCMVM5WwhCoToERf1PAjM144b)
