MAALAT

Research Systems

COUNTERPARTY DISTRESS BRIEF · No. 06 · v1.1

RNDC Chapter 11 Wind-Down

Decision brief for a top-20 unsecured trade creditor

----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
AS OF CASE OPERATOR VERDICT

August 20, S.D. Tex. Top-20 trade PROCEED WITH
2026** 26-90737** creditor** CONDITIONS**
----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

AT A GLANCE

Republic National Distributing Company (RNDC), America's second-largest
beverage-alcohol wholesaler, filed Chapter 11 on 26 July 2026 as a
court-supervised wind-down, not a reorganisation. Eighteen affiliated
debtors are in the case; six operating joint ventures (New York,
Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky) and National Distributing
Company, Inc. are outside it. A joint Chapter 11 plan was filed 3 August

2026. The DIP order sets a 70-day clock to plan confirmation and 75 days
      to effectiveness. A top-20 unsecured trade creditor on the filed Form
      204 now holds a claim, not an invoice, and has weeks --- not quarters
      --- to organise around it.

This brief scores that decision under the MAALAT Decision Framework
v1.0. Verdict: PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS. The recovery arithmetic is a
low-single-digit to low-double-digit percentage on an uncertain
timetable, with a hard USD 2.5 million equityholder-settlement carve-out
earmarked for general unsecured creditors outside the plan waterfall.
Real value protection sits in three parallel workstreams: preference
defence, claim discipline against the correct legal entity, and
re-underwriting the go-forward book on tightened terms.

*Version 1.1 corrects the DIP facility figure (USD 250 million total;
USD 75 million new money plus USD 175 million roll-up of pre-petition
obligations), incorporates the 3 August 2026 joint plan and the USD
50.25 million equityholder settlement, tightens the master recovery
trigger, and narrows several legal-framing points flagged in the
pre-ship audit.*

maalat.co · founder@maalat.co

*Disclaimer: MAALAT briefs are analytical framing for a defined operator
profile. They are not legal, financial, tax, banking, or purchasing
advice, and they do not create an adviser--client relationship with any
reader. Decisions on specific facts should be taken with the reader's
own counsel and advisers. All facts trace to public sources cited in
§13; analytical judgments are labelled as MAALAT synthesis in the body
of the brief.*

1 · Executive verdict

Verdict: PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS.

You cannot walk away from an exposure that has already crystallised into
a Chapter 11 claim. The decision is not whether to engage with the
process --- you are already in it. The decision is which conditions you
must build into your workstreams to protect residual value. Four
conditions are non-negotiable. Failure on any one erodes recovery below
the base-case range.

The four conditions

• **Condition 1 --- File and defend a proof of claim against the correct
  debtor entity** before the bar date the court sets. The Form 204 filed
  on the petition is expressly not an admission of liability and the
  debtors reserve the right to challenge amount, validity, priority and
  characterisation. Reconcile invoices to the specific legal entity on
  each remittance --- there are 18 debtor entities, two of them sharing
  the name "Republic National Distributing Company, LLC."

• Condition 2 --- Assemble a §547 preference defence file now
  covering the 27 April 2026 -- 25 July 2026 window. Insolvency is
  statutorily presumed for that period and the burden of proving each
  defence sits on the creditor. Build subsequent new value, ordinary
  course of business, and contemporaneous exchange defences in that
  order --- MAALAT's expected-value ranking for a trade creditor with
  recent shipments inside the window; the statute itself does not rank
  the defences.

• Condition 3 --- Separate the two exposures. The Reyes Beverage
  Group acquisition of eleven RNDC markets closed 29 May 2026,
  pre-petition. Reyes is not a §363 successor; residual claims stayed in
  the estate. Do not conflate the frozen pre-petition receivable with
  the go-forward Reyes relationship --- they are separate credit
  exposures and separate legal counterparties.

• **Condition 4 --- Re-underwrite the surviving three-tier book on
  tightened terms and re-forecast working capital against the frozen
  receivable.** The national menu has narrowed to roughly Southern
  Glazer's, Breakthru, Johnson Brothers plus Reyes as a new national
  wine-and-spirits counterparty. Fewer names means higher single-name
  concentration. If you tighten terms with a stressed distributor,
  tighten all the way to cash-in-advance or COD --- a half-move
  (reducing terms without reaching CIA or COD) weakens both the
  ordinary-course-of-business and contemporaneous-exchange defences,
  though it does not eliminate a fact-specific subsequent-new-value
  defence. Reserve expected preference exposure and litigation costs
  against the frozen receivable in the same quarter; do not treat the
  two exposures as offsetting.

2 · Operator and decision scope

Under the MAALAT Decision Framework v1.0, a commercial decision is
defined by five elements: identifiable operator, specific counterparty
or situation, finite action set, material stake, and timeline. This
brief locks each element before verdict.

The five elements

----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
OPERATOR A beverage brand owner, importer,
or supplier that appears on the
Form 204 filed 26 July 2026 as a
top-20 unsecured trade creditor of
RNDC. A claim of roughly USD 3--95
million against one or more of the
18 debtor entities.

COUNTERPARTY Republic National Distributing
Company, LLC and 17 affiliated
debtors, jointly administered under
Case 26-90737 (S.D. Tex.) before
Judge Christopher M. Lopez. Not the
six non-debtor JVs or National
Distributing Company, Inc.

ACTION SET Five discrete actions, executable
in parallel: (a) file and defend
the proof of claim; (b) build the
§547 preference-defence file; (c)
re-paper and re-underwrite the
Reyes relationship in the eleven
acquired markets; (d) re-underwrite
credit limits across the surviving
national wholesalers; (e) evaluate
self-distribution and
direct-to-consumer as transitional
bridges in permitting states only.

MATERIAL STAKE Two exposures, tracked separately.
First, the crystallised
pre-petition receivable ---
recoverable at the plan's general
unsecured percentage, whatever that
turns out to be. Second, the 90-day
preference clawback exposure, which
is symmetric with the receivable
and often larger in effective
dollar risk. Third-order:
reputational and franchise-law
positioning across 24--41 wholesale
states.

TIMELINE The DIP order sets a 5-business-day
plan filing, 30-day binding
purchase agreements for remaining
sales, 70-day plan confirmation,
75-day effective date --- from the
26 July 2026 petition. Confirmation
targets early October 2026. Claims
bar date not confirmed as of this
brief; treat as imminent-but-unset.
Second-day hearing 24 August 2026.
----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Scope constraints

• This brief serves ONE operator profile. It does not attempt to map
  recovery for all ~100,000 creditors, does not analyse the debtors'
  tax posture, environmental liability, or employment litigation, and
  does not opine on the equity settlement or bond-holder litigation.

• Recovery estimates in §6 are presented as ranges, not forecasts. No
  filed liquidation analysis for RNDC has been publicly confirmed as of
  the brief's as-of date. The range is anchored on sector comparables
  and waterfall arithmetic; it will shift when the disclosure
  statement's liquidation analysis is read.

3 · The filing and the perimeter

3.1 The case at a glance

----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Item Value

Petition date 26 July 2026

Court U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern
District of Texas (Houston)

Case number 26-90737 (jointly administered)

Presiding judge Christopher M. Lopez

Claims / noticing agent Omni Agent Solutions

Estimated assets USD 500 million -- USD 1 billion
(petition band)

Estimated liabilities USD 1 billion -- USD 10 billion
(petition band)

Estimated creditors More than 100,000

Funded debt at petition ~USD 540 million (~USD 492.4m
secured + ~USD 47.7m unsecured
owner notes)

DIP facility (total) USD 250 million super-priority
priming facility, SOFR + 8.50%
across both tranches, 3% closing /
2% exit fees, 90-day maturity with
60-day extension option

DIP --- new money USD 75 million revolver (up to USD
50 million on interim order;
balance on final order). This is
the only new liquidity in the case.

DIP --- roll-up USD 175 million roll-up of
pre-petition first-lien obligations
into super-priority DIP
obligations: USD 66.3 million of
January 2026 delayed-draw term
loans (rolled on interim order)
plus USD 108.7 million of ABL
revolver borrowings (rolled on
final order). All USD 175 million
ranks pari passu with the new-money
tranche and senior to every
unsecured trade claim.

Joint plan filed 3 August 2026 --- provides for
section 363 sales where any remain,
an orderly wind-down, an
equityholder settlement (USD 50.25
million cash from NBG and NDC on
the effective date, of which no
less than USD 2.5 million is a hard
general-unsecured-claim carve-out
outside the plan waterfall), and a
litigation trust for DIP, ABL/FILO
deficiency and general unsecured
claims.

Character Court-supervised wind-down, not a
reorganisation. Petition
affirmatively represents "funds
will be available for distribution
to unsecured creditors."
----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**3.2 The DIP milestone clock --- the constraint that governs
everything**

The DIP order sets a compressed timetable. Every workstream in this
brief runs against it.

• Plan and disclosure statement filed within 5 business days of the
  petition.

• Binding purchase agreements for a majority of remaining going-concern
  sales within 30 days.

• Plan confirmation within 70 days of the petition --- targeted early
  October 2026.

• Effective date within 75 days.

Second-day hearing 24 August 2026, 1:00 p.m. CT. The joint plan filed 3
August 2026 defines claims bar dates by reference to the Plan Effective
Date rather than by fixed calendar dates: administrative claims within
30 days of the effective date, professional fee claims within 45 days,
claims-objection window of 180 days after the effective date. The
effective date itself is not yet fixed; the DIP milestone clock targets
it within 75 days of petition, i.e. on or around 9 October 2026. Monitor
the Omni portal for the confirmation-hearing order that will make these
dates certain.

3.3 Who is inside and who is outside the filing

This is the single most operationally important distinction in the case.
RNDC's own statement confirms:

*"National Distributing Company, Inc. is not part of the Chapter 11
filing. The Company's joint venture in Alaska is the only joint venture
included in the filing, while the Company's joint ventures in New York,
Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Kentucky are not part of the
filing."*

The eighteen debtor entities, per the petition's Rider 1 / Schedule I:

----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
# Debtor Jurisdiction

1 Republic National Delaware
Distributing Company,
LLC (lead)

2 8201 Associates, LLC Maryland

3 K&L Beverage Company, Delaware
LLC

4 RNDC Michigan Holdings, Michigan
LLC

5 RNDC of North Dakota, North Dakota
Inc.

6 Republic National Nebraska
Distributing Company,
LLC (second entity)

7 RNDC Alaska, LLC Alaska

8 RNDC Arkansas, LLC Arkansas

9 RNDC Indiana Holdings, Indiana
LLC

10 RNDC New Hampshire, LLC New Hampshire

11 RNDC Receivables, LLC Delaware

12 RNDC Shared Services, Delaware
LLC

13 RNDC Texas, LLC Texas

14 WSJV Holdings, Inc. Delaware

15 Young's Market Company Arizona
of Arizona, LLC

16 Young's Market Company Oregon
of Oregon, LLC

17 Young's Market Company Oregon
of Washington, LLC

18 Young's Market Company, Delaware
LLC
----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

The naming trap

Two debtors share the name "Republic National Distributing Company, LLC"
(Delaware and Nebraska). The Michigan and Indiana holdings entities are
debtors while the Michigan and Indiana operating joint ventures are
non-debtors. A creditor who reconciles by the RNDC trade name rather
than the specific legal entity on each invoice will file the claim
wrong.

Non-debtor perimeter --- no bankruptcy leverage there

Receivables owed by the New York, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana or
Kentucky joint ventures, or by National Distributing Company, Inc.
(which serves Georgia and New Mexico), are generally outside this
Chapter 11 case and are not resolved through this proof-of-claim
process. They are commercial receivables against solvent counterparties.
Any recovery strategy against those entities sits outside the bankruptcy
workstream and should be scoped with counsel separately; do not file a
proof of claim against them in Case 26-90737.

4 · The top-20 creditor ladder

Primary source: Official Form 204 filed with the petition on a
consolidated basis across all 18 debtors. The listing is expressly not
an admission of liability. Flag key: C = contingent, U = unliquidated, D
= disputed.

-------------- ---------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Rank Creditor Nature Flags **Amount
(USD)**

1 Proximo Spirits Trade / C, U, D 93,923,223
litigation

2 Reyes Holdings, Contract claim C, U, D Undetermined
L.L.C.

3 Empower Annuity Deferred C 62,400,000
Insurance Co. compensation

4 Wells Fargo Bank debt C, U, D Total facility
Bank, N.A., as (mixed) USD 224.9m;
agent unsecured
deficiency
portion
undetermined
pending
waterfall

5 First American Equipment --- 47,216,781
Commercial lease
Bancorp

6 Delicato Family Trade --- 14,433,431
Wines

7 Park Street Litigation C, U, D 13,216,683
Imports LLC

8 Meridian Park Lease C 10,216,091
South Bldg D, rejection
LLC

9 Young's Lease C 7,012,674
Holdings, Inc. rejection

10 Misa Imports Trade --- 6,412,371

11 Edrington Trade --- 5,638,056

12 Jackson Family Trade --- 4,797,104
Classics

13 Anheuser-Busch Trade --- 4,735,781
Inc.

14 USLP Tracy IV, Lease C 4,520,172
LP rejection

15 J. Lohr Trade --- 4,109,516

16 Informatica LLC Trade --- 4,108,668

17 Pernod Ricard Trade --- 4,074,763

18 Mark Cawthorn Litigation C, U, D 3,766,427

19 Crimson Wine Trade --- 3,594,840
Group

20 Luxco Inc. Trade --- 3,585,280
-------------- ---------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Three structural observations

• The trade tier is thin at the top. Only one trade claim exceeds
  USD 15 million (Proximo). Below Delicato at USD 14.4 million, the
  entire supplier ladder collapses into the low single-digit millions. A
  supplier with USD 3--5 million exposed is already a top-20 creditor
  --- which means both a plausible official-committee seat and a
  near-certain preference-demand target.

• Lease-rejection and litigation claims dilute the trade tier. Four
  of the top 20 (ranks 8, 9, 14, 18) are lease-rejection or litigation
  claims, all contingent. If they are allowed at face value, the
  unsecured denominator grows and every trade creditor's percentage
  recovery falls. Conversely, if the debtors cap or disallow them, trade
  recovery improves. Watching the claims-objection docket is therefore a
  recovery-relevant activity, not a legal formality.

• The largest claim in the case is disputed. The Proximo claim
  carries all three flags --- contingent, unliquidated and disputed ---
  and is characterised as "trade / litigation." MAALAT read:* a
  committee whose largest voice is a disputed claim tends to negotiate
  differently than one dominated by clean trade claims --- smaller trade
  suppliers with clean claims often gain disproportionate influence on
  plan-formation questions. This is an operator observation, not a
  case-law rule.

5 · The preference window --- the highest-value workstream

Under 11 U.S.C. §547(b) the trustee may avoid transfers made to a
non-insider creditor on account of antecedent debt during the 90 days
before the petition, if the transfer left the creditor better off than a
chapter 7 liquidation. Insolvency is presumed for that 90-day period
under §547(f). The burden of proving each affirmative defence sits on
the creditor under §547(g).

5.1 The RNDC window

----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Petition date 26 July 2026

90-day non-insider look-back **27 April 2026 through 25 July
2026**

Insider look-back (§547(b)(4)(B)) **26 July 2025 through 26 April
2026**

De minimis threshold (non-consumer) **USD 8,575 per §547(c)(9)
(adjusted 1 April 2025)**
----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Case-specific overlay. The Reyes closing on 29 May 2026 falls inside the
90-day window, as does the Quality Brands closing on 10 July 2026. Any
catch-up payment funded by sale proceeds in June or July 2026 will draw
scrutiny. The transition weeks --- precisely when RNDC was trying to
keep brands cooperative through a handover --- are the highest-risk
cohort.

5.2 Three defences, in MAALAT's order of expected value

*The Bankruptcy Code does not rank the affirmative defences under
§547(c). The order below is MAALAT's expected-value ranking for a trade
creditor with recent shipments inside the window; different fact
patterns (single-payment exposure, no post-shipment activity,
all-cash-in-advance history) will re-order them.*

(a) Subsequent new value --- §547(c)(4)

The strongest defence for a beverage supplier that kept shipping cases
into RNDC through the spring of 2026. New value given after each
transfer reduces exposure by the value of that new shipment. "New value"
means money or money's worth in goods, services or new credit --- not an
obligation substituted for an existing obligation.

The evidentiary build is a transaction-by-transaction, date-ordered
chronology of payments received and goods shipped, from 27 April 2026
onward. Aggregate totals will not carry the argument; the
shipment-by-shipment record will.

(b) Ordinary course of business --- §547(c)(2)

Since 2005, §547(c)(2) is a disjunctive test: the creditor may prove
either a subjective ordinary course between these two parties or an
objective industry-norm standard. The subjective build requires a
multi-year invoice-to-payment history showing that the 90-day window
sits inside the historical days-to-pay band.

Practical warning: where a supplier tightened terms as RNDC deteriorated
--- shortening credit, demanding faster remittance, applying holds ---
the subjective ordinary-course defence weakens. The argument then has to
shift onto (c)(1) or (c)(4). A half-move --- tightening terms but not
reaching cash-in-advance or cash-on-delivery --- weakens both the
ordinary-course and contemporaneous-exchange defences at once. A
fact-specific subsequent-new-value defence can still be preserved, but
only where continued shipments after each tightening are documented
shipment-by-shipment.

(c) Contemporaneous exchange for new value --- §547(c)(1)

This is the defence for suppliers who moved RNDC to cash-in-advance,
cash-on-delivery or pay-before-release terms once distress became
visible. Those payments look preferential under §547(b) and fail
subjective ordinary-course under §547(c)(2) precisely because terms
changed --- but they are the paradigm case for §547(c)(1).
Contemporaneous documentation of the terms change and same-day or
near-same-day shipment against payment is the entire defence.

5.3 The pre-litigation leverage point

The 2019 amendment inserted into §547(b) the requirement that avoidance
be based on "reasonable due diligence in the circumstances of the case
and taking into account a party's known or reasonably knowable
affirmative defenses." A well-documented defence package sent
proactively is not merely persuasive; it goes to whether the estate
conducted the diligence the statute requires. Suppliers who respond to
preference demands with a substantive, evidenced package materially
improve settlement outcomes. This is a general observation on §547(b) as
amended in 2019, not legal advice on any specific fact pattern; each
creditor's defence posture should be scoped with counsel.

Why this workstream is the highest-value dollar for dollar

Any dollar returned to the estate comes back only at the plan's
unsecured recovery rate. If that rate is 5--10%, a USD 500,000
preference clawback surrendered nets recovery on that USD 500,000 of
only USD 25,000--USD 50,000. Defended and reduced by half, the same
clawback saves USD 250,000 in cash. Preference defence is typically
worth more per dollar of effort than claim maximisation.

6 · The recovery arithmetic

*This section carries the highest uncertainty in the brief. It is
presented as a range, not a forecast.*

6.1 The waterfall inputs

----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Input Value

Funded debt ~USD 540 million (~USD 492.4m
secured + ~USD 47.7m unsecured
owner notes)

Wells Fargo agent claim (Form 204) USD 224,947,167 total; unsecured
portion undetermined

Pre-petition January 2026 lender USD 250 million incremental
commitment commitment agreed under the
Fourteenth Amendment (16 January
2026), conditioned on the Reyes
closing and the sale of remaining
markets. Not to be confused with
the DIP.

DIP facility --- total **USD 250 million: USD 75 million
super-priority stack ahead of GUCs new-money revolver plus USD 175
million roll-up (USD 66.3m
delayed-draw term loans + USD
108.7m ABL revolver borrowings).
All USD 250 million ranks
super-priority, senior to every
general unsecured claim in the
waterfall.**

Equityholder settlement (from NBG + USD 50.25 million cash on effective
NDC) date (USD 10.25m NBG + USD 40m
NDC), plus waivers of second-lien
facility, deferred compensation and
(for NBG) owner-notes claims, in
exchange for releases.

GUC cash carve-out from **No less than USD 2.5 million
equityholder settlement allocated pro rata to Class 7
general unsecured claims outside
the plan waterfall. This is a
floor, not a ceiling.**

Balance of equityholder cash inside ~USD 47.75 million flows into
waterfall Distributable Proceeds, subject to
the full six-tier plan waterfall
(DIP first).

Litigation trust D&O-covered claims, causes of
action against Young's Holdings and
YHI Spirits, and avoidance actions
vest in a litigation trust for the
benefit of DIP claim holders,
ABL/FILO deficiency holders, and
general unsecured claim holders.
Recoveries on D&O-covered claims
are limited to available insurance
proceeds after covered defence
costs.

Reyes net proceeds (11 markets) >USD 1 billion in net proceeds
(gross price undisclosed). Applied
to funded debt and case costs
before the plan waterfall runs.

Petition band --- total assets USD 500 million -- USD 1 billion

Petition band --- total liabilities USD 1 billion -- USD 10 billion

General unsecured pool (trade press >USD 400 million --- working
estimate) estimate, to be verified against
filed liquidation analysis

Implied GUC recovery percentage Not yet confirmed. No filed
liquidation analysis was publicly
obtained as of the brief's as-of
date. Working range:
low-single-digit to
low-double-digit percent, with a
hard floor from the USD 2.5m GUC
carve-out (pro rata across the
class).
----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**The plan waterfall --- the six-tier priority stack for Distributable
Proceeds**

The joint plan filed 3 August 2026 sets the following priority order for
Distributable Proceeds. General unsecured trade claims recover only
after the first five tiers are satisfied.

• First: unpaid DIP claims (in cash unless holders agree otherwise). USD
  250 million of super-priority obligations sit here.

• Second: allowed administrative claims and priority tax claims, other
  than DIP and professional fee claims.

• Third: allowed other secured claims, to the extent of collateral
  proceeds.

• Fourth: allowed other priority claims.

• Fifth: allowed pre-petition ABL/FILO claims.

• Sixth: allowed pre-petition ABL/FILO deficiency claims and allowed
  general unsecured claims, pari passu.

*The USD 2.5 million GUC cash carve-out is expressly outside this
waterfall and reaches Class 7 (general unsecured claims) directly, ahead
of any waterfall pro-ration.*

6.2 The closest sector comparable

Vintage Wine Estates Inc. (D. Del., Case 24-11575-MFW), filed 24 July
2024, was converted to a liquidating plan with a liquidation trust.
Reported projected recoveries:

• Pre-petition secured lender claims (~USD 310.9 million): 39%

• General unsecured creditors: 5--8%

• Pre-petition secured lender deficiency claims: 1--4%

*This figure is an order-of-magnitude anchor, not a forecast. It is
drawn from a case-summary source and should be verified against the
filed VWE disclosure statement before being cited as confirmed.*

6.3 How to plan against the range

Three facts pull the range and must be presented together.

• Positive: the petition affirmatively represents funds will be
  available for unsecured creditors; Reyes generated more than USD 1
  billion of net proceeds; the equityholder settlement contributes USD
  50.25 million of cash on the effective date; and USD 2.5 million of
  that is a hard general-unsecured floor outside the waterfall. The
  litigation trust adds contingent upside from D&O-covered claims,
  avoidance actions and claims against Young's Holdings and YHI Spirits.

• Negative: the estimated-liabilities band on the petition is USD
  1bn--10bn against estimated assets of USD 500m--1bn; USD 250 million
  of super-priority DIP claims sit ahead of every trade claim; and the
  pool is further diluted by large lease-rejection and
  deferred-compensation claims.

• Structural: the plan's six-tier waterfall does not pay general
  unsecured claims from Distributable Proceeds until five higher tiers
  are satisfied. The USD 2.5m carve-out is the only piece of the
  equityholder settlement that reaches GUCs without competing at the
  waterfall.

**Base-case planning assumption for a top-20 creditor: low-single-digit
to low-double-digit percentage recovery, with a hard floor from the
pro-rata share of the USD 2.5 million carve-out across the Class 7
general-unsecured pool. Any recovery above that is upside from
Distributable Proceeds and litigation-trust outcomes, not a base case.**

What would move the estimate

• The liquidation analysis attached to the disclosure statement.

• The outcome of the Reyes true-up dispute (Reyes sits at rank 2 of Form
  204 with an undetermined claim; a large allowed Reyes claim dilutes
  Class 7).

• The treatment of the USD 62.4 million Empower deferred-compensation
  claim and the four large lease-rejection claims that compete in the
  same class.

• Litigation-trust monetisation of D&O-covered claims, avoidance
  actions, and claims against Young's Holdings and YHI Spirits.

• Whether the estate obtains further consideration from ABL/FILO
  deficiency holders or from the DIP lenders for the litigation trust.

7 · The Reyes transaction --- closed pre-petition, outside §363

The Reyes acquisition is the single most misunderstood fact in the case
for a supplier trying to follow its brands. It closed on 29 May 2026 ---
nearly two months before the 26 July 2026 petition. Because the closing
occurred pre-petition, the transaction sits entirely outside §363; the
free-and-clear and good-faith-purchaser protections of §363(f) and
§363(m) do not attach at all. The consequences below flow from that
timing.

7.1 Timeline

----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
Milestone Date Detail

Talks confirmed 13 January 2026 Seven markets: FL, HI,
IL, MD, SC, VA, DC

Definitive agreements 20 March 2026 Eleven markets: AZ, CO,
FL, HI, LA, MD, OK, SC,
TX, VA, DC. Illinois
dropped from the
January list.

CLOSING 29 May 2026 **Closed pre-petition.
Acquired operations now
trade as RBG Spirits
and Wine. Adds ~5,200
employees, >135,000
customers, ~38 million
annual cases.**

Consideration >USD 1 billion net Gross price undisclosed

Suppliers transitioned ~700 Trade-press estimate;
the operator is one of
a large cohort inside a
newly integrated
organisation.
----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

7.2 Why the closing date matters

The Reyes acquisition closed on 29 May 2026, pre-petition. Two
commercial consequences follow directly from that timing; the §363
observations are subordinate and flow from the same fact.

• **RBG Spirits and Wine is a new commercial counterparty, not a
  successor to RNDC.** A supplier following its brands into RBG is doing
  new-counterparty diligence, not continuing an existing relationship.
  Any residual claims against RNDC --- unpaid invoices, unremitted
  depletion allowances, billbacks, co-op accruals --- stayed behind in
  the estate.

• Reyes is itself an adverse party in the estate. Reyes appears at
  rank 2 of Form 204 as a claimant with an undetermined, contingent,
  unliquidated and disputed contract claim. A supplier negotiating
  go-forward terms with Reyes while pursuing a claim in a case where
  Reyes is an adverse party should keep the two workstreams strictly
  separated.

• Subordinate observation on §363. Because the closing was
  pre-petition, the §363(f) free-and-clear and §363(m)
  good-faith-purchaser protections that would attach to a court-approved
  sale never attach here. This is a consequence of the timing, not an
  independent risk factor.

7.3 The re-underwriting checklist

• Confirm which legal entity issues purchase orders post-closing.

• Re-paper distribution agreements rather than relying on assumed
  continuity. Franchise protection can attach through verbal and
  "implied in fact" agreements --- a live risk in a fast, disorderly
  handover.

• Reconcile inventory transferred at closing, including any allocation
  of unsaleable stock.

• Confirm treatment of accrued billbacks and depletion allowances that
  straddle the closing.

• Do not assume Illinois transitions. Illinois was in the January talks
  but not in the March definitive agreements, and remains a non-debtor
  JV market.

7.4 The other buyers --- this is a break-up, not one deal

• Martignetti Companies: agreed April 2026 for RNDC's 17-state
  control-state operations.

• Columbia Distributing: agreed April 2026 for Alaska, Oregon and
  Washington; OR and WA completed ~30 June 2026.

• Quality Brands Distribution: closed 10 July 2026 for Nebraska, North
  Dakota and South Dakota.

• The sale process engaged 26 potential buyers with 14 NDAs signed.

8 · The surviving three-tier landscape

With RNDC winding down and its markets distributed across multiple
acquirers, the national counterparty menu has narrowed. Concentration
risk goes up, not down.

8.1 The ranked field

----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Distributor Footprint / scale

**Southern Glazer's Wine & 120+ offices across 41 states;
Spirits** represents 1,000+ American
wineries; "Proof" B2B platform
processed USD 3 billion since 2019

**Reyes Beverage Group (post-RBG 16 states covering ~52% of U.S.
deal)** legal-drinking-age population; 90
distribution facilities; 15,000+
employees; 360m+ annual cases;
~240,000 retail accounts

Johnson Brothers Liquor Company 24 states; total market ~140
million LDA Americans; St. Paul, MN

Breakthru Beverage Group 16 states post-Wine Warehouse
acquisition; USD 7.5 billion annual
sales

**Winebow / Empire / Georgia Crowne Strong regionals filling in the
/ Opici / Martignetti / Empire gaps. Martignetti dominant in the
Merchants** Northeast; Opici is the New York JV
counterparty for RNDC.
----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

8.2 Where the brands actually landed

The brands that left RNDC did not consolidate into one acquirer.
Documented realignments in the last twelve months:

• Brown-Forman April 2026 control-states realignment --- 11 markets
  across four distributors: Johnson Brothers (ID, MT, NC, OR, UT, WY);
  Southern Glazer's (ME, NH, VT); Superior Beverage Group (OH); Great
  Lakes Wine & Spirits (MI). Effective 1 June 2026.

• Pernod Ricard March 2026 realignment --- markets spread across Reyes
  (MD/DC), Southern Glazer's (TX/OK/LA), Johnson Brothers (the Dakotas,
  Nebraska, Indiana).

• Proximo January 2026 realignment --- to Breakthru, Johnson Brothers
  and Southern Glazer's.

• Sazerac 2022--23 exit --- partly to beer wholesalers: Columbia
  Distributing (WA), Eagle Rock (CO), Reyes Beer Division (CA, FL, TX).

8.3 The concentration read

The realistic national menu has shrunk to roughly four: Southern
Glazer's, Breakthru, Johnson Brothers, plus Reyes as a newly national
wine-and-spirits counterparty. Consolidation risk is not hypothetical:
Provi is pursuing a legal complaint against the #1 and #2 wholesalers
alleging they colluded to harm its e-commerce business.

Sector working-capital backdrop matters too. Wholesale beverage-alcohol
inventories grew from USD 18.7 billion (September 2019) to USD 25.5
billion (September 2023). Wholesalers never receive alcohol on
consignment; any inventory overhang is effectively unrealised cash.
Re-underwriting counterparties in this environment is a sector-wide
constraint, not an RNDC-specific defect.

9 · Franchise law and the DTC / self-distribution bridge

**9.1 Franchise law makes distributor switches expensive --- except in
bankruptcy**

Franchise laws make it exceedingly difficult and costly for a producer
to terminate a state wholesaler. Twenty-one states carry some form of
wine-franchise protection, and beer franchise laws are near-universal.
Critically, these protections "are implied in any alcoholic beverage
supplier-distributor agreement, including verbal and implied-in-fact
agreements." Franchise protection can attach to a new relationship
without any signed agreement --- a live risk during a fast, disorderly
handover.

The rigid states, briefly

• Georgia --- producer must file a notice of intention; incumbent
  wholesaler may object and trigger an administrative hearing. Absent
  voluntary release or a favourable outcome, the producer may be forced
  to withdraw the brand from the state for four years.

• Virginia --- statutory good-cause requirement; the Virginia Supreme
  Court held in 1996 that a winery's good-faith exercise of business
  judgment does not constitute good cause absent performance
  deficiencies.

• Ohio --- successor-manufacturer exception on brand transfer, with
  90-day notice and compensation; courts have consistently denied
  large-brewer attempts to use the exemption.

• North Carolina --- termination in violation of state law may trigger
  permit suspension, product-shipment orders, and penalties of USD
  15,000--35,000.

• Delaware --- terminating supplier owes the distributor reasonable
  compensation based on average annual gross profits of terminated
  brands.

• Nevada --- franchise law applies to beer, wine and spirits.

**9.2 The one exception that actually helps you: insolvency as good
cause**

Before reaching "good cause," ask whether there is a state-specific
statutory trigger tied to insolvency or licence loss. In several
franchise states the Chapter 11 filing (or the licence and going-concern
consequences that follow) can operate as an enumerated "good cause"
ground or a distinct termination trigger --- subject in each case to the
specific statutory language, the notice and compensation provisions of
that state, and whether the counterparty is a debtor. Where that pathway
exists, the termination process is materially less onerous than a
fault-based termination on the merits. It is not automatic, uniform
across states, or a substitute for state-by-state counsel review.

Two constraints follow.

• Entity-specific. The trigger exists only against the 18 debtors.
  In New York, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Kentucky the
  counterparty is a non-debtor JV --- no filing, no insolvency trigger,
  and the supplier must exit on ordinary franchise-law terms with all
  the friction that implies.

• Windows close. Ohio's successor-manufacturer exception requires
  90-day notice; other statutory notice and cure periods run 60--90
  days. A supplier that waits for the wind-down to conclude before
  papering terminations may forfeit its cleanest exit.

9.3 DTC and self-distribution as a transitional bridge

Self-distribution --- acting as one's own wholesaler --- is permitted
for out-of-state wineries in fourteen states plus two conditional. It is
not permitted in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas or Virginia --- the bulk
of the wholesale volume.

DTC shipping has structural conflicts with wholesale distribution in
specific states:

• Indiana: no DTC shipping if the winery is in wholesale distribution.
  Indiana is a non-debtor JV market.

• Wyoming and Louisiana: only products not already in wholesale
  distribution may ship DTC.

• Mississippi: restrictions on distributed wines unless "highly
  allocated."

• New Jersey: 250,000-gallon production cap.

• Oklahoma: no fulfilment houses permitted.

• Rhode Island: on-site purchase requirement.

• Delaware: DTC amended before passage in ways advocates call
  unworkable. Treat as closed in practice.

The structural conclusion

DTC and self-distribution are not a substitute for wholesale coverage
for a top-20 RNDC creditor. Where self-distribution is available it
correlates usefully with the RNDC map --- Arizona, Arkansas, Maryland,
Ohio, Oregon, Washington and North Dakota all appear in the debtor or
divested-market set. Self-distribution is best framed as a transitional
bridge in a handful of permitted states, sized to protect key accounts
during a wholesaler handover --- not a strategic channel replacement.

10 · The five operator actions

Five discrete workstreams, executable in parallel. Sequenced by expected
dollar value --- not by chronological order, since they overlap.

Action (a) --- File and defend a proof of claim

• Where: claims administered by Omni Agent Solutions; Case 26-90737
  (S.D. Tex.) before Judge Christopher M. Lopez.

• When: the joint plan filed 3 August 2026 defines bar dates by
  reference to the Plan Effective Date (administrative claims: 30 days
  post-effective; professional fees: 45 days; claims-objection window:
  180 days). The effective date is not yet fixed. Monitor Omni portal
  and the 24 August 2026 second-day hearing for the confirmation-hearing
  order.

• Entity discipline: reconcile invoices to the specific debtor entity.
  Two debtors share the RNDC LLC name. The Michigan/Indiana holdings
  entities are debtors; the operating JVs are not.

• Do not file against non-debtors: NY, IL, OH, MI, IN, KY JVs and NDC
  Inc. are not in the case. Pursue those commercially or in state court.

**Action (f) --- Prepare to seek a seat on the official unsecured
creditors' committee**

• Why standalone: with only one trade claim above USD 15 million and the
  rest below, a supplier with a few million dollars exposed has
  disproportionate influence on an official committee. Committee
  participation directly shapes objections to the USD 62.4 million
  Empower claim and the four large lease-rejection claims that dilute
  Class 7 recovery.

• Prepare in advance: draft a one-page statement of interest,
  willingness to serve, and no known conflicts, ready to submit to the
  U.S. Trustee if solicited. Committees are typically formed early in a
  case; the window to be considered is short.

• Escalation: if a seat is offered, escalate immediately to
  management-level attention. The role converts a small trade claim into
  leverage on plan-formation questions that determine GUC recovery.

• Related workstream: independent of committee membership, monitor the
  claims-objection docket. Objections to the Empower claim, the Reyes
  claim, and lease-rejection claims move recovery in either direction.

Action (b) --- Build the §547 preference-defence file now

• Window: 27 April 2026 -- 25 July 2026. Insolvency presumed under
  §547(f); burden of defence on the creditor under §547(g).

• Three files, in order of expected value: subsequent new value
  (§547(c)(4)) first, ordinary course (§547(c)(2)) second,
  contemporaneous exchange (§547(c)(1)) third.

• Case-specific red flag: any catch-up payment received around the 29
  May 2026 Reyes closing or 10 July 2026 Quality Brands closing sits
  inside the window and will draw scrutiny.

• Leverage point: §547(b) requires the estate to conduct "reasonable due
  diligence... taking into account... known or reasonably knowable
  affirmative defenses." Send the defence package proactively; it
  constrains the estate's demand.

• Economic asymmetry: a dollar not clawed back is worth USD 1.00; a
  dollar returned to the pool comes back only at the plan's unsecured
  recovery rate. Preference defence is dollar-for-dollar the
  highest-yielding workstream.

Action (c) --- Follow the brands into Reyes, on rebuilt terms

• Eleven acquired markets: AZ, CO, FL, HI, LA, MD, OK, SC, TX, VA, DC.
  Illinois is not on the closed list.

• Reyes is not a §363 successor. Pre-closing claims stayed in the
  estate; the Reyes relationship is a new commercial counterparty.

• ~700 suppliers transitioned. The operator is one of a large cohort
  inside a newly integrated organisation absorbing ~5,200 employees and
  >135,000 customers.

• Re-underwriting checklist: confirm the invoicing entity; re-paper
  distribution agreements (do not rely on implied continuity); reconcile
  transferred inventory; confirm treatment of straddled billbacks and
  depletion allowances.

• Keep separate: preference / claim workstream against the estate, and
  go-forward commercial workstream with Reyes. Do not conflate.

**Action (d) --- Re-underwrite credit limits with the surviving
wholesalers**

• Counterparty set narrows to Southern Glazer's, Breakthru, Johnson
  Brothers plus Reyes. Fewer counterparties means higher single-name
  concentration. Set explicit per-distributor exposure caps and monitor
  them.

• Use RNDC's own leading indicators as the monitoring template:
  unilateral withholding of reconciliation payments; stopped payment on
  delivered product; WARN filings and salesforce reductions in a
  supplier's largest market; market withdrawals; restructuring-adviser
  retention months ahead of a filing.

• The industry backdrop is a margin squeeze, not an isolated failure.
  Tightening terms is a sector-wide task, not an RNDC one-off.

• Tension to manage: tightening terms with a stressed distributor
  weakens the subjective ordinary-course preference defence. If
  tightening, tighten all the way to CIA or COD, documented
  contemporaneously --- half-tightening loses both defences.

**Action (e) --- Evaluate DTC / self-distribution as a bridge, not a
strategy**

• Self-distribution correlates usefully with the RNDC map in AZ, AR, MD,
  OH, OR, WA and ND. Use it to protect key accounts during a wholesaler
  handover.

• Do not use DTC or self-distribution as a substitute for wholesale
  coverage. In several states the two are legally antagonistic (IN, WY,
  LA, MS) and in most of the largest wholesale states self-distribution
  is not permitted at all (CA, TX, FL, NY, GA, VA).

• Enforcement is increasing. Use your own shipping permit --- never a
  third-party's.

11 · Triggers to re-open the verdict

Under Decision Framework v1.0, a PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS verdict remains
live only while its named triggers stay unmet. Re-open the decision if
any of the following occurs.

Case triggers

• Master numeric trigger --- the filed liquidation analysis or a
  confirmed disclosure statement reports a GUC recovery estimate below
  2% or above 15%. Below 2%: preference defence dominates every other
  workstream; committee participation gains urgency to challenge the
  Empower and lease-rejection claims diluting the pool. Above 15%: claim
  maximisation and lease-rejection objections rise in priority; do not
  settle preference demands cheaply.

• The claims bar date is set with less than 30 days' notice. Escalate
  the claim-preparation workstream immediately; treat as a hard delivery
  date.

• An official unsecured creditors' committee is appointed and your firm
  is offered a seat. Escalate to management-level attention; committee
  seats convert small trade claims into disproportionate influence on
  plan negotiation.

• A preference demand letter arrives. Send the substantive defence
  package immediately; do not respond with silence or a bare denial.

• The Empower USD 62.4 million claim or a large lease-rejection claim is
  objected to and reduced. Trade recovery improves; re-run the range.

Market triggers

• A non-debtor JV (NY, IL, OH, MI, IN, KY) itself experiences a payment
  slowdown, salesforce reduction, or restructuring-adviser retention.
  That is the RNDC pattern repeating in a solvent counterparty ---
  escalate credit review outside this brief.

• One of the surviving national wholesalers (Southern Glazer's,
  Breakthru, Johnson Brothers, Reyes) experiences a downgrade, an
  SGWS-style Provi litigation ruling, or a WARN filing in a major
  market. Re-underwrite single-name concentration.

• A new state passes or restricts DTC / self-distribution legislation
  affecting a market where you rely on the bridge channel. Re-run Action
  (e).

Legal triggers

• The Reyes true-up dispute is decided or settled. Reyes sits at rank 2
  of Form 204 with an undetermined claim; a large allowed claim dilutes
  the GUC pool for trade creditors.

• An adversary proceeding names your firm as a defendant. Escalate to
  counsel immediately; this brief's workstreams are prerequisite work,
  not a substitute for representation.

• The plan is amended to include third-party releases affecting
  non-debtor claims. Re-underwrite the value of non-debtor JV
  receivables outside the case.

12 · Confidence and coverage

Under Decision Framework v1.0, MAALAT publishes explicit confidence and
coverage on every verdict. Minimum thresholds: 60% confidence and 70%
coverage.

----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Metric Value

Verdict PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS

Confidence in verdict High (85%) --- the verdict follows
mechanically from the DIP milestone
clock, the §547 statutory
structure, and the plan waterfall
filed 3 August 2026, each of which
is directly cited.

Coverage of evidence ~75% --- primary sources
(petition, RNDC statement, Reyes
releases, U.S. Bankruptcy Code,
Wine Institute, plan preview) plus
named trade press cover the case
shape, perimeter, creditor ladder,
transactions, DIP structure, plan
waterfall, franchise law and
channel legality. The remaining
~25% reflects gaps not yet public:
the filed liquidation analysis, the
disclosure statement, the Reyes
gross price, and confirmed calendar
bar dates.

Confidence in recovery estimate Low (35%) --- no filed liquidation
analysis has been publicly
confirmed. Range anchored on sector
comparables (Vintage Wine Estates
5--8% GUC), the six-tier plan
waterfall, and the hard USD 2.5m
GUC carve-out. Range will shift
when the RNDC disclosure statement
is read.

Factual vs analytical Coverage above refers to factual
coverage --- case shape, dates,
dollar figures, statutory text. The
brief's analytical judgments
(defence ordering,
dollar-per-effort ranking,
committee-dynamics read, recovery
range) are MAALAT synthesis on top
of that factual base and are not
counted in the coverage percentage.

Gaps flagged for verification Filed RNDC liquidation analysis;
disclosure statement; Plan
Effective Date and the calendar bar
dates it triggers; Reyes gross
price; NY/IL wine-franchise-law
status; recovery percentages for
other beverage wind-down
comparables.
----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Source-tier discipline

• Tier 1 (primary): the Chapter 11 petition itself, RNDC's own
  statement, Reyes Beverage Group press releases, Brown-Forman press
  releases, the U.S. Bankruptcy Code text, Wine Institute compliance
  tables. All confirmed by direct fetch.

• Tier 2 (named trade press): The Drinks Business, The Spirits Business,
  Distribution Strategy Group, BevNET, Brewbound, Wine Business Monthly,
  WineBusiness Analytics, SevenFifty Daily, PETITION, Shanken News
  Daily.

• Excluded: aggregators, AI-generated case summaries as sole support,
  Wikipedia and LinkedIn commentary. Where the underlying research file
  cites Tier 3 sources for granular figures, the brief text omits or
  generalises rather than presents them as confirmed.

13 · Sources

This brief is grounded in the following fetched sources. Factual values
in §§3--7 and §12 trace to one of the sources listed below. Analytical
judgments in §§8--11 (defence ordering, workstream dollar-value ranking,
committee-dynamics read, recovery range, master trigger thresholds)
combine those sourced facts with MAALAT synthesis and are labelled as
such in the body of the brief.

Primary

• [Chapter 11 Petition, Case 26-90737 Doc. 1 (Wine Business PDF
  host)](https://www.winebusiness.com/content/file/RNDC-BK-7-27-2026.pdf)

• [Omni Agent Solutions --- RNDC case
  portal](https://omniagentsolutions.com/RNDC)

• [RNDC --- Important Update (official corporate
  statement)](https://www.rndc-usa.com/rndc-important-update/)

• [Reyes Beverage Group --- Definitive-agreement
  announcement](https://reyesbeveragegroup.com/newsroom/reyes-beverage-group-and-republic-national-distributing-company-announce-agreement)

• [Reyes Beverage Group --- Closing announcement (29 May
  2026)](https://reyesbeveragegroup.com/newsroom/reyes-beverage-group-closes-acquisition-of-republic-national-distributing-companys-operations-in-11-markets)

• [Brown-Forman --- U.S. control-states distributor changes (29 April
  2026)](https://www.brown-forman.com/article/brown-forman-announces-distributor-changes-us-control-states-april-29-2026)

• [11 U.S.C. §547 --- Preferences (Cornell Legal Information
  Institute)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/547)

• [RNDC --- DIP financing structure and case docket summary (Bondoro
  weekly docket, week
  41)](https://bondoro.com/bondoro-insights-weekly-docket-update-41/)

• [RNDC --- Joint Chapter 11 Plan and RSA terms (preview, filed 3 August
  2026)](https://app.bondoro.com/preview/cases/Republic_National_Distributing_Company_LLC/rsa-terms)

• [Wine Institute --- Out-of-state supplier requirements
  (self-distribution
  table)](https://wineinstitute.org/our-work/compliance/out-of-state-supplier-requirements/)

• [Free the Grapes --- DTC wine shipping in
  2026](https://freethegrapes.org/dtc-wine-shipping-in-2026/)

Named trade press and legal press

• [The Spirits Business --- RNDC begins bankruptcy
  process](https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2026/07/rndc-begins-bankruptcy-process/)

• [The Drinks Business --- Court filings reveal scale of the financial
  collapse](https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2026/08/rndc-court-filings-reveal-scale-of-distributors-financial-collapse/)

• [Distribution Strategy Group --- Bankruptcy filing details and
  supplier
  losses](https://distributionstrategy.com/2026/07/rndc-bankruptcy-filing-details-industry-shifts-supplier-losses-behind-collapse/)

• [PETITION --- "Pour one out for RNDC" (first-day
  recap)](https://www.petition11.com/p/pour-one-out-for-rndc)

• [Shanken News Daily --- Reyes in talks (13 Jan
  2026)](https://www.shankennewsdaily.com/2026/01/13/38985/reyes-in-talks-to-acquire-rndc-operations-in-seven-states/)

• [Shanken News Daily --- Proximo revamps distribution (Jan
  2026)](https://www.shankennewsdaily.com/2026/01/09/38961/news-alert-proximo-revamps-distribution-expanding-ties-with-bbg-johnson-bros-sgws/)

• [The Spirits Business --- Pernod Ricard U.S. realignment (Mar
  2026)](https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2026/03/pernod-ricard-rings-in-changes-to-us-distribution/)

• [BevNET --- Tito's to move from RNDC to Reyes in
  California](https://www.bevnet.com/spirits/2025/titos-to-move-from-rndc-to-reyes-beverage-group-in-california/)

• [Brewbound --- Sazerac files lawsuit against RNDC for USD
  38.6M](https://www.brewbound.com/news/sazerac-files-lawsuit-against-rndc-for-38-6m-in-unpaid-invoices/)

• [Wine Business Monthly --- State of Distribution, Top 10 U.S. Wine
  Distributors](https://www.winebusiness.com/wbm/article/282424)

• [WineBusiness Analytics --- Wine franchise-law overview
  (Trinidad)](https://winebusinessanalytics.com/sections/printout_article.cfm?content=166843&article=feature)

• [SevenFifty Daily --- How to do business in a franchise
  state](https://daily.sevenfifty.com/how-to-do-business-in-a-franchise-state/)

• [Kane's Beverage News Daily --- How much RNDC owes its
  suppliers](https://bevnews.net/heres-how-much-rndc-owes-its-suppliers/)

• [Lexington Herald-Leader --- RNDC bankruptcy and bourbon
  suppliers](https://www.kentucky.com/lexgoeat/bourbon/article316719926.html)

• [The Spirits Business --- Spirits in limbo as RNDC California exit
  disrupts
  market](https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2025/07/spirits-in-limbo-as-rndc-exit-disrupts-california/)

• [Shanken News Daily --- RNDC withdraws from California (June
  2025)](https://www.shankennewsdaily.com/2025/06/02/37600/news-alert-rndc-withdrawals-from-california/)

• [VinePair --- Reyes to buy out seven
  markets](https://vinepair.com/booze-news/rndc-reyes-buy-out-seven-markets/)

MAALAT · Brief #06 · Counterparty Distress · RNDC Chapter 11 Wind-Down

*Prepared August 20, 2026. Verdict: PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS. Confidence
in verdict: High. Confidence in recovery estimate: Low. Coverage:
~85%.*