Vobev: $150M Credit Bid Sale and Liquidating Plan

Vobev, LLC filed chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah on December 9, 2024, a case that trade outlets reported as a bankruptcy filing and summarized for the canmaking sector. The company, described by industry coverage as a full-service canmaker, operates a Salt Lake City facility that combines can production, beverage filling, and warehousing under one roof. The case progressed through a court-supervised sale process and a liquidation plan, with coverage at filing noting plans to pursue financing and a buyer process to stabilize operations, including a report that Vobev filed chapter 11 while seeking debtor-in-possession funding.

The restructuring plan centered on selling substantially all assets and confirming a chapter 11 plan of liquidation. Court filings indicate a Salt Lake City plant that came online in 2022, after supply chain delays and cost overruns that began during the 2020 construction phase. Vobev entered the case with a complex capital structure that included a large term loan and an ABL facility, then moved to a 363 sale that resulted in a $150 million credit bid from the purchaser. The confirmation of a liquidation plan in April 2025 completed the core restructuring path referenced in industry and law firm coverage, including a report that the plan was jointly negotiated with creditor constituencies and later confirmed after a contested hearing.

Debtor	Vobev, LLC
Court	U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah
Case number	24-27001
Petition date	December 9, 2024
Chapter	chapter 11
Headquarters	Salt Lake City, Utah
Business	Beverage can production and filling
Case posture	Court-supervised sale and plan of liquidation
Claims agent	Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC

Restructuring and sale process

Vobev entered chapter 11 with a dual objective: maintain operations in the near term while pursuing a sale process that could convert assets into cash and fund a liquidation plan. The first-day motions requested approval of a combined DIP financing and cash collateral structure. Court filings describe a DIP facility totaling $115.377 million, including up to $37.25 million of new money and a roll-up of prepetition obligations. The structure split economics between new-money funding and rolled debt, with default rate protections and a short maturity tied to the sale and plan milestones. That approach placed the sale process at the center of the case from the opening week, and the debtor sought to quickly lock in a stalking horse buyer. Trade coverage framed the case as a sale-driven filing, with reporting that Vobev sought a buyer alongside the chapter 11 petition.

Key DIP terms in the motion included a new-money tranche priced at SOFR plus 9.00% paid in kind, roll-up debt accruing at prepetition non-default rates, and a 2.00% default rate. The maturity was structured around near-term milestones, ending at the earliest of 90 days after the petition date, 30 days if a final order was not entered, the sale consummation date, the plan effective date, or conversion or dismissal. Court filings also describe adequate protection for the prepetition lenders through replacement liens, superpriority claims, and payment of lender fees and interest.

The bidding procedures motion set an accelerated process. The debtor proposed a December 26, 2024 deadline to file a stalking horse agreement, a January 17, 2025 bid deadline, and a January 27, 2025 auction date if required. The sale hearing was scheduled for early February, reflecting the short timetable often associated with 363 sales in asset-intensive manufacturing cases. The process was designed around a credit-bid stalking horse proposal by the secured lenders, which provided a baseline value for the assets and also set the minimum overbid increments. The court ultimately approved the procedures and later entered a sale order based on the stalking horse transaction. The case thus moved quickly from filing to a sale order within two months.

The sale process was consistently described as the case's principal driver. Industry outlets reported at filing that Vobev had moved into chapter 11 to pursue financing and a buyer path, with news coverage noting the company planned a stalking horse deal and moved quickly into court-supervised procedures. Another industry report described the filing as a beverage manufacturer bankruptcy and referenced efforts to pursue a sale and stabilization, including a report that the company declared bankruptcy. The court-approved procedures created a defined timeline for competing bids and set the framework for the eventual credit-bid sale.

Facility scale and operating model

Vobev's business model is centered on an integrated facility that combines can manufacturing with beverage filling and warehousing. Court filings describe a Salt Lake City plant with roughly 850,000 square feet of production space, two high-speed can lines with capacity up to 1.8 billion cans per year, and multiple high-speed fill lines with a combined annual capacity approaching 900 million cans. Warehouse space adds another 550,000 square feet across finished goods and raw materials storage. This layout allows the company to produce cans and fill beverages in a single location, reducing the need to ship empty cans to a separate co-packer and then ship finished goods again to distributors.

The company describes itself as an integrated beverage production platform that can produce, fill, and ship beverage cans for a wide mix of products, including sparkling water, juices, spritzers, energy drinks, and alcoholic beverages. In its filing materials, the debtor stated that it produces and fills tens of millions of aluminum beverage cans annually and also provides formulation and mixing services. Industry coverage similarly described Vobev as a full-service canmaker and noted the company's manufacturing and filling footprint in Salt Lake City. At filing, trade publications covering the canmaking industry noted the bankruptcy and described the company as a beverage can producer with a significant plant in Utah, including in a report that Vobev filed for bankruptcy.

The facility itself is capital-intensive, and filings indicate that construction began in 2020. The buildout was affected by pandemic-era supply chain disruptions that delayed equipment procurement and pushed back ramp-up. The facility came online in 2022, and management reported that it was fully operational by late 2023. That timeline is important in understanding the case, because the company carried a large fixed-cost structure during a period in which production and customer throughput were still ramping. The case record suggests that delays in reaching stable production levels required additional capital and contributed to the financing rounds that preceded the chapter 11 filing.

The integrated layout can be attractive to beverage brands seeking a single counterparty for can production and filling, particularly for products that need high-volume runs or specialized packaging. At the same time, the facility's size and fixed cost base make utilization rates a central operational variable. Court filings emphasize that Vobev attempted to scale volume through a mix of beverage categories, but the timing of plant completion and market conditions left the company with capital needs beyond its initial financing.

Prepetition capital structure and liquidity

The prepetition capital structure was dominated by secured debt. Court filings report total indebtedness of roughly $476 million at filing, including $402.0 million in funded principal debt and about $74 million in unsecured debt. The core secured obligations arose under a credit agreement dated April 20, 2023, with Ares Capital Corporation serving as administrative agent. The term loan obligations totaled at least $361.1 million, consisting of approximately $197.7 million in initial term loans and $163.5 million in delayed draw term loans. The asset-based revolving credit facility had outstanding obligations of at least $40.9 million, including interest and fees, and the revolving commitments had been terminated by the petition date.

The secured lenders held first-priority liens on substantially all assets of the debtor under the prepetition credit agreement. The ABL facility provided revolving liquidity but the commitments were terminated by the petition date, leaving the term loan as the dominant secured obligation. The capital structure meant that a sale process anchored by a credit bid was the most efficient path to preserve going-concern value for the facility and to monetize assets for the estate.

The company reported that the April 2023 refinancing funded continued construction and ramp-up but was exhausted by October 2023 while production levels remained below what was needed to cover costs. In response, the company launched a capital-raising effort in late 2023 and later engaged Houlihan Lokey in June 2024 to pursue a broader financing or sale process. Court filings indicate that more than 50 parties were contacted in the initial capital raise without a successful closing, and that lenders provided an additional $94 million in term loans over the year leading up to the chapter 11 filing to keep operations running.

These liquidity efforts shaped the case trajectory. By the petition date, the company required court-authorized financing to maintain operations and to fund a sale process that could be executed quickly. The DIP facility was structured as a superpriority term loan with a roll-up of prepetition debt. The roll-up component meant that prepetition secured lenders effectively converted a portion of existing obligations into DIP obligations, while also funding new money to support operations during the case. That structure is common in mid-market manufacturing cases where the existing secured creditor group is the most viable financing source and where a sale timeline is already underway.

Sale order and purchaser

The court approved a sale of substantially all assets to Adonis Acquisition Holdings LLC. The asset purchase agreement was dated January 6, 2025 and was later amended effective February 3, 2025. The purchase consideration included a $150 million credit bid that combined outstanding DIP obligations and additional prepetition obligations, as well as the assumption of specified liabilities. The sale order also provided for excluded cash to remain outside the sale and for certain executory contracts and leases to be assumed and assigned with cure amounts determined through the notice process.

From a restructuring perspective, the sale order established the buyer's good faith status and confirmed that the process was fair and non-collusive. The order found that the bidding procedures were executed at arm's length, and that the stalking horse bid represented the highest and best offer for the assets. The good-faith finding under section 363(m) provides a key protection for buyers because it limits the risk of appellate reversal after closing, a priority for purchasers of operating assets. The court also approved the assumption and assignment of contracts that the buyer elected to take, subject to curing defaults, which is a standard mechanism for transitioning operating contracts to the buyer in a manufacturing business.

The sale's economic core was the credit bid. A credit bid allows a secured creditor to use its debt as consideration, offsetting cash requirements and preserving collateral value. In Vobev's case, the secured lender group, with Ares as the administrative agent, used the credit bid to acquire the assets, and the purchase price was structured around the aggregate DIP and prepetition obligations. That structure can be particularly important in capital-intensive manufacturing cases where the liquidation value of equipment and specialized facilities may be lower than going-concern value, and where the existing secured lender group is positioned to own the assets or transfer them to a new operator.

The assumption and assignment mechanics mattered for suppliers and other counterparties. The debtor served cure notices identifying contracts and leases proposed for assumption, and the sale order approved a process for counterparties to review the stated cure amounts and to object if necessary. Contracts not assumed remained with the estate, while assumed agreements could be assigned to the purchaser once cure amounts were resolved. For a manufacturing business with specialized inputs and logistics arrangements, the ability to transfer key contracts can be as important as the equipment and real estate being sold, because it determines whether the facility can continue operating without interruption after a sale.\n\nThe sale order also reinforced standard 363 protections. The court found that the process was conducted at arm's length, that the stalking horse bid represented the highest and best offer, and that the purchaser qualified as a good-faith buyer. Those findings are common in 363 transactions but still essential because they support the finality of the sale and reduce appeal risk. In practical terms, the good-faith finding under section 363(m) protects the transaction from being unwound after closing even if an appeal is later filed, which is a critical consideration for buyers of operating assets.

Trade coverage at the time of filing described the case as a search for a buyer. In a report that noted the bankruptcy filing and sale intent, The Canmaker described the company as a full-service canmaker seeking a buyer. That framing aligns with the court-supervised sale path reflected in the later sale order and in the debtor's filings.

Liquidation plan and creditor framework

Following the sale order, Vobev pursued and confirmed a chapter 11 plan of liquidation. The plan created a general unsecured creditor trust (GUC Trust) that would receive initial funding and the estate's retained causes of action. The GUC Trust is established on the effective date, and it receives the initial trust funding amount and the retained litigation claims and proceeds. The trust is administered by a GUC Trustee selected by the official committee of unsecured creditors and reasonably acceptable to Ares. An oversight committee includes at least one Ares designee, reflecting the secured lender group's ongoing role in monitoring trust administration.

The plan divides claims into unclassified claims and classified claims and interests. Unclassified claims include the DIP facility claims, administrative expenses, professional fees, priority tax claims, and statutory fees. Classified claims include other secured claims, other priority claims, deficiency claims of the prepetition lenders, general unsecured claims, subordinated claims, and existing equity interests. Holders of deficiency claims and general unsecured claims are designated as GUC Trust beneficiaries and will receive distributions from the trust as assets are monetized and causes of action are resolved.

A liquidating plan provides a formal structure for distributing sale proceeds and other recoveries while preserving litigation rights and claim reconciliation processes. In Vobev's case, the plan functioned as a post-sale framework rather than a reorganization of ongoing operations. The confirmation order approved releases and exculpation provisions with carve-outs for fraud, willful misconduct, or gross negligence, and it imposed injunctions binding on claim and equity holders. The plan confirmation was described in law firm coverage as a negotiated outcome involving the debtor, secured lender Ares Capital Corporation, and the official committee of unsecured creditors, with reporting that a contested hearing preceded confirmation.

The GUC Trust structure concentrates post-confirmation work in a dedicated vehicle. In practice, that means claim reconciliation, pursuit of retained causes of action, and eventual distributions are handled by the trustee rather than by an operating debtor. For creditors, the trust is the vehicle through which recoveries flow, and the oversight committee provides monitoring of how assets are monetized and distributed. The plan also preserves the sale order's protections and integrates the sale outcome into the liquidation framework.

The plan also includes conditions precedent to the effective date and a plan supplement process, which are standard in liquidating cases. Those provisions govern when the trust becomes active and how remaining administrative tasks are carried out after confirmation. By using a trust structure, the case converts post-sale administration into a focused claims and litigation process rather than an operating turnaround.

Stakeholders and professionals

The case involved secured lenders, an official committee of unsecured creditors, and a claims agent to manage notices and the claims register. Ares Capital Corporation served as the administrative agent under the prepetition credit agreement and was central to the DIP financing and credit bid structure. The official committee of unsecured creditors retained Lowenstein Sandler LLP as counsel, a role the firm publicly noted in a report describing its selection as committee counsel. The claims and noticing agent appointment went to Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC, which serves as the official point of contact for the claims register and case notices.

Committee participation became central during the plan phase. The plan confirmation coverage noted that the liquidation plan was negotiated between the debtor, Ares as the secured lender constituency, and the committee, and that a contested hearing preceded confirmation. That dynamic is common in sale-driven cases where unsecured creditors focus on the size of the deficiency claims and on governance of any post-confirmation trust. In Vobev's case, the committee selected the GUC Trustee and participated in oversight of trust administration, which provided a structured role in the distribution of remaining value. The committee's involvement also influenced the plan terms governing releases, exculpation, and the scope of retained causes of action, which are often the key levers for unsecured creditor recoveries after a credit-bid sale.

The debtor also engaged restructuring professionals to oversee case operations, and the first-day declaration was submitted by the company's chief transformation officer. Court filings describe the company's capital raise efforts prior to filing, including the engagement of Houlihan Lokey to run a sale and financing process, and note that more than 50 parties were solicited in a prior capital raise attempt. These efforts highlight the case's emphasis on external capital and strategic alternatives rather than an internal operating turnaround.

Industry coverage reflected the position of Vobev as a large, capital-intensive canmaking and filling platform. Coverage in The Street noted the filing and financing objectives, while canmaking outlets described the plant and the company's position in the sector. Reports that covered the filing and summarized the bankruptcy underscored the company's role in the canmaking and beverage space and pointed to the sale process as the case's key path forward.

Frequently Asked Questions

When did Vobev file chapter 11 and in which court?

Vobev filed chapter 11 on December 9, 2024 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah. The case number is 24-27001, and the petition date aligns with multiple reports that the company filed chapter 11 in early December 2024.

What does Vobev make and where is its main facility?

Vobev operates an integrated beverage can production and filling platform in Salt Lake City, Utah. The company produces and fills aluminum beverage cans for products such as sparkling water, juices, spritzers, energy drinks, and alcoholic beverages. Industry coverage has described Vobev as a full-service canmaker serving the beverage sector.

Why did Vobev seek chapter 11 protection?

Court filings state that construction of the Salt Lake City facility began in 2020 and faced supply chain delays that caused cost overruns and pushed back production ramp-up. By late 2023, the company had exhausted available capital and pursued additional financing and a sale process. The chapter 11 filing allowed the debtor to seek court-approved financing and implement a structured sale timeline.

How much DIP financing did Vobev request?

The debtor sought a DIP facility totaling $115.377 million, including up to $37.25 million of new money and a roll-up of prepetition secured debt. The DIP structure was designed to fund operations during the sale process while providing the secured lenders with a senior position.

Who bought the assets and what was the purchase price?

The court approved a sale to Adonis Acquisition Holdings LLC. The consideration included a $150 million credit bid composed of DIP and prepetition obligations, plus assumption of specified liabilities and other consideration under the asset purchase agreement.

What did the confirmed plan do for unsecured creditors?

The confirmed plan is a chapter 11 plan of liquidation. It established a GUC Trust funded on the effective date with cash provided by Ares and with retained causes of action. Class 3 prepetition lender deficiency claims and Class 4 general unsecured claims are GUC Trust beneficiaries, and recoveries are distributed through the trust as assets are monetized.

Who is the claims agent for Vobev?

Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC serves as the claims and noticing agent. The firm maintains the official claims register and distributes case notifications to creditors and parties in interest.

Read more ElevenFlo chapter 11 case research on the ElevenFlo blog.