According to Merriam-Webster, an amphiboly [i] is a sentence or phrase (such as ‘nothing is good enough for you’) that can be interpreted in more than one way.
In the corporate restructuring world, the phrase ‘Liability Management Transaction’ (also known as a ‘Liability Management Exercise’) has become a trendy term in the last few years. But what does it mean? And does it describe something new?
The bottom line is that while some people in the industry say it’s a new concept, it’s not. However, the term can be used to differentiate certain related strategies used in the corporate restructuring industry. More on that below.
Taking a step back, I spent several years as a corporate restructuring partner at Kirkland & Ellis, I taught a corporate restructuring MBA class at Chicago Booth, and as a visiting professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law, and I’ve authored a couple of books about business bankruptcy and its alternatives. In all these travels, I never heard anyone use the term ‘Liability Management Transaction’ or ‘Liability Management Exercise’ before around 2017, and I didn’t hear it used more than once in a blue moon even then, until sometime last year.
I was curious, so I looked back. The earliest reference to either term that I could find was in connection with the J.Crew Chapter 11. It was used there to describe that debtor’s shuffling of some of its intellectual property assets into an unrestricted subsidiary, enabling it to issue fresh debt secured against that IP. King & Spalding’s J Crew & The Original Trap Door is a great summary of what happened.
The J.Crew restructuring got a lot of press, and that move created quite a stir. But it’s anything but clear that that’s where the term was born. In fact, best I can tell, the term was a simultaneous invention (like calculus, being developed independently by both Newton and Leibniz or, more precisely, a cumulative innovation, in that it seems to have been developed by many folks.
So, what does it mean? My definition is that Liability Management Transaction (LMT) and Liability Management Exercise (LME) are synonymous, catch-all phrases encompassing various personal (through the use of estate planning and asset protection planning) and corporate (through the use of front-end corporate structuring and back-end restructuring techniques like debt exchanges, maturity extensions, tender offers, covenant modifications, and asset transfers) strategies aimed at limiting the pool of assets from which creditors can collect.
But it’s also an annoying amphiboly. More on that below.
If you were in the industry before 2017, you would likely be familiar with these various techniques, even if you had never heard of the umbrella term before.
But hey, if you think restructuring professionals coming up with clever names for debt-shuffling maneuvers is novel, remember Wall Street has been repackaging the same ideas under fancier names since before Gordon Gekko proclaimed, “Greed is good.”
Examples:
What’s that expression about putting lipstick on a pig? Anyway…
For those who crave precise taxonomy, I define corporate restructuring as activities that involve reorganizing a company’s financial, operational, and/or legal structures. This includes but is not limited to debt restructurings, operational turnarounds, mergers, divestitures, bankruptcy proceedings, etc.
The term LMT/LME, in contrast, refers to “various corporate restructuring techniques like debt exchanges, maturity extensions, transferring assets to unrestricted subsidiaries (the J.Crew trapdoor), tender offers, covenant modifications aimed at optimizing a company’s capital structure, or otherwise negotiating directly with select creditor groups to improve a company’s debt profile, liquidity, or strategic flexibility.” (See what I did there? I quoted myself.) These techniques are typically considered aggressive and sometimes considered controversial.
So, I say the term, when used by corporate restructuring attorneys, is mostly a rebranding of certain techniques that they have long used.
If I were to stop here, then I’d have not made a good case that the term is amphiboly. But here’s the thing: I can’t stop. I won’t stop. And now I’ll raise the ante: not only are the dual terms LMT/LME amphibologies, but so is ‘corporate restructuring.’ [iii]
Take a step back: you know that expression, ‘when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail?’ Well, consider the following terms of art that mean one thing in one context and something quite different in another.
For example:
‘Equity’ means, in-
‘Discharge’ means, in-
‘Draft’ means, in-
‘Attachment’ means, in-
See where I’m going?
The term is often used as a euphemism for layoffs. But if you spend all day, every day, dealing with financially distressed companies, then you know the term has a broader meaning, something like ‘efforts to reorganize a company’s obligations, typically because it is in financial distress.’
However, other professionals use the term more broadly to refer to any change in a company’s financial structure. Yet other professionals use the term even more broadly, including reorganizing a company’s operations.
So, what’s my point?
Aside from noting a couple of obvious truisms, like that words matter and context matters, my point is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Terms like ‘corporate restructuring,’ ‘liability management transactions,’ and ‘liability management exercises’ seldom are used in the literature to include engaging in longer-term strategic planning by a company when it is at its strongest (i.e., not only not distressed, but not even stressed) to restructure the legal organization/relationships among the various legal entities that comprise the corporate family (and/or their respective operations), to provide maximum protection to each of the legal entities in the event one of them comes under attack.
Quite to the contrary, corporate restructuring attorneys use LMEs/LTEs reactively to clean up messes. But wouldn’t it be better to engage in preventive medicine?
In other words, I’m advocating an ounce of protection (several ounces, really, performed regularly).
More specifically:
Insurance coverage is the quintessential LME, yet it is like buying a pig in a poke if not properly scoped and tailored. [v] So much so that I all but insist that the companies for whom I serve as general counsel have my firm review their policies in toto every few years.
Engaging in proactive, front-end LMEs can reduce the need for reactive, emergency LMEs. Excluding the former from the definition is wrong because failing to engage in them is irresponsible.
If you want a deeper dive into the sort of LMEs/LTEs represented by cases like AMC, Audax Credit Opportunities Offshore, Boardriders, Bombardier, Golden Nugget, J Crew, Murray Energy, Neiman Marcus, Mitel, PetSmart, Revlon, Serta, TPC Group, TriMark, and Wesco Aircraft, I commend the following:
Editors’ Note: This article is based on a similar one published in the LinkedIn Newsletter, “Opportunity Amidst Crisis,” on 5/1/25
© 2026 Much Shelist, P.C.
Jonathan Friedland is a principal at Much Shelist. He is ranked AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale.com, has been repeatedly recognized as a “SuperLawyer” by Leading Lawyers Magazine, is rated 10/10 by AVVO, and has received numerous other accolades. He has been profiled, interviewed, and/or quoted in publications such as Buyouts Magazine; Smart Business Magazine; The M&A…
Worthy Investment? No. Potential Opportunity Nonetheless? Maybe, Depending on What You Do For a Living
Leadership and Corporate Renewal
Performance Management: Foundation for Resilience and Platform for Recovery
An “Oldie,” But a Goodie: Recommended Reading On the Subject of ABCs
Stock Market Pundits & Economic Data: What Conclusions Can We Draw on the Distressed Asset Space?
Fraud And Deceit in Bankruptcy Cases – Lessons from “The Clouds”