Here's where things really fall apart. CRO's justification for including HoldCo II in the DIP is revealing: they claim it's "necessary to secure the deal." But dig into what that actually means. HoldCo II doesn't need the financing itself — what matters is that lenders are demanding its assets as collateral. That's a crucial distinction. They're not restructuring HoldCo II because the subsidiary requires capital, they're using it as a guarantee mechanism. Call it what it is: collateral extraction dressed up as structural necessity. The DIP framework becomes a vehicle for asset seizure rather than genuine financial rehabilitation.