My opinion, based upon reading horror stories about large financial investors, and observing behavior via mainstream media, is that the current debt holders really do not care whether the brand or company survives. At this point they have a desired return on their investment and if they can achieve that by forcing the company into liquidation then they are fine. But if you follow deals like these you often find the current debt holder finds a way to pass off the "investment" to someone else. It is almost always the case that the new debt holder sees some value in the company and their willingness to assume the debt is coupled with their strategy for maintaining and rebuilding the company.
So, I expect one of two things (neither of which starts with improving quality). One option is that no one wants Gibson's debt and so the company is essentially broken up and liquidated. In that case I expect some company already in the music business will acquire the assets of the Gibson Guitar component, to include factories and intellectual property but not Henry J. The other option is that the current debt is sold to a new debt holder who has some vision for getting more money operating Gibson as a business. That may or may not include Henry J. and it may or may not continue the brand's expansion beyond the core musical instruments. The new owners almost certainly will have an opinion as to whether the quality problems that some consumers complain about are something to address immediately or not.
As a veer, is there a word for dyslexia that is "reversed" vertically rather than horizontally. I typed "dept" several times when I meant "debt" and may have not corrected them all
The visual similarity between "b" and "p" is striking.