Crosby Tugs filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on March 23, 2026, along with three affiliated companies, after a liquidity crisis driven by near-100-percent-interest merchant cash advances, lender defaults, and a contracting Gulf of Mexico market left the Louisiana marine transportation company unable to pay its debts. The family-owned Galliano-based tug operator continues to run its roughly 130-vessel fleet while the court-supervised restructuring plays out in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.1Waterways Journal. Crosby Marine Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Reorganization2WorkBoat. Crosby Subsidiaries File for Chapter 11 Restructuring
Who Filed and What Was Reported
Four related entities filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions on March 23, 2026: Crosby Marine Transportation (Case No. 26-10678), Crosby Tugs (26-10679), Crosby Dredging (26-10680), and Bertucci Contracting Company (26-10681). The cases were designated complex and jointly administered before Judge Meredith S. Grabill, with each debtor keeping separate schedules and claims registers.3U.S. Bankruptcy Court, E.D. La. Crosby Marine Transportation, LLC — Chapter 114U.S. Bankruptcy Court, E.D. La. Order Granting Joint Administration
Two entities inside the corporate family did not file. Crosby Enterprises, LLC, the parent, and Luhr Crosby, LLC, a marine construction joint venture, are not debtors.5Stretto. Declaration in Support of DIP Financing
The debtors reported $100 million to $500 million in both assets and liabilities.1Waterways Journal. Crosby Marine Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Reorganization Court filings put total funded debt at roughly $162.8 million against about $1.475 million in cash on the petition date. The largest secured creditors are Hancock Whitney ($29.2 million), PNC Bank ($25.4 million), Regions Bank ($19 million), City National Bank ($18 million), and ARBA/Truist ($11.4 million).5Stretto. Declaration in Support of DIP Financing
What Pushed Crosby Into Chapter 11
The bankruptcy filings describe a company squeezed from multiple directions. Offshore energy work in the Gulf of Mexico contracted, cutting demand for tug services. Louisiana reduced its dredging spending, which hit Crosby Dredging and Bertucci. Fuel costs swung unpredictably. A collateral valuation triggered a technical default on the PNC vessel facility, imposing default interest rates and signaling trouble to other lenders. The assumption of Hancock Whitney’s credit facility added debt the company could not comfortably service.5Stretto. Declaration in Support of DIP Financing
What turned pressure into crisis was short-term financing. As traditional credit tightened, the Crosby entities signed merchant cash advance agreements at effective interest rates approaching 100 percent. Before a chief restructuring officer was brought in during late February 2026, the MCA firms had collected the full amount they had advanced plus an additional $20 million, and weekly automated debits from Crosby’s accounts were running about $900,000.5Stretto. Declaration in Support of DIP Financing
When Crosby cut off the MCA firms’ bank-account access, the collection effort moved outside the company. According to the bankruptcy filings, MCA firms sent letters to Crosby’s customers demanding that accounts receivable be redirected to the lenders. MCA representatives also appeared at the debtors’ offices in person and solicited on behalf of affiliated law firms and work-out companies. Confused customers responded by withholding payments entirely, producing the emergency cash shortfall that the company says forced it into Chapter 11.5Stretto. Declaration in Support of DIP Financing
The Lender Lawsuits That Preceded the Filing
Financial strain was visible in federal court well before the bankruptcy. PNC Bank sued Kurt Crosby personally in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in July 2023 on a personal guaranty tied to credit agreements originally totaling $47.4 million, with outstanding principal above $27.7 million by the time of suit.6LBR Cloud. PNC Bank v. Kurt J. Crosby, Complaint Chief Judge Wendy Beetlestone lifted a stay in November 2025 and entered judgment on February 9, 2026, awarding PNC roughly $8.7 million on one loan and $15.9 million on another, plus more than $554,000 in attorney fees and continuing per-diem interest.7CourtListener. PNC Bank v. Crosby
City National Bank of Florida sued Crosby Marine Transportation and related entities for breach of maritime contract in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The bank issued a notice of default on December 15, 2025, and the court issued warrants for the arrest of multiple Crosby vessels, including the Crosby Endeavor, Crosby Skipper, Crosby Courage, and Crosby Tide. A stipulation of settlement was approved in early February 2026, staying the case for 90 days. The bankruptcy filing in March overtook that window.8PACER Monitor. City National Bank of Florida v. Crosby Marine Transportation, LLC
How the Company Is Operating During the Case
To keep the fleet running, the debtors secured a $60 million debtor-in-possession financing facility from JMB Capital Partners Lending, LLC, approved at a first-day hearing on March 25, 2026. The facility provided $30 million in new money and $30 million to refinance existing Hancock Whitney debt that JMB had acquired just days before the petition date. The DIP was later amended and expanded to $77 million.5Stretto. Declaration in Support of DIP Financing9Elevenflo. Crosby Marine Transportation, LLC
First-day motions let the debtors keep paying wages and benefits and keep vendor relationships in place. Sierra Constellation Partners is acting as restructuring adviser, and Raymond James is the financial adviser. An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has been formed in the Crosby Tugs and Crosby Dredging cases, represented by Fishman Haygood and Seward & Kissel LLP as co-counsel.1Waterways Journal. Crosby Marine Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Reorganization10Fishman Haygood. Fishman Haygood Represents Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in Crosby Tugs and Crosby Dredging Chapter 11 Cases
The DIP expansion drew objections. City National Bank argued the debtors’ 13-week budget did not show an urgent need for the extra $17 million and that the increase would cost the estate more than $1 million in unnecessary fees.11Stretto. Supplemental Omnibus Objection of City National Bank of Florida Paddy Crosby, acting as trustee for certain family trusts with interests in the Crosby entities, objected on behalf of the Bertucci estate, saying Bertucci has virtually no operating expenses and should not have to collateralize financing for the other debtors. The objection also challenged intercompany promissory notes cited by the chief restructuring officer, arguing those debts had already been repaid based on Bertucci’s 2024 tax filings.12Stretto. Objection to DIP Financing Motion
Where Creditor Recoveries May Come From
A central piece of the recovery strategy is the debtors’ 49.9 percent equity stake in Luhr Crosby, LLC, a joint venture with Luhr Bros., Inc. described in the filings as one of the largest heavy marine construction firms in the country. Raymond James has been marketing that minority interest to roughly 80 prospective buyers. Because Luhr Crosby is not a debtor and the stake is unencumbered by the Crosby entities’ secured debt, a sale could generate meaningful recovery for creditors.13Stretto. Declaration in Support of First Day Motions
The Family Dispute Running Through the Case
Alongside the lender fights, a Crosby family dispute is active in the bankruptcy. In Paddy Crosby, et al. v. Crosby Enterprises, LLC, et al., Paddy Crosby, acting as trustee for two family trusts, and beneficiaries Aaron and Lauren Guidry sued Crosby Enterprises, several subsidiaries, Kurt Crosby, and CFO Farrel Trosclair. The plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets, and the use of false and unauthorized signatures on bank documents to inflate the companies’ apparent financial condition.14FindLaw. Paddy Crosby v. Crosby Enterprises, LLC
The trial court dismissed the suit as premature, holding that the operating agreements required mandatory arbitration. Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed in a split decision on August 9, 2024, finding the plaintiffs had failed to request a stay of the lawsuit before the dismissal order was signed. One judge dissented, saying the case should have been stayed rather than dismissed.14FindLaw. Paddy Crosby v. Crosby Enterprises, LLC Paddy Crosby’s bankruptcy-court objections — including those targeting the DIP financing and the intercompany debt — show the underlying family dispute carrying forward.
Current Status
As of mid-2026, the Crosby entities remain in Chapter 11 and are still operating. Omnibus hearings are scheduled through at least September 2026, with dates in June, July, and August.3U.S. Bankruptcy Court, E.D. La. Crosby Marine Transportation, LLC — Chapter 11 The sale of the Luhr Crosby interest, the fight over DIP financing and intercompany debt, and the family-trust objections are the issues most likely to shape what creditors recover and what the Crosby companies look like when they come out of bankruptcy.