Everything you say is correct if it was Revlon's money, but it wasn't. So even if Brigade delay long enough for a restructuring, Brigade still won't be able to keep the money. They are independent events: 1) unjust enrichment is Citibank vs. Brigade. 2) restructuring is Brigade vs. Revlon's other creditors/investors.
Yes, they are independent events involving different parties but that does not matter for Brigade's purpose. By making the incorrect payment, there is a non-zero chance that Brigade will have 175mm that previously did not exist. If they are able to keep that money, all else equal, their position as a creditor is unaffected but they've effectively cashed out a portion of their position ahead of other creditors. I don't think it's likely that they will be able to keep the money but their returns change quite a bit if they're able to.
Per the article you're over-simplifying what is going on, to the point of making it seem clearer cut than it actually is.
Citibank actually has a business relationship with Brigade Capital, they're Brigade's contractor essentially, and they essentially COULD owe Brigade money themselves via this arrangement:
> As the administrator of the gargantuan arrangement, it was incumbent on Citibank to collect payments from Revlon and transfer it to the lenders, including Brigade Capital. The company was expected to transfer $1.5 million in interest payments to the hedge fund a few days back.
Brigade are claiming that his is Citibank paying money they owe, and has nothing to do with Revlon.
PS - I think Brigade will ultimately lose the court case. I think their arguments are easily unwound, but I suspect the court case will take a while because the argument isn't as black/white as it may first appear, there's actually a three-way relationship here.
