When I buy a house, the house serves as collateral on the mortgage, but ultimately I'm responsible for the loan. So I'm liable for the loan amount and am legally obligated to pay.
A leveraged buyout is similar except the "house" is responsible for the mortgage and will suffer reputational damage if it fails to pay. But no person or collection of people are obligated to pay (ignoring the collateral).
One of the benefits of corporations is that the limitations is liabilities allow them to take risks that would be prohibitive for individuals. Originally corporate charters required direct intervention by the government chief executive or legislature. Corporations were limited to tasks that served a public benefit as that government wanted to incentivize.
Leveraged buyouts where the buyer doesn't intend to continue the business long term or true to drain value from the company instead of focusing on it's main business seem like an abuse of the trust the public has invested in these companies when it gave them a corporate charters.
Of course, nowadays you can get a corporation with little to no documentation at low cost, so maybe the government doesn't actually give a shit what they do...