Examiners appointed to Rathwood

Persia said:
“We want to reassure all our customers, suppliers, and partners that we continue to trade as normal and operate fully in accordance with all applicable laws,” noted the Rathwood statement.
Click to expand...
In other words they are going to keep taking customers money in full knowledge that they might not be able to deliver.
At this point CCPC should at least step in and order the company to stop taking "wait and save" orders which seem to be the worst hit.
 
lff12 said:
At this point CCPC should at least step in and order the company to stop taking "wait and save" orders which seem to be the worst hit.
Click to expand...
The CCPC release mentions them making 'legally binding commitments', plural, you'd hope that was one of them.
 
If you place an order now, you are probably placing it with the Examiner.

So he might be reluctant to take orders or else will only take orders for stuff in stock or which he knows he can deliver.

In any event, anyone buying now should use a credit card.
 
A report on what went wrong here

www.irishtimes.com

Rathwood: ‘domino effect’ led to disarray and thousands of dissatisfied customers

Root causes of home and garden retailer’s problems readily identifiable and can be rectified, says court
www.irishtimes.com www.irishtimes.com

They owed their main supplier €3m. The company went bust and the liquidator demanded repayment.

Sounds to me as if it was never profitable. If a supplier gives you €3m credit it could encourage bad practices.
 
What might "appropriate provision" mean?

"The examiner of the stricken online garden furniture seller Rathwood Home and Garden World has said prospective purchasers will have to make “appropriate provision” for out-of-pocket customers as a means of “preserving any remaining goodwill left in the business”.

Padraic Bermingham, of Strata Financial, said bidders would have to make allowances for the “treatment of outstanding customers’ orders” not covered by a bank chargeback or refund claim."
www.thetimes.com

Rathwood Home and Garden World customers ‘must get help’

Bidders must compensate customers owed an estimated €2.5m, says the examiner of the stricken online garden furniture seller
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com
 
Saturn said:
What might "appropriate provision" mean?
Click to expand...
It presumably means that they will have to pay more if they buy stuff.

The argument is that it is needed to preserve good will. There is some logic to that. If the examiner does something that damages good will, then it harms the value of the business and the examiner has to preserve that value.

However, it isn't clear the mechanism here. If you destroy good will, then new "prospective" customers won't want to deal with the business. They are effectively saying "We are a company who treats its customers well and to prove it we are going to charge you more so that previous customers end up losing less". How is that good for a new customer. They would have to decide paying 20% more is worth it because the examiner is obviously a nice guy. Maybe that would work.
 
That hardcopy article linked to by @Saturn above states on page 2 of The Sunday Times Business supplement today 10/05/2026 that "Rathwood has more than €18 million in liabilities." Has anyone any notion where this number came from as I've haven't seen any mention of double digit liabilities before, let alone liabilities in the high teens?
 
JoeRoberts said:
Is it not in relation to purchasers of the company rather than products ?
Click to expand...
Ok, that makes more sense :)

Presumably, it wouldn't really matter much then. If the purchasers have to agree to take on some debt, then they will just bid less for the business by the amount of the debt.

The good will argument makes more sense in that case though. The examiner might be saying "Look, if you pay less but agree to take on the debt, it will make you look good to the customers. That makes the business worth more, since you have better customer good will, and it's not like you are, on net, paying more".
 
Saturn said:
What might "appropriate provision" mean?
Click to expand...
It would mean that anyone interested in buying the business should be prepared to honour existing deposits or payments in part or full. So while there are ways in which someone could buy the business without having to honour existing payments, the examiner suggests that would harm the long term viability of the business given the profile this case has.
 
So this is an Examiner and not a Receiver or a Liquidator.

His job is to come up with a Scheme of Arrangement and I assume that the High Court would have to approve it.

Presumably the Scheme could be something like this.
We will sell the business to a new owner for €x million.
They will agree to refund the deposits to customer creditors or deliver the goods.
Supplier-creditors will be paid 10 cents in the euro.


A supplier-creditor could object on the grounds that they are prejudiced by such a scheme.
 
Sue Ellen said:
As 120 days is the figure quoted a lot do you know under what circumstances it can be extended to 540 days?
Click to expand...
Its very important to state that the claim is within 120 days of the expected delivery and that the claim is being made under the extended time classification.

Where you have purchased a product in advance, then the delivery date is the effective date and you have 120 days from the expected delivery date up to a maximum of 540 days.

A classic example would be the purchase of concert tickets, or made to order items (these were the examples used as a reason for this change a few years ago)

From Bank of Ireland merchant centre -
All Merchants accepting debit and credit card payments run the risk of being liable for chargebacks. A cardholder or card Issuer has the right to question or dispute a card transaction. A chargeback can be received up to 120 days after the card transaction was taken. In the case of goods or services being delivered, a chargeback can be raised up to 120 days from agreed date of delivery.

PTSB
You must raise your dispute no later than 120 calendar days from one of the following:

  • The transaction processing date.
  • For certain transactions (future events like concerts or flights), the dispute cannot exceed 540 calendar days from the transaction processing date and 120 calendar days from the date the service was expected to be received.
 
mathepac said:
That hardcopy article linked to by @Saturn above states on page 2 of The Sunday Times Business supplement today 10/05/2026 that "Rathwood has more than €18 million in liabilities." Has anyone any notion where this number came from as I've haven't seen any mention of double digit liabilities before, let alone liabilities in the high teens?
Click to expand...

Various trade creditors - €10m (€3m for the Chinese garden furniture supplier alone)
Customers - €2.5m
Elavon (chargebacks given) €1.6m
Revenue €1.4m
Bank ??
Loans from directors ??
Other investors?

Looks like they did very well in Covid times, but like many in retail (including some very large corporations), they thought online retail would continue growth or at least stay close to the level it was during covid - It didn't. People LOVE physical shopping and went back to it with a vengeance.

You then get stuck with older stock, expensive warehousing, dwindling cash flow. You then reduce prices to drum up cash flow. This becomes loss making and you find cash flow doesn't get to the level you need. You then look at other options, maybe try pre-selling products with a smaller margin but zero risk, but then that cash flow gets taken by previous debt sand you are in a spiral.


In hindsight, they should have gone into examinership the moment Mercer agencies went under as it would have been the opportune time to reset. However, hindsight is something we can't go back to. (In hindsight I shouldn't have sold my 200 Micron shares at $110 last year :()
 
Saturn said:
similar point made here (but maybe you are Brian Carey
Click to expand...
I read that and thought - "maybe he used aam for research" :D

Sadly, business owners can sometimes convince themselves it will work out in the end and I really agree with the point that family companies need an independent advisor to steer them, especially if they veer off course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top