Remember that every supplier and every employee of a business is also a creditor.
It’s not like suppliers of a chain this large aren’t big savvy corporations too.
I think this particular case there might be late payment but the business is going to remain in operation and they'll eventually get paid. Thomas Cook on the other hand incurred a lot of externalised costs.
I'm really not a fan of post-hoc "ah, people deserve to lose their money because they should have known (nonobvious XYZ)". There's even a surprising sentence in the BBC article:
> its auditors were happy to conclude the chain is a viable going concern when it signed off its accounts in April this year despite the company's debts being worth more than its assets
If the auditors (chartered regulated specialists!) think it's fine, who would say it wasn't?
> despite the company's debts being worth more than its assets
Doesn't mean much if you're just comparing Book Value...