Around 2,150 jobs at risk as Claire's Accessories appoints administrators
In a statement on Wednesday evening, Interpath confirmed Will Wright and Chris Pole have been appointed joint administrators.
The move will raise fears over the future of its 306 stores, with 278 of these in the UK and 28 in Ireland.
Administrators are set to seek a potential rescue deal for the chain, which has seen sales tumble in the face of recent weak consumer demand.
Claire's UK stores will remain open as usual and store staff will stay in their positions once administrators are appointed, the company said.
Interpath said the joint administrators will be contacting all of Claire's employees in the UK and Ireland to 'provide further information about what the administration means for them'.
Will Wright, UK chief executive at Interpath, said: 'Claire's has long been a popular brand across the UK, known not only for its trend-led accessories but also as the go-to destination for ear piercing.
'Over the coming weeks, we will endeavour to continue to operate all stores as a going concern for as long as we can, while we assess options for the company.
'This includes exploring the possibility of a sale which would secure a future for this well-loved brand.'
It comes after the US-based Claire's group filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in a court in Delaware last week.
It is the second time the group has declared bankruptcy, after first filing for the process in 2018.
Chris Cramer, chief executive of Claire's, said: 'This decision, while difficult, is part of our broader effort to protect the long-term value of Claire's across all markets.
'In the UK, taking this step will allow us to continue to trade the business while we explore the best possible path forward. We are deeply grateful to our employees, partners and our customers during this challenging period.'
Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: 'Claire's attraction has waned, with its high street stores failing to pull in the business they used to.
'While they may still be a beacon for younger girls, families aren't heading out on so many shopping trips, with footfall in retail centres falling.
'The chain is now faced with stiff competition from TikTok and Insta shops, and by cheap accessories sold by fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
EU push to protect digital rules holds up trade statement with US, FT reports
Aug 17 (Reuters) - The European Union is trying to prevent the United States from targeting the bloc's digital rules as both sides work through the final details of a delayed statement to formalise a trade deal reached last month, the Financial Times reported on Sunday. EU officials said disagreements over language relating to "non-tariff barriers", which the U.S. said include the digital rules, are among the reasons for the hold-up of the statement, the newspaper said. Reuters could not immediately verify the report.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump rows back threat of ‘secondary tariffs' against India and China after Putin summit
US president Donald Trump has played down the prospect of imposing so-called 'secondary tariffs' on buyers of Russian oil after his meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Trump had proposed the levies as a new way of pressuring Russia's war-time economy if it failed to stop its invasion of Ukraine, and they were largely due to impact China and India, by far the two biggest buyers of Russian crude. Mr Trump earlier this month doubled duties on Indian products to 50 per cent after imposing an additional 25 per cent tariff for buying Russian oil, kicking off from 27 August. New Delhi was facing the risk of even higher tariffs if Mr Trump's summit in Alaska failed to end Russia's war in Ukraine after the US treasury secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday that 'secondary tariffs could go up' if things don't go well at the meeting. In recent days, Mr Trump has expressed his anger with India for its refusal to stop buying oil from Russia. He has accused India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing discounted crude from Moscow. China remains the largest market for Russian oil exports. However, raising tariffs on Beijing threatens to break a delicate truce deal between China and the US after it was extended for another 90 days. The truce saw both countries lowering tariffs on each other's goods after the trade war between the two biggest economies threatened to upend global markets. On board Air Force One on his way to meet Mr Putin in Alaska, Mr Trump still appeared undecided on whether he would impose secondary tariffs or not, saying they would be 'very devastating' for China in particular and suggesting Russia had already 'lost an oil client' in India. ''If I have to do it, I'll do it. Maybe I won't have to do it,' he said. After the nearly three-hour-long meeting with Mr Putin, Mr Trump hailed the Alaska summit as a 'great and very successful day' although 'we didn't get there' on agreeing an immediate ceasefire. He instead endorsed Russia's longstanding position – that Kyiv and Moscow would need to agree a full peace deal while fighting continued in the background. And in a post-summit interview with Hannity, Mr Trump said he would hold off on imposing secondary tariffs on China for buying Russian oil after making progress with Mr Putin. He did not mention India directly. "Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that now," Mr Trump said of the tariffs. "I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now." India has previously said that it needs Russian oil to meet the energy needs of its fast-growing economy. The country has been sourcing nearly a third of its oil from Russia since the Ukraine war began in early 2022 and Moscow started offering it at a discounted rate. New Delhi has decried the double standards of the US sanctioning its oil purchases while continuing to buy Russian uranium hexafluoride, palladium and fertiliser. Narendra Modi's government called the US tariffs "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable" and vowed to "take all actions necessary to protect its national interests'.
Times
7 hours ago
- Times
Forget rows about interest rates — we should watch out for AI
The US president and the chairman of the Federal Reserve board are at swords drawn over the relation between changes in interest rates and job creation. While the president concentrates on defenestrating bureaucrats who report fewer jobs than he believes exist, and the chairman of the Fed ponders the significance of 'cracks' in the labour market, artificial intelligence is making those concerns pale into insignificance. Morgan Stanley estimates that these large models that are equipping machines to perform tasks typically associated with human intelligence will gobble $3 trillion of capital in the next three years. It is the double-digit unemployment gorilla sitting in congressional hearing rooms, in the Fed board room and at the dining table at Mar-a-Lago. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, a powerful creator of AI systems, estimates that AI will wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs in the next one to five years, and drive the unemployment rate to as high as 20 per cent. Indeed, even now, recent college graduates — unemployment rate 6.5 per cent — are complaining of extreme difficulties in finding jobs. McKinsey, the management consultancy, reckons that AI could automate 30 per cent of hours currently worked across the US economy by 2030, and that 60 per cent will be significantly altered by AI tools. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon says: 'AI is everywhere … it hedges our equity portfolios … there's nothing it's not going to touch.' Gone will be bank tellers, data entry clerks, administrative assistants and executive secretaries. More optimistic observers point out that when Henry Ford reduced the horse from a major means of transportation to dressage, starring roles in cowboy movies, and polo, consumers wanted, then needed cars — and more than one — creating millions of jobs for auto workers and mechanics. When Thomas Alva Edison created the light bulb he relegated candlemakers to making scented gifts, while creating jobs for manufacturers of those bulbs and enabled students to engage in myriad night time activities, including, but not limited to, studying. When Steve Jobs created the iPhone and thin Macs, he replaced latter-day Bob Cratchits with spread sheets, and AT&T repairmen with programmers and manufacturers of computers, carrying cases, ergonomic chairs. The supply of each invention created its own demand, along with the burning desire for their add-ons. Apple AirPods, anyone? We do not yet know whether the beneficent effects of this new force will be outweighed by its ability to seize control of its creators. But the speed with which AI is penetrating almost every phase of economic life, and uncertainty about just what products it will create or make newly affordable for consumers, make it unwise to mumble something about the historic fecklessness of Luddites and do nothing. The potential transition costs will be too high, the potential strains on society and the pressures on politicians too great for a policy of benign neglect. Imagine this: in the morning strange metal objects directed by AI 'agents', software systems capable of planning and reasoning, are directing machines, usually robots, that are mowing your lawn and cleaning your pool. An AI agent-directed drone has deposited the book you ordered on your doorstep after an AI-directed robot selected it from the bottom of a pile in a huge warehouse. You enter an AI- directed driverless car that delivers you to your golf club while you adjust the Metaglasses that have replaced iPhones and read news reports written by an AI agent specially for you, based on your recent purchases, travels, conversations at home and other personal data sprinkled by you across the internet. No waiting for a sci-fi future; it has arrived. The question, where have all the workers gone? The answer, AI agents have replaced them, every one. Some experts, including Jamie Dimon, believe the past is prologue: AI will create more jobs than it will destroy, proving John Maynard Keynes right again when he wrote almost 100 years ago, that 'technological unemployment … is only a temporary phase of maladjustment.' Possible. But even so, there will be high transition costs for which policies must be thought through before the full blast of AI makes itself felt. Government budgets already under strain will make it difficult to supplement the incomes of displaced workers, at a time when an ageing population places greater demand on the existing social safety net. Past efforts at retraining programmes have largely failed, and must be reshaped. Taxes will be needed to transfer some of the benefits of AI to the adversely affected. But without destroying incentives to retrain and find work, as would a universal basic income — no work required — being mooted by some guilt-ridden Silicon Valley magnates. Add measures that provide incentives to accelerate the development of new products and the consequent new jobs for humans, and the higher incomes capable of financing the amelioration of the costs of change. Make fast write-offs of research and development costs and investment a permanent feature of the tax code. I leave the question of regulating scams, abuses, of what Amodei calls 'extreme blackmail behaviour' and robots that are capable of assassinating their creators to others. irwin@ Irwin Stelzer is a business adviser
