I'm struggling to understand the logic here. Are you suggesting that Scott is lying about the liquidation to avoid consequences? How would a non-liquidation change the outcome in this situation?
I personally know of multiple businesses that operate the way I used to survive: paycheck to paycheck.
Some months are better, while others are worse. These businesses are constantly teetering on the brink of collapse, with the sheriff making regular visits. They are at the mercy of patient creditors who, for reasons known only to them, chose to extend a lifeline time and time again. From the outside, these businesses appeared successful, but in reality, they are one missed payment away from a padlock on the door or having their stock liquidated. Sheer luck and the inexplicable grace of a few key creditors is all that keeps the lights on.
I think the average businessman marches forward with the hopes that things will get better and will not dare to 'stop taking orders' when things start to look bad, as that would be seen as giving up!