As of June 2025, McPhy Energy—the once-prominent French electrolyzer manufacturer—stands on the brink of liquidation, a sobering indicator of the tightening margins, delayed revenue cycles, and capital shortfalls impacting Europe’s hydrogen technology firms.
With no binding takeover bid submitted by the initial deadline and a court-mandated extension granted until June 13, the company’s future hinges on fragmented interest in selected assets rather than a holistic rescue.
McPhy’s FY 2024 revenue dropped to €13.1 million ($16.7 million), a sharp 30% decline from the previous year. This plunge was largely attributed to delayed revenue recognition on major projects such as the 20MW Djewels plant in the Netherlands. Although construction was progressing, McPhy was unable to book revenue, highlighting the structural weakness of milestone-based accounting in an industry where delivery lags frequently extend beyond projected timelines.
Simultaneously, the company absorbed financial hits from contract terminations in its refueling station business—an early diversification effort that failed to scale. The cumulative effect has been a persistent cash burn that its balance sheet could not withstand. For context, in 2023, McPhy had already flagged issues of limited commercial visibility despite growing policy support across the EU for green hydrogen infrastructure.
The Belfort Commercial Court is now coordinating a judicial reorganisation aimed at salvaging value from the company’s remnants. A new deadline of June 13 has been set for the submission of offers, followed by a court review on June 24. While no binding bid for the entire company emerged in the first round, a European industrial entity has expressed interest in specific assets—a clear sign that strategic acquirers may see value in McPhy’s intellectual property, production facilities, or regional project pipeline, but not its full operational structure.
The French firm’s subsidiaries in Germany and Italy are undergoing separate restructuring processes, with localized asset interest reportedly emerging. These developments suggest that buyers are focusing on bolt-on acquisitions rather than taking on McPhy’s broader liabilities or re-entering long-term, capital-intensive project commitments under its name.
The case of McPhy highlights how even firms with marquee projects and early-mover status are not insulated from the structural flaws in hydrogen project financing: long lead times, deferred revenue recognition, and weak off-take certainty.
Moreover, McPhy’s struggles also stem from mismatches between production scaling goals and market absorption. The industry’s capital expenditure boom, spurred by aggressive national hydrogen strategies, has not translated into equivalent project executions. This supply-demand gap, alongside an influx of global competitors, particularly from China and the U.S., has intensified pricing pressure.
As McPhy’s shares face delisting, with no residual value expected given that liabilities exceed asset realisation, investor confidence in the hydrogen equipment segment is under review. The firm’s fall may trigger stricter due diligence among institutional investors and could lead to recalibrated valuations across the board. For smaller and mid-cap players, especially those publicly listed, capital access may become increasingly conditional on demonstrated project delivery rather than aspirational pipelines.
This case also underlines the need for revised project financing models. Reliance on back-loaded revenue recognition is a clear vulnerability. Structuring contracts that allow for staged payments tied to equipment delivery or verified deployment milestones could improve liquidity for equipment manufacturers and reduce insolvency risk.
Stay updated on the latest in energy! Follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and X for real-time news and insights. Don’t miss out on exclusive interviews and webinars—subscribe to our YouTube channel today! Join our community and be part of the conversation shaping the future of energy.
