Just over four months earlier, EiDF appeared unstoppable. This Galician company, renowned for industrial photovoltaic installations, had enjoyed rapid growth over a year of expansion. It traded on a market for growing SMEs, with a market value approaching 1.7 billion euros, placing it among notable Iberian players. The company began in Barro, a small town in Pontevedra, where its founder also served as president and chief executive. Then on April 14, everything shifted. The regulator suspended trading after a dispute with the newly appointed auditor, PwC, which prevented signing the accounts within the required statutory window.
After restating accounts and publishing them again, EiDF’s market value collapsed to under 230 million euros. Minority shareholders who owned roughly 13 percent of the capital faced losses exceeding 80 percent of their investment. The chief executive, who controlled a large stake, saw assets swing dramatically. The dispute escalated into a clash with PwC and Deloitte, brought in to prepare a forensic review, and with the national regulator CNMV. Following a sharp public exchange in mid-August, the company asserted that it would not yield to what it regarded as excessive demands.
The situation threatened to derail EiDF’s growth trajectory and its chances of staying within the premier markets frame where it had recently stood. It presented a moment that could redefine its entry into the Ibex and the major leagues of the market.
Omissions and distortions
Was the company entangled in a legal dispute with important omissions cited by CNMV as seen in Deloitte’s forensic work? Were documents created or altered, and to what extent did internal controls weaken? Could a high-growth company be controlled so tightly by its founder that serious organizational, financial, and commercial chaos would result?
PwC, the auditor hired by EiDF, declined to sign the accounts after identifying significant inconsistencies. The regulator suspended trading and asked a third party, Deloitte, to produce a forensic report assessing the impact of these discrepancies. According to that report, PwC issued an audit opinion but highlighted significant governance weaknesses and a weak internal control system. The firm also noted that the group carried substantial negative working capital and raised serious questions about talent management.
EiDF argued that the forensic assessment involved about two million euros that were largely recorded in the accounts. That sum, while notable, did not reflect more than a tiny fraction of the year 2022 turnover. PwC’s sign-off on the 2022 consolidated results showed revenue of 329 million euros, a 371 percent jump from 2021, and an adjusted consolidated EBITDA of 10.6 million, more than double the prior year.
CNMV’s push for clarity
On August 16 CNMV asked EiDF to publish a draft communication that laid out Deloitte’s forensic findings and included sensitive information. EiDF responded the following day, but the regulator said the release fell short of full disclosure. On August 21 CNMV issued a statement noting that the published information was incomplete and contained critical omissions.
The regulator stressed that Deloitte’s forensic work contained important evidence for EiDF shareholders and pointed to issues related to possible document falsification and weak internal controls. It urged EiDF to publish the full contents of the forensic report without commentary and indicated that the report implicated the founder and chief executive in many major decisions. The regulator also suggested appointing a new chief executive to lead the company forward.
Company in absentia
The company’s response was swift and pointed. EiDF publicly stated that it would not publish the full set of conclusions demanded by CNMV, framing the regulator’s stance as a legal move. The exchange reflected a deepening rift, with CNMV indicating it would monitor the situation closely as it searched for a clearer path forward. The ongoing conflict raised concerns about the company’s future strategy and the protection of shareholder value.
As the dispute continues, the outlook for EiDF and its investors remains uncertain. CNMV holds a central role, and the outcome could determine whether EiDF can recover its standing or drift toward a downturn in confidence and market access.