In a recent examination of Grifols’ financial situation, Gotham City Research asserts that the Catalan company failed to disclose a $95 million loan extended to ScrantonHE Holding. The executive summary notes that this loan is absent from Grifols’ own records and appears only in Scranton’s records. Documents released by KPMG, the auditor for Grifols, counter this claim by referencing the loan in Grifols’ 2018 Consolidated Annual Accounts Report, creating a dispute over the loan’s visibility in official statements.
The dispute traces back to Grifols’ $538 million acquisition of Biotest of Scranton and Haema, two plasma-related entities. To finance the deal, the founders of Grifols and other managers signed a loan of $95 million (approximately €82.96 million), with Grifols Worldwide Operations Limited listed as the borrower. Gotham contends Grifols lacks visibility of the loan, while the auditor’s notes indicate the debt bears Euribor interest with a 2% spread, maturing on December 28, 2025.
The Gotham City Research report accuses Grifols’ Board of Directors of manipulating revenue and profits by counting profits from subsidiaries that Grifols no longer owns as if they belonged to the group. By their measure, those profits should not be recognized by Grifols. The disclosure—under this criterion—could also mask leverage the firm might hold. Grifols responded by stating that the accounts approved by KPMG reflect the company’s accounting practices and denying that new information existed that should be treated as confidential. The market reaction suggested a loss of confidence, with fears of a potential decline in Grifols’ stock price and market capitalization.
Shareholders and analysts divided
The uproar from Gotham’s report has prompted a broad spectrum of responses. The XTB broker commented that although further developments are awaited, the alleged irregularities could significantly affect results and, if confirmed, could push the stock to historically low levels. European press coverage has amplified caution among investors. Damià Rey, a stock-market analyst at the International University of Catalonia, highlighted reputational risk tied to the case, while Emili Vizuete of the University of Barcelona stressed that a continued stock decline would depend on whether the information is verified. The debate has already unsettled some investors who fear the worst for the company’s valuation.
CNMV has stepped in to examine whether Grifols’ investment vehicle was used to obscure the company’s accounts, a move that could have far-reaching implications for governance disclosures and investor trust. Within the shareholder community, Renta 4 described the Gotham report as inaccurate and exaggerated, while expressing concern about the downward trend. The firm suggested the report contained arguments that did not align with generally accepted accounting standards and claimed some statements were unsubstantiated or false. While a portion of investors remains wary, others see a chance to reassess positions in light of any forthcoming clarifications. The overall sentiment is unsettled, with opinions split between caution and the possibility of a corrective rebound should explanations emerge.
Bestinver issued statements defending Grifols as well, noting a prior skepticism that prompted a partial portfolio rebalancing. The firm indicated that the situation does not align with past incidents involving other market players. Grifols has historically cited precedents from the industry when interpreting complex financials, including cases in other sectors where governance concerns led to heightened scrutiny. The Gotham case has been compared with earlier episodes in Spain involving corporate irregularities, underscoring the high stakes when a single report can influence investor confidence and stock performance.
Several observers contend that the outcome will rest on the clarity and credibility of audited accounts and whether new information surfaces that requires restatement. Market watchers emphasize that the trajectory of the stock will hinge on official communications, auditor sign-offs, and how regulators interpret the governance and disclosure practices in question. The situation illustrates how quick market sentiment can shift when a prominent research firm questions a company’s financial transparency, even as auditors defend the validity of reported practices. The broader question remains how Grifols will demonstrate resilience and maintain investor trust through subsequent disclosures and any remedial steps considered by the board.
In the background, parallels are drawn with prior Spanish corporate episodes. Observers recall other high-profile cases where governance concerns and irregularities attracted attention from regulators and investors alike. These references serve as a reminder that the integrity of financial reporting remains central to market stability, and that independent assessments, reconciliations, and timely explanations are essential to maintaining confidence in large, globally connected firms.