Laura de la Quintana Madrid


Updated Saturday, March 2, 2024-01:52

In the game of who's who that Grifols has deployed, the tangle of interconnections that exist between the family, its company and the investment company of which they are part, Scranton, makes the work of analysts difficult (seen on Thursday in a


of 35% in the Stock Market after presenting results) and gives wings to the speculation of bears like Gotham City.

The market is awaiting the verdict of the National Securities Market Commission (CNMV), which is interpreted as the final blow for the company in the event that it is not favorable.

But, meanwhile, the problem that Daniel Yu's signature with his reports put on the table remains unresolved: the ties that unite the entire family network.

And who is inside?

From the Scranton

holding company

- which does not officially belong to Grifols, but where directors with this last name directly control 20% - to the related companies that were sold to Scranton, BPC Plasma and Haema, the bank loans where the company's debts are mixed family, of the company or those granted to the family society;

in addition to the money that Grifols lends to the family directly and even the donations that the

holding company

makes to NGOs such as Probitas or the Grifols Foundation itself.

The 2023 results revealed that

Grifols had lent 5.6 million euros last year to former president Víctor Grifols Roura

, who left office in December.

The company only clarifies that in the month of January this debt was settled, coinciding in time with the Gotham City report, which was published on the 8th of that month.

There are no loans to any other Grifols in recent years, nor to any other member of the board of directors.

On the other hand,

Grifols has also lent money to Scranton

, after having sold BPC Plasma and Haema for $538 million just after its acquisition in 2018. Specifically,

the debt amounts to $110 million,

since, at 95 million initially, last year that loan was expanded by another 15 million.

In other words, Grifols lent money to its shareholder so that it could buy its own companies, since, it claims, this debt is "related to the payment for the sale" of these two shares.

In any case, it would be Grifols who would assume this loan in the event of non-payment to the banks.

According to what EL MUNDO published in January,

eight Spanish entities would also have a debt with Scranton of 450 million euros

that would be distributed equally between CaixaBank, Banco Santander, BBVA and Banco de Sabadell, in addition to Bank of America, BNP , HSBC and Commerzbank.

There is another loan of 500 million directly to Grifols, which was what the European Central Bank (ECB) asked to clarify when the scandal broke at the beginning of the year.

Scranton, very present in the Gotham City report, has always been considered the family's assets, although they claim that they only have 20% of the capital directly.

It is also a shareholder of Grifols, as it holds an 8.6% stake.

However, although Scranton's accounts are in Holland, some of its directors are known.

One of them is the lawyer Tomás Dagá, advisor to the pharmaceutical company, who appears as a shareholder of Scranton Enterprises.

He is also one of the founding partners of the Osborne Clarke law firm.

Within the patrimonial there are two companies, one specialized in plasma and another in real estate, Centurión.

Among the three top managers, two are linked to Grifols or its directors.

Jordi Fábregas is also a founding partner of Osborne Clarke;

and Juan Javier Roura joined the group in 1986 and until his departure in 2015, he was vice president of Treasury and Risk at Grifols.

On the other hand,

Grifols annually fulfills its commitment to distribute 0.7% of pre-tax profits to a non-profit organization

; what is not clear is whether it is Probitas or the Grifols Foundation itself or a third party. -the company has not responded to this question-, in both cases controlled by the company.

The president of the Probitas board is Núria Martín Varnés, co-founder of Osborne Clarke and secretary of the board of directors of Grifols since 2015. Enrique Grifols Roura, a doctor by profession, is also a member.


Grifols recovered just over 800 million euros of market capitalization yesterday with a rebound of 18%, which does not serve to compensate for the 35% drop this Thursday after presenting results, which were not audited by KPMG.

Behind this rise there are up to three relevant facts that the listed company published yesterday before the end of the morning through the National Securities Market Commission (CNMV) to explain what it did not clarify the previous day.

The first of them was to confirm what was said on Thursday, that

the operation with Haier for the sale of 20% of Shanghai Raas remains without complications

, having passed the

due diligence

, and that it will be closed before the summer.

This money is key for Grifols since the 1.8 billion it will receive will be entirely used to pay off debt.

Specifically, the 1,900 million that it has in two maturities in 2025.

The second relevant fact was to explain the misunderstanding that occurred on Thursday due to a poor expression in English by the board of directors when it was implied that the cash flows (which were negative in 2023) would be positive by a few million in the coming years.

The firm expects that from 2025 to 2027 they will reach 2,000-2,500 million euros


They will be about 5 million due to the impact of some investments (in ImmunoTek) this year.

And the third communication was to accuse the press that, according to the company, "has misinterpreted the accounting treatment" given to the related companies, "Haema, AG and BPC Plasma" and

the payment of 266 million euros in dividends that has been made to Scranton,

which is the de facto owner of these companies.

It should be noted that Grifols has not given a press conference or statements to journalists since the scandal broke out on January 8.

"The payment of the dividend is supposedly made by delivering 'Other non-current financial assets' which can be any type of financial investments, other than cash. It is a movement that has not been explained, but possibly represents

a financial loss for Grifols' minority shareholders. for that same amount

, since the counterpart of the liability can only be Own resources, according to our preliminary opinion, based on the confusing and insufficient information available", point out from Bankinter's Analysis Department.

On the other hand,

Grifols has not paid dividends to its shareholders since 2021 due to its high levels of debt.