Archive · 23 Jun 2025
Grifols Paid More for Plasma from Family-Linked Entity
Imagine a company called Grifols that buys blood plasma.
The company was paying more to buy plasma from a company owned by the Grifols family than from other suppliers.
The price difference was between 2% and 39%.
Grifols also agreed to pay a 16.5% markup on costs.
This information came out in a court case about whether a short seller was right to accuse Grifols of misleading investors.
Grifols says they did nothing wrong and has given explanations to the regulator.
Grifols paid more for plasma from a family-linked entity than other suppliers.
The price difference ranged from 2% to 39% more annually over five years.
Grifols also agreed to pay a fixed 16.5% markup on costs to the family-linked entity.
These findings emerged from a court case between Grifols and a short seller.
Grifols denies any illicit enrichment and disputes the regulator's findings.
- Who
- Grifols and Scranton Enterprises, a family-linked entity.
- What
- Grifols paid more for plasma from a family-linked entity.
- When
- Over five years, starting with a 2018 deal.
- Where
- Involving the Spanish drugmaker Grifols.
- Why
- The reason for the price discrepancy and markup is under scrutiny in court.
Short Seller/Regulator Concerns
Grifols' Response
Pricing Discrepancy
Short Seller/Regulator Concerns
Grifols paid inflated prices to an entity linked to the controlling family for blood plasma.
Grifols' Response
Grifols denies any illicit enrichment and claims all explanations related to the transactions have already been given.
Governance
Short Seller/Regulator Concerns
Questionable governance practices by Grifols due to potential conflicts of interest in business dealings.
Grifols' Response
Grifols took actions such as removing family members from top management and appointing outsiders as CEO and CFO.
- Company
- Grifols SA
- Related Entity
- Scranton Enterprises
- Plasma Price Differential
- 2% to 39% higher annually
- Markup Agreement
- 16.5%
- Court Case
- Grifols vs. Gotham City Research
- Primary Accusation
- Misleading investors and misstating accounting