Panel warns Forte
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Forte and its financial advisers have been warned by the Takeover Panel to take more care over the wording of defence documents. The panel is concerned that the final paragraph on page one of last week's defence document against the pounds 3.3bn bid from Granada was not worded in the usual manner.
A merchant banker, unconnected with the bid, said the wording "came close" to breaching rule 3.1 of the Takeover Code because it did not make entirely clear that the board and its advisers - SBC Warburg, UBS and Morgan Stanley - held the same opinion.
A spokeswoman for the panel said: "I can confirm the wording in the document is unusual. However there is no question that the board and its advisers do not have different opinions. We anticipate more traditional wording in future documents."
Forte yesterday told City analysts that it would raise prices at Travelodge hotels by pounds 2 to pounds 36.50 a night. It added, however, that to raise prices further would lose customers.
Also yesterday, Granada claimed that it could boost Forte's profits by pounds 100m a year. Forte described the claim as rubbish and asked why Granada failed to explain how it would achieve the improvements.
City Diary, page 22.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments