View from City Road: Strange secrets at Portals
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.Another victim of the stock market slump seems to have been De La Rue's plans to get together with Portals. Security printing is a secretive business so it is perhaps unsurprising that the two would provide no reasons for their failure to agree terms.
Since De La Rue remains convinced of the logic of buying one of its most important suppliers, we can take it that price was the main problem. De La Rue's approach was badly timed. Portals' shares have risen sharply this year; by the time a takeover approach was confirmed two weeks ago, they stood 45 per cent higher than a year earlier. Perhaps more importantly, the stock market has been dropping like a stone.
Portals has a good profits record. To have won the backing of the Portals board, De La Rue would have needed to offer more than pounds 9 a share, perhaps pounds 10 - representing a very frothy multiple of 29 times historic earnings. Hardly a bargain for De La Rue's shareholders, who may have been asked to help to finance the deal.
De La Rue assures us that it was not put off by Laverstoke House, the magnificent Hampshire estate owned by Portals but rented to its chairman, Julian Sheffield.
This may be the abiding memory of this affair. Portals refused yesterday to say whether the benefit that Mr Sheffield derives from Laverstoke House is covered by the pounds 124,000 that its report gave as his remuneration last year. It stuck to the mealy-mouthed formula that its auditors were confident that its disclosure met statutory requirements.
What is Portals trying to hide? Are there any other perks its 'statutory disclosure' is obscuring? If none, why is it so shy? Its reported record suggests that it has little to be afraid of. One can be too secretive.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments