Dispute over future of Manders site
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.MANDERS, fighting a pounds 93m takeover bid from the rival paint group Kalon, yesterday insisted it had no plans to close its Windeck factory at Bingley, Yorkshire.
Local opinion has been aroused by Kalon stating it would close the factory. But a report from James Capel at the weekend questions the purpose of a pounds 779,000 provision against Windeck in Manders' 1991 accounts.
Tim Steer, a Capel analyst, says his firm was first told by Manders that the provision was set up to cover the closure of Windeck and the transfer of work to the company's Wolverhampton site.
Manders later told Capel that the provision was not for the closure of Windeck but for a new roof and the underpinning of foundations. Mr Steer questions whether such expenditure should be included in a provision.
A Manders spokesman conceded yesterday that closure had been an option for Windeck when it was bought late last year but said a decision had since been made to invest in the factory.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments