Close Menu
News

Brewdog retracts claims made in crowdfund drive

Craft beer brand Brewdog has admitted mistakes were made when it claimed to have financial authority approval for its £25m fundraising pitch to potential investors.

BrewDog founders James Watt (left) and Martin Dickie (Photo: Brewdog)

A financial watchdog ordered the company to correct false statements it made in its recently unveiled “Equity for Punks 2” crowdfunding pitch, from which it is aiming to raise the record sum.

In the initial email pitch to potential shareholders, the company claimed it had approval from the UK Listing Authority, a division of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) which ensures that a company’s future plans are within the law.

In a follow-up email sent after the FCA intervened, Brewdog founder James Watt told investors to “ignore the point made in our email about the past increase in value that investors in [Equity for Punks, Brewdog’s previous fundraising drive] made”, according to the Financial Times.

The FCA began investigating Brewdog’s claims following the launch of its latest crowdfunding round in late April, ruling that the craft beer company did not fully comply with financial promotions rules.

In his latest email, Watt said, “We’re happy that we’re completely compliant now. As a public company we take our responsibility to investors very seriously,” the FT quotes.

The Equity for Punks drive will see 526,316 shares in the brewery made available for anyone to buy for a minimum investment of just £95 for two shares.

Capital raised will be used to build a new 300 hectolitre brewhouse to operate in tandem with its existing 100 hectolitre brewhouse in Aberdeenshire in Scotland, expanding its international bar division as well the launch of new projects including a craft beer hotel, custom sour beer facility and distillation plant.

One response to “Brewdog retracts claims made in crowdfund drive”

  1. Mike says:

    Slightly misleading article. Brewdog does have approval for its £25m fundraising pitch, in that the offering prospectus meets the UKLA’s listing rules, and as such has been approved. The mistake was only in the wording they used which suggested the UKLA had approved the scheme itself, which might give the impression they had rubber stamped and endorsed it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

It looks like you're in Asia, would you like to be redirected to the Drinks Business Asia edition?

Yes, take me to the Asia edition No