Sunday, 3 May 2015

We reported a few weeks ago that the company who owned the brand Green and Pleasant had filed for closure. The company is now dissolved. 28 Broadwick Street Ltd raised money on Crowdcube for its start up cuckoo brewing operation, labelled Green and Pleasant. Cuckoo might easily have referred to the business as well as the brewing plan.

The original website has ceased to function. However a new site has just launched, using the same branding at This site has no details about who owns it It has developed two new G&P products.

Anyone with any news on this please comment. It may well be all above board but investors put their money into 28 Broadwick Street Ltd not G&P as a legal entity. We would be interested to know who now owns the GP brand and website.

Shortly after raising funding on Crowdcube the company filed to be struck off but this was countered by a DISS40 notice a week later. More recently the company changed its accounting reference date and then again filed to be struck off - this time successfully. It never filed accounts post investment.


  1. Why would I company file to be struck off? Surely the assets should be returned to the shareholders if a company ceases trading?

    1. Thats what we want to know - how can this company which owned this brand be closed yet the brand continues to be sold.

    2. I find the situation very bizarre. The company’s pitch is still viewable on CC site. The founders Jamie Anley and Fleur Emery still report on their Linkedin pages to be current in the business. I assume if the B-class shareholders have be wiped out we will hear about it. A big big problem with ECF is the lack of transparency; ECF business can do what they want with its shareholders. A VC has access to the business and cannot be pushed around.

      What I find strange about CC is their policy of removing some pitches quickly after they close while keeping others, for example G&P up for two years after the close of the pitch.

      In terms of valuations, the equity in CC is seems overall more expensive than Seedrs. With CC, putting in 1000 pounds you’re lucky to get 0.01% equity. With Seedrs you on generally gets more equity for the same amount of cash.

    3. We contacted the company but no response. Website has no details on it - no address etc or any legal notices. Very strange list of stockists for a beer - nearly all garden centres. Neither owner of 28 Broadwick Street Ltd (who created G&P) have been registered with a new company. All very odd.

      CC have a long record of manipulating information - it's what they are best at.

    4. Yesterday I also sent them a request for information (of ownership) via the site It would be interesting to know what the A-share holder have been told, and whether the B-shareholders also know what is going on.

      With regards to your comment on CC I would be surprised to see CC around in six years’ time. I expect to see an article in the FT in the next two years case studying investors who invested in successful business but did not profit on exit because of high valuations, dilution and lack of pre-emption rights.

    5. If one compares the price of equity on syndicate rooms (were equity is priced at the same price as the investing angel investors) one can see how expensive equity on C is (where equity is priced by the owners).