Brick Suing Jim Brickman

[Pub Style]

http://www.canada.com/business/fp/Brick ... story.html

[tupalev]

I was just going to post that Troy, you're good!

Can we as consumers sue the current Brick board of directors for making shitty beer and destroying an Ontario micro pioneer?

[Rob Creighton]

I was just going to post that Troy, you're good!

Can we as consumers sue the current Brick board of directors for making shitty beer and destroying an Ontario micro pioneer?

I think, if it goes to court, you will find out why Brick lost money for so many years and it won't be pretty. "Alleged wrongs against the company over a number of years" will be pretty easy shooting. My guess is this is retalliation for the the 2 'shareholders' who filed suit against Brick who also happen to be close friends and confidants of Jim. And I think Jim led the way into making shitty beer long before these guys showed up.

[Bytowner]

What Rob said. I know a few people around here have a soft spot for Brickman, but the only thing worse than his beer was his business model. Should be interesting to watch.

[tupalev]

Oh, I'm no Brick apologist, and I know very little about Brick's history apart from what some folks have posted here. But yes, this all does sound very messy. All I can judge is that the beers went from passable in some cases to undrinkable in most cases now.

[Belgian]

+ 1 what Rob and Tupe said about substandard Brick product, Should be interesting. Maybe Ontario can bail them out (what's a few more million in the hole?)

[MattB]

There are more details in this Globe and Mail article

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1164875/

[The_Jester]

Interesting article. But how the hell is this only coming out now? I find it impossible to believe that "the company ... only discovered the alleged wrongdoing after Mr. Brickman retired in December...." No one noticed that his wife was collecting salary plus expenses and paying into the company RRSP? How do you miss $10,000 in fuel costs? Or his $300,000 in personal expenses? He did his own accounting? He leaked info in 2005 and they just found out now? What . . . they read his diary? Curious.

[Rob Creighton]

"The claim also alleges Mr. Brickman leaked confidential company information to analysts."

That's what this is all about. The takeover was shady and questionable (but that's business) and the analyst (Mike Palmer-good friend of Jim's) who filed the lawsuit against Brick probably got some very good info to file it.

It's interesting that the wrongful use of company money is all personal and had nothing to do with buying accounts around town with free beer that I'm sure was hundreds of times in value what ever he used personally. Those of us in the industry have heard countless stories of Brick freebies over the decades but of course they were no worse than the Labatt and Molson stories. The company conveniently sticks to the personal abuses of one character in a public company.

The line I will remember most that Jim used many times at shareholder meetings sort of sums up the long history of the company; "The longer I have to stand here and answer questions, the less time we have to drink beer!" Ahh, the good old days

[Tapsucker]

To practice a craft you have to be crafty. Public companies are fed on publicity. It's hard to see the two approaches reconciling.

[Belgian]

"...buying accounts around town with free beer that I'm sure was hundreds of times in value what ever he used personally. Those of us in the industry have heard countless stories of Brick freebies over the decades but of course they were no worse than the Labatt and Molson stories. The company conveniently sticks to the personal abuses of one character in a public company.:

Isn't giving away beer to bars illegal? Not that it shocks me. How the heck do bars account for selling more beer than they buy - is it all hidden due to cash purchases they don't ring in on the register and fully declare as income (meaning the added sales tax goes in their pocket also. Wow that's lucrative now I think of it!)

I would wonder if some owners of bars believe they are forced to "shift the income tax burden" just to survive in our restrictive system. Enough of then go out of business every year.

But I digress..

[Steve Beaumont]

Interesting to see people getting all emotional and irritable on the Globe story's comments section:

Comments have been disabled
Editor's Note: Comments have been closed on this story because an overwhelming number of readers were making offensive statements about other commenters and/or the individual or individuals mentioned in the story. That kind of behaviour is a breach of our commenting policy, and so the comment function has been turned off. We appreciate your understanding.

[Belgian]

Interesting to see people getting all emotional and irritable on the Globe story's comments section.

WOW! Censorship has sanitized the comments section all sparkly clean for our easily-offended eyes!

The remaining intelligent comments reflect exactly how I feel reading the article, which is to say the guy WAS intrinsically an entrepreneur / brewing pioneer who cant help but continue being both -he was a constant mover-shaker, and he gave away beer. Not earth-shattering. That's who he continued to BE regardless of who bought into the company's interests, and it's surprising nobody anticipated his 'misdeeds'.

Not justifying it. But people like Brickman are not of the employee mentality - they don't just punch a clock and cash one check a week, but instead they color all outside the lines of what most people feel is 'safe' - as does anybody who has done anything with their life, ie. the ambitious and risk-takers. These people create businesses.

"Conservative nature of his misdeeds" = slap on the wrist, most likely. Many a business has that sort of stuff going on and people should have been on the alert for that. You can't take the entrepreneur out of the man, and in a way (even if it is alleged JB screwed up) I have to admire Jim a bit for what he originally set in motion. It took guts.

[Steve Beaumont]

Not to forget, BTW, that Brick has been a publicly traded company since day one.

[Derek]

Isn't giving away beer to bars illegal? Not that it shocks me. How the heck do bars account for selling more beer than they buy - is it all hidden due to cash purchases they don't ring in on the register and fully declare as income (meaning the added sales tax goes in their pocket also. Wow that's lucrative now I think of it!)

They probably don't "technically" sell it. Their spillage probably "decreases" to zero & staff often partake after-hours.

There's also in-house promotions (clubs giving away beer to the cool kids to keep the crowds coming)... but that's probably illegal too.