Krafton, the promoters of PUBG Mobile, has received some bad news. The owners of PUBG Mobile and Battleground Mobile India, Krafton, were intending to launch their IPO, but it has been put on hold for the time being. The IPO of Krafton was postponed by the Financial Supervisory Service due to concerns about inaccuracies in the IPO Brochure.
The country’s financial authority, the Financial Supervisory Service, ordered the game maker to alter its registration statement on Friday.
If the Financial Supervisory Service decides that the securities declaration form contains inaccurate or significant information that may obstruct investors’ rational investment judgment or cause misunderstanding, it may request a correction report. According to local media, Mirae Asset Securities, the deal’s lead manager, “After meditating on the concerns raised by the FSS, we expect to resubmit the registration statement next week.” The IPO date is expected to be pushed back slightly.”
The report came earlier this week, The game publisher Krafton, which is best known for the globally popular game Player Unknown’s Battlegrounds, is expected to become the largest IPO in South Korea, bringing its founder and CEO into the billionaire club. The public listing of Krafton will aim for a $5 billion USD Initial Public Offering (IPO). The corporation is selling $5 billion worth of shares to the general public but this news obviously turns out a setback for the company.
— Reuters (@Reuters) June 28, 2021
After getting this turnaround, Krafton said on Monday that it will resubmit an application for a $5 billion domestic listing after the financial regulator highlighted certain concerns about the proposal, which sources claimed would cause the listing to be delayed.
Problems didn’t seem to end for Krafton, Previously Krafton was discovered to have transmitted Indian customer data to Chinese servers, including those of China Mobile Communications Corp., a state-owned telecom operator, earlier this month. The Korean corporation conceded that data was shared with other parties in a statement, but claimed that it was not a violation of privacy rules, citing user consent for data transfer as justification.