Who called from 8189096800

24 for Dorothy bottom line then a 75 million for the remainder of the franchis -e seperate company now your facts.  An closed mouth gathers no foot.  See you at the movies.

So we finally have an honest to goodness employee chiming in and I'll be darn if he doesn't provide a rebuttal that is based entirely on fantasy and is unsupported by hard data, such as actual budgets, costs, distribution strategy, marketing costs, and other related fees. The other knucklehead that attempts to justify a production fee of 20% on top of the potential 40% commission feels that it takes over $10 million to run the darn lights. That must be one very bright office. The fact is that a movie is being made and we can assume that it is being produced under best efforts, what none of the investors know is the actual costs. No one seems to really know what they are investing in. There are plenty of industry veterans involved in the project, not that any of them have had any real success in the past, but there is some experience at the helm. The weak links seem to be in the funding of the project itself and the nefarious and unresponsive methodology to funding. There is solid verifiable proof that several states have found fault in the companies funding practices. We can assume that there were legal fees incurred and fines paid, but we do not know what those amounts are. There appears to be a big question concerning the amount of commission the sales people are getting and whether Neil Kauffamn and Jeff Urdank are receiving 22% of money raised for the respective companies. Legal document state that a commission of 40% was paid, so we need to base our opinion on those facts. What this boils down to is are the investors paying $60 million to make a $20 million movie. That would be fine if there was clarity and transparency and the investors at least had some small insight into where the money is going. It is all very simple. If it is an honest legitimate business then open the books and show the investors where their money is going. What is it realistically going to take in box office revenue to break even? How much is being spent on advertising and who is doing it? How many theaters will it play in and what about outside the United States. There was a lot of talk about all this other big stuff they were doing along with the movie but it seems like that has all put on the back burner, cancelled or maybe never existed.  There does not seem to be anyone associated with the funding that has any legitimate and practical business knowledge. They seem to have the panache of car salesmen and the verve of Amway reps. these are not MBA’s. I think we can all agree on that. If you read some of the comments it is apparent that those that are stating concern are logical, analytical, and basing their opinions on the public records of several states and the Private Placement Memorandum. The rebuttals in support of the business are a notch above an incoherent rumble and the ignorance of a country rube. At the end of the day some may deserve to lose their money but others should stand strong and demand fair accounting.

These guys just got busted by the state of California for the 5th time, and this time California investors who got swindled between November 2009 and January 2011 will actually be able to get their money back, together with hefty fines for the perpetrators. In addition to all the obvious problems with these novice moviemakers, experienced fundraisers, proven failures in the movie making industry, yet successes in the money making scams, is the problem of the recent ruling in favor of Warner Bros by the 8th DCA which will most likely impair all 9 of the OZ movies currently in production in favor of the Warner Bros project. If you’re in California run and get your money before these guys fold up shop.

http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/a/AlpinePictures_Stipulation.pdf

Ok MSK or others who think this is a scam, I would like to use you as my devils advocate.  It seems to me that the movie is getting made, so its not as though they have left town with the money.  Since at least some of the money raised is in fact being spent on the movie, doesn't the question become how well the money is being spent.  If they spend more than they need to to make the movie doesn't that make them poor businessmen/producers and not necessarily crooks or frauds.  As far as the any laws that were broken, it seems that they broke the law in how they raised the money, not in how they have spent it.  At looking at the cease and desist orders it looks like even though there are multiple States involved, each of the cases brought against Dorothy of OZ are really from the same event.  They used a telemarketing firm that solicited money from non-accredited investors which is in violation of each states securities laws.  I am sure they attempted to raise the money in every state that they could and since they did it illegally they could conceivably have 50 cease and desists even though it was really only one attempt to raise money.  An unlicensed person attempting to raise money by selling a security/ownership interest in a company is illegal, but it is not necessarily fraud.  And it happens thousands of times a day every time anyone asks a friend or family member to invest in the next great thing.  Yes?

The state of California issued several cease and desist orders and injunctions against the defendants, each as a result of separate violations. The defendants continued to sell these securities after the Nov 9, 2010 cease and desist order (the 60% commission is just too much of a temptation). Each state’s cease and desist order is based on separate violations within that state. These US and State regulations exist in order to protect the unsophisticated and the gullible from these types of high risk investments designed to separate the simple from their money. Don’t believe the lies; the issue is not about an unlicensed person selling the securities, but that these securities are not to be sold by anyone to non-accredited investors. Look up their SEC form D. Having said that, there is no accredited investor who would invest a dollar in anything with a 60% up-front fee. I was told by one of these dealers that the company had many people who wanted to fund the entire project but the company did not want to pay a “lion’s share of the profits” to a single person. Translation: no single person would invest 50 million dollars and agree to pay 30 million in up front commissions. So you see the only way these guys can make this kind of money while experimenting with their first whole load of watermelon (these guys are not very good movie makers and will be competing against major studios OZ projects, against people who control the movie market with a copyright infringment ruling possible) is by raising it form very trusting, hopeful, inexperienced, unsophisticated, fact ignoring, gullible, simple investors. If you refuse to learn or comprehend this, then you and all of your money will soon be parted.