818-909-6800

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

This doesn’t seem to apply to a telemarketing company but directly to Ryan Carroll, Rene Torres, and Neil Kaufman. So it appears that at least in the state of California that there is substance to believe that funding may not have been conducted properly. I am going to go out on a limb here and take some guesses but I am assuming that Dorothy of Oz LLC (Box Office Productions) spent all the money it raised and that no cash reserves exist. Therefore, unless Kaufman can pay these fines out of his pockets (which he probably can considering how much he made) that the company will have to “borrow” the money from someplace else. Like maybe new investors money will be used to pay old investors, and fines. That is a little like a ponzi scheme. There is no doubt that a movie is being attempted. The quality and cost are in question and most assuredly the method in which the money was raised. The managing members and the producers, including Greg Centineo have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that all investors’ money is judiciously and wisely spent. There should also be transparency to what is the exact cost of raising money, how the money is spent from soup to nuts. What is the actual budget of the film, are there cost reports, what if any commission was paid, how the 22% reserve capital is paid to the managing member allocated, and is there a co-mingling of funds. I feel that there are those that invested and are prepared to lose their money and will experience little to no detrimental effect, but I am wholly concerned with those non-accredited individuals that simply do not understand investing, and do not have money to lose. They are the ones that need a voice. If some poor gullible Gus invested his family’s retirement fund in this and it goes belly up because of poor management and negligent spending (like way too high of commission rates) it will just be a shame. No one really knows how much money was raised on this film, reports are as high as $60 million, and it may be more. That is an awful lot of money. My fear is that generally when there is a little bit of wrong doing there is usually a lot of wrong doing. I think that the case presented by the state of California proves that these guys willfully, and knowingly broke the law to raise money for Alpine and Dorothy, how long has this been going on? How many will lose?? What is the exit strategy? I think that it is only fair that if residents of California are being offered their money back ALL investors should be treated equally and fairly and be given the opportunity to get their money back NOW!!

I invested in Box Office Productions back in 2005; and then bought stock in Alpine after many conversations with Neil Kaufman and one of the Carroll brothers.  Immediately I started getting calls for more capital for the film I originally invested in.  This was a learning experience for me and taught me it is crucial to do your due dilligence.  I did not invest enough to ruin me or bankrupt me, but I resent having been cheated by them.  I watched as new films were touted by BOP that never went anywhere. These people have been fined and charged with violating regulations in several states, not just California.  As has been pointed out in numerous posts I have read here, all you need to do is spend a little time Googling and you will see that they have cheated people worldwide.  I laugh everytime I see innocent posts about Dorothy of Oz.  How many actors have come and gone who's names were connected to that project?  It has been under production since 2005.  Does it really take 7 years to bring a cartoon to the theater?

•    My # GFY  See you at at the movies as##hole, so many haters.  Why do you all practice deception, and fear mongering.  I worked for this company and they are legit, you guys are confused, and frankely pretty ignorant.  I hope the highest grossing movie of 2012 straightens you out but I doubt it.  Haters hate, thats what you do.  Hows that S & P 500 working for ya?  You probably get your financial advice from a broker and watch CNN.  Oh by the way my # 702.800.3550 step out of the mirer and into the light.
Caller: FNIN

I took the liberty of assisting you with some grammatical changes. Steve what exactly was/is your job capacity with this organization? What is your previous experience and track record? Can you provide verifiable documentation on specific successes? Have you produced profitable films in the past? Is your job capacity strictly financial? If financial are you a licensed broker/dealer (in which state?). If financial were you paid a salary or a commission? Is the film confirmed for a theatrical release in 2012? What is the exact date of release? Who is releasing the film? How many screens will the film open on? What is advertising budget? Is this for the United States of global? What is the public awareness and interest in Dorothy of Oz in foreign countries? If you feel the viewpoints of contributors are “confused and ignorant” then as an “employee” and spokes person for this venture it is your responsibility to bring clarity to the issue and educate those that do not possess the depth of your industry knowledge or financial savvy. Your reference to the S&P 500, I assume, refers to individuals stock holding, or publicly traded shares, is that correct? How do you feel the exit strategy differs between holdings with publicly traded companies and private ventures such as Alpine, Dorothy of Oz and other film investments you are involved with? Can you provide current valuations?  Do investors have the flexibility to close their accounts and recoup their investments (either at a gain or a loss?). Why do you feel that there has been so attention placed on these individuals by so many different states? How do you feel the company(s) would stand-up to an investigation by the SEC? Has there been any comingling of funds?  At what point are investors alerted to these investigations, advised of costs associated, and how penalties and fees effect their investment ( We must assume it is the investors money being used to cover all of these costs). Again, what exactly is the total budget? How much is being raised, how much is being spent to raise that money and what other fees/costs are involved? Of the total amount of money raised how actually goes onto the screen? How does a $20 million animated film compete with $150 million movies the studios put out? I just saw Hoodwinked2 listed on my cable line-up. I thought that the first one made millions, but number 2 just seemed to slip by why is that?

Excellent questions that will go unanswered.  Hindsight is the best teacher; I wish I would have known how unsavory these people are.  I would have rather ground the money up in the garbage disposal than sent it to these dishonest people.

Still not seeing the fraud.

The 40% commission was for the telemarketers and for a different unrelated venture.  

You accuse them of fraud, but the only facts you use are the facts brought out about raising the money illegally. The accusations about how they spend it is based 100% on assumptions.  Example, you don't know where the money came from to pay the fines, BUT WE MUST ASSUME it came from funds raised.  Why must we assume that?  The largest fine I saw was 5,000.00.  That would sting, but isn't going to break the bank.

You accuse others of fraud, yet every accusation you bring is based solely on what must be assumed.

Raise money illegally, yep.  Said the money was to make a movie. Are they making a movie, yep.

Where is all this talk about it ONLY being a telemarketing company that is getting the 40%?? Is that something you learned from your helpful sales rep? Telemarketing, LLC, production, Centineo, Kaufamn, Alpine is all one thing. There is no separation.

Let’s pose this question. IF Dorothy of OZ LLC spent ALL the money they raised on production, which we assume they did because they now are raising money with Emerald City, so all the company's money  is gone BUT they are legally bound to rescind money that the company doesn't have to select investors in California. Where does that money come from? New investors?

The reason you are NOT a qualified investor and deserve to lose ALL your money is because you are ignorant, foolish, and sadly arrogant as well as gullible.  You need to understand that the total money raised is YOUR INVESTMENT. They raised $60,000,000 or more to make this movie but only $20,000,000 goes towards the actual production, then there is cause for alarm. You seem very comfortable that they raise money illegally. Why is that?
I feel that what everyone is asking for transparency. Where did the money go and how was it spent. It is not a matter or right versus wrong but fiduciary responsibility.


If Dorothy of Oz fails to comply fully with either Corporations Code section 25507(b) or Code of Regulations section 260.507 and, after given adequate opportunity to cure any material issues of noncompliance, such failure results in a repurchase offer not being approved by the Securities Regulation Division or otherwise results in a failure to complete the repurchase offer as described in subparagraph (a) above, Dorothy of Oz and Neil Kaufman shall pay a civil penalty of $1,250,000.00 to the Department of Corporations and Dorothy of Oz shall repurchase the security in the original principal amount of the investment, including interest of 10% per annum, from all California residents who purchased securities in Dorothy of Oz between November 23, 2009 and January 31, 2011. If Dorothy of Oz fails to complete the repurchase offer, Dorothy of Oz and Neil Kaufman shall be jointly and severally liable for the civil penalty of $1,250,000.00.
3. Alpine Pictures, Ryan Carroll, Rene Torres, and Neil Kaufman shall pay a civil penalty in the total amount of $100,000.00 to the Department of Corporations pursuant to the following terms and conditions:

I read the McKenna complaint and the total amount he raised was $84,700. Why they had a 40% commission deal with him I don't know but he didn't raise squat. The rest of the complaints deal with unlicenced reps selling shares in some earlier LLC's. Looking at the dates, it looks like they have been resolved with the various state attorney generals and fines paid and/or agreed to . In retrospect, it looks like the company was getting very bad advice on how to raise funds for Dorothy of Oz and didn't know what the hell they were doing.

 The PPM for the current capital raise is a different animal and CLEARLY lists the fees - 15% broker commissions and finder fees, 3% offering expenses, 4% company overhead - total 22%. The 22% is a far cry from the 60% number you and others keep alluding to. Are you saying there is some “secret document" that gives out another 38% that the lawyers and accountants are hiding from us? Can you show me "solid, verifiable proof" that there are states finding fault in the CURRENT capital raising process that is being done?

It's not secret at all. It is called a consulting fee, and it is listed in the PPM as an additional expense. If you read the McKenna complaint that's how McKenna got paid the 40% fee, under the "COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT" part of the Consulting Agreement, and unless shown otherwise they are most likely still operating under those arrangements.

The PPM for the CURRENT capital raise has NO language about compensation to consultants. The PPM for the CURRENT capital raise clearly list the fees as I described above. Page 2 of the PPM states " The commissions to such broker-dealers (and fees to third party finders, where permitted) in an amount not to exceed 15% of gross proceeds".

Now if you don't mind, I've got to get out of town. I've got a hurricane to dodge.

I still think the 40‰ commission listed was for raising money for a different venture(oil maybe?,I am not going to look it up)

Of course raising the money ilegaly is a cause for concern, but raising money legally is not only difficult, very limiting, and rediculously expensive, it is also very easy to do it wrong.  The laws "protecting" the innocent are antiquated and do more to limit opportunity than protect anything.  The reasons I am not too concerned here are they said they were raising the money to make a movie, and they are making a movie,and they are continuing to raise money and have not had any legal issues with this new round of funding. Shows me they can learn.

Still haven't seen any fact that they have miss appropriated money, or used company funds to pay fines etc. just accusations based on assumptions.  Your figure that they raised 60,000,000and only spent 20,000,000 on the movie pure speculation, but you expect it to be taken as fact to prove that they are ripping investors off.  Different investments require different levels of disclosure, but it is not realistic or helpful to think that because I have invested that the principles should give me a daily account of how they are spending the money.   Too expect that would be truly arrogant.   My limited experience, that you have so kindly pointed out, has taught me that with this type of investment if you agree to get in you have to have the stones to ride it out because you have no control over how others are going to spend your money.   To expect some sort of control is not only arrogant its foolish.

This ain't a 401 k or mutual fund, you either believe they can do it or you don't.  Having a net worth of a million or annual income over 250,000, is an arbitrary, stupid rule that does nothing to protect the gullible.  Our country is filled with people who do not meet those requirements that not only have the brains to make sound investment decisions,but the balls to take risks and because of stupid rules "illegally"  ask others to join them.  

They asked for money to develop a franchise with a movie and other potential revenue streams, with expected income to be split by a predetermined percentage.  So far they are making a movie and developing  other potential revenue streams, that's a fact.  We will see how the split goes in about a year.

First off, I did not use the word fraud in anything I wrote here.  But I am not going to argue semantics with you.  Perhaps you as an investor do not expect much, but I do.  I expect that if I have invested my money, I have a right to know how it is being spent, and on what.  You think that is arrogant?  What is wrong with you?  Do you have so much money that you can just entrust it to people and if they do the right thing, great, if not, oh well?  That is not sound financial advice to give to anyone.  I indeed expect to know what is being done with the funds I put into an investment.  I expect to know why a film failed, and why it did not go to cable, or try to be sold in overseas markets.  These things were suggested in my communiques by the people running BOP, Alpine, and whatever they now call themselves now, for the particular film I originally invested in.  They were touting Dorothy of Oz back in 2005, and communicating to me that they expected that film to be on the market within two years, with an IPO to follow for stock bought.  The fact that it has now been almost 7 years seems quite unusual, even for the motion picture industry.  
I think it is outrageous that they have used illegal (your word) tactics to raise money.  I think it is also outrageous to not hold them accountable for what they are doing with the funds and not issuing regular reports.  Any honorable and right minded business people would.  As many of us have pointed out, you can do a search and find many cease and desist actions. I am thankful I quit putting money in when I did.  But I still expect accountability for each and every cent.

What is the latest with this money machine scam for the Carroll Brothers Steve.  The PPM states I would not get 120% before the production company gets their money.  As an investor I would get what’s left after the production company, expenses and distribution. I was on a discloser calls three or four weeks ago with Greg Centineo and a friend mine and Centineo was saying we get 120% before production sees a dime.  

Californian

What is the latest with this money machine scam for the Carroll Brothers.  The PPM states I would not get 120% before the production company gets their money.  As an investor I would get what’s left after the production company, expenses and distribution. I was on a discloser calls three or four weeks ago with Greg Centineo and a friend mine and Centineo was saying we get 120% before production sees a dime.  If you read the PPM it sates they added another 20% oversight so that makes your 22 plus 20 for 42.

Californian

Has anyone noticed the trailer has not come out yet as we were told it would.  There must be trouble in OZ

Can we back up, and assuming that we know little about the film industry standard on commissions for capital raises, deduct that 15% capital raise commission is highly inefficient when it comes down to production.  I am a wealth manager who is fortunate enough to have a few clients that have (not through me) invested in movies before.  They will tell you that 1 in 5 private placement investments in movies will ever prove fruitful, and it is for that reason that 15% commission (and we all know that it is likely much more in this case) should be a warning flag as it spells out excessive risk.
I was not so fortunate to learn that a new client of mine had invested in this movie just months before I met him.  They asked him for additional amounts shortly after our relationship began.  We went to an investors meeting together wherein I sat through a painful sales presentation and subsequently begged my client not to invest more.  The good and bad news is that he was tapped out and could not afford more, as he was never an accredited investor.....we were working on rebuilding net worth after a series of previous bad investments through other advisors and self inflicted purchases.
I too looked at the PPM that was extremely shaky, but much more alarming were the testimonies that the broker fed him regarding the countless others out there that wanted to invest 100MM plus, but wanted first receivership rights "......which would not be fair to the angel investors already in the picture."
These were clearly confidence tactics that should have sent everyone running for the hills, but oddly still work in some folks today.  For the life of me, I can't understand why my client or anybody else does still not get the 'too good to be true, then it probably is' standard.  This crew of redundant producers, directors, co-producers and consultants seem to use some big promises as they call him back now to give (only) verbal updates along with promises of 17-20x's returns on his original money due to the IP rights, yet there has never been an update without the ask for additional contributions for the sequel....which should have been out by now too.  
I don't advise on movies but I will advise on risk, and I know that it just isn't ethical to repeatedly state that the recent forecasts guarantee (yes, that is the world being thrown out by the company) an even larger return than originally proposed.  Folks, the risk here is extremely high: a risk free rate right now is somewhere shy of 0.25% annually because that is what a money market pays.  If something states even a remote possibility of 17x's return and little risk because of the company's ability to outdo all others, run don't walk.
To negate any scrutiny that this post may face by those thinking that I am posting to garner clients, I will remain anonymous and never offer advice on anything other than the possibility of this investment as being conducted by folks that are non-fiduciaries.....and if they are not looking out for you then who are they looking out for?

You have been 100% correct the whole time I am finally realizing it. There is no trailer because there is no distributor, OMG is not the distributor and that is the reason a press release was never put out.  My concern as an investor is what happens when the licensees who thought there was a distributor and signed up based on OMG like the investors did.  Sounds like lawsuits are at some point.  I should have known better to invest when I was told the Carrols have changed from all the SEC and legal problems they have had. Mulling my options on demanding my money back.

My PPM, additional 20% on top of the 15%,3%, and 4% to Alpine for oversight and “development of a second feature film”  previous PPMs said second film not development of a second film.      

If the Offering is fully subscribed, the gross proceeds to the Company from the sale of all Shares and/or Warrant Shares offered hereby would be $70,000,000 and would be used as follows: Gross Proceeds of Offering:                                                        $70,000,000                                       100.0%
Less: Broker commissions and finder’s fees (where permitted):
10,500,000                             15.0%
Less: Other Offering expenses (e.g., legal, printing and other Offering expenses, including possible additional payments to licensed broker-dealers and/or finders, where permitted.                   2,100,000                                          3.0%
Net Proceeds of Offering:     
$57,400,000                            82.0%
Less: Reserve for Company general overhead, including compensation of the Manager of $2,000 /week
2,800,000                                         4.0%
Less: Payable to joint escrow among Company and Company’s Contractual Counterparties for production oversight services to be provided by the Production Services Company Company (payable in part out of Net Proceeds in an amount equal to 20% of Gross Proceeds of the Offering)prints and advertising, finishing funds for Dorothy of Oz, Digital Content expenses (i.e., virtual world costs and mobile content costs), licensing expenses and development of a second feature film based on the Roger S. Baum books initially titled Dorothy of Oz II.     
$54,600,000                          78.0%
Total Use of Net Proceeds of Offering:
$57,400,000                          82.0%

Google Finance: Alpine Pictures, Inc.
finance.google.com/group/google.finance.3761087
Go to Google Groups Home ... Alpine Pictures scam hides under the name Summertime Entertainment Well it seems that Alpine Pictures has burned so many bridges and scammed so many people that now they have to change their name to ...

http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.3761087/topics

Serenity Media Groups Christie Hsiao Chinese Government-backed Fund For Media Projects – 500 Million Dollars
On August 31, 2011, in Chinese film, by Israel Rothman ....Serenity Media Groups Christie Hsiao with Chinese Government-backed fund for media projects – 500 Million Dollars
From Serenity Media Group:
Serenity Media Group, Inc. founded in 2010 by Christie Hsiao, CEO/President and Creative Director, Serenity is a socially conscience entertainment development production company devoted to high quality programming that touches the spirit, informs the soul, and motivates action.

Christie Hsiao is originally from Taiwan from an elite family with strong government and entertainment industry ties throughout Asia.  She did her undergraduate work at University of California Los Angeles and earned an MBA from Pepperdine University.  Ms. Hsiao went on to study film at NYU where she wrote, directed and produced several well-reviewed short films.

Ms. Hsiao has produced several independent films such as The Gold Retrievers with Billy Zane, Steve Guttenberg and Curtis Armstrong, Dark Honeymoon with Roy Scheider, Eric Roberts, Tia Carrere and Daryl Hannah, Love is the Drug with Lizzy Caplan, John Patrick Amedori, and Daryl Hannah.  Without a Badge with Permut Presentations, Dorothy of Oz with Martin Short, Jim Belushi, Dan Aykroyd and Kelsey Grammer are currently in development.



The specific combination of Ms. Hsiao American business sensibility and strong working relations in Asian film industries combine to uniquely position Serenity Media Group as a bicultural conduit between Asian and America markets. She also serves as creative director for all of Serenity’s projects, as well as overseeing all aspects of Serenity’s marketing strategy, business development, financing, human resources, continuance and growth.



While collaborating with independent film and TV production companies, Ms. Hsiao assisted in effectively expanding their reach into foreign territories, helping the company infiltrate the Asian entertainment industry and tap into the Asian film market. This experience inspired Ms. Hsiao to launch her own production company dedicated to bridging American and international markets by developing projects with global appeal.

People at First National Information
Terrance Gilmore
Ryan Carroll
Director
Aron Arnold
Robin Salter
Marshall Richardson
Director
Jon Neale
Director Technical Services
Whitney English

I am still getting calls about bogus investments and it all started years ago with FNIN