Thispiece of crap is nothing but a Conand Scam and preys on filmmakers/Gamers & Multimedia producers who are looking for financing ontheir project. His offices, which he claims are invarious parts of the globe are just mail drops and his listed telephone numberare all mobile number the 416 area code is listed on Rogers Wireless inToronto. Soltys claims he hasaccess to investor funds but that is a totally fraudulent claim. He has no creditability with theinvestors he claims to be part of and Soltys is totally bogus. Beloware extracts from emails from Soltys Gmail account with his references to hisinternational office bases. Noneof these addresses have real assets in Solty name but are combined offices withother suspicious businesses. Soltyscompany, Transmedia Entertainment International Group, does not exist as anasset and does not have a website, although Soltys does claim on Twitter that awebsite is coming soon. That wasin May `12. MartinsWP Ventures Inc. Is Soltys dump company account where he demands unexpecting clients depositin Soltys account thousands of dollars for work fees to place thefinancing. Of course financingnever materializes and Soltys will continue to milk clients for more workfees. From: Martin Soltys Payment immediately by the three of you to Martins WP Ventures Inc. Of a final work fee (wire or cash deposit) to structure and put in place the financing. Soltysclaims to raise $20mil, $50mil, $125mil depending on which of Soltys commentsyou read on the internet. All ofwhich is bogus because there is no evidence that Soltys has funded any of the24 projects he has embedded himself into and a fianc agent. Have two dozen projects we are putting money into, starting in May quote Soltys May `12 (below Q & A) Soltysfled Toronto, Ont and took residence in Los Angeles to avoid an Ontario Courtlegal action involving a franchisees licence for a restrauant to be built and hadmisrepresented the amount of funding. (Canadian Wolfgang Puck license fromWolfgang Puck Express Licensing LLC (WPEL) BogusSoltys Contacts: CAN: 1.416.275.5153 USA: 1.310.310.2481 CAN/USAFax: 1.866.256.0794 CANADA: Lombard Place, Financial District Toronto 1101-105 Adelaide Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5H1P9 USA: Raleigh Studios Hollywood, 102-662 N. Van Ness Avenue, LosAngeles, California 90004 USA: 207-201 Bicknell Ave. Santa Monica, CA 90405 UNITEDKINGDOM: 1-5 Lillie Road, London, England SW6 1TX BAHAMAS: New Providence Financial Center, East Bay Street, P.O. Box N-1812, Nassau, New Providence, The Bahamas Capitalizing on transmedia: Q A with Marty Soltys ByAnthony Reinhart on May 29 / Categories: Blog When it comesto accessing capital, Marty Soltys knows how tough it can be.
When he set outto raise $20 million to establish a fund he planned to call Friends of FilmCanada, Soltys found the investment landscape here anything but friendly. The alreadysuccessful hospitality entrepreneur (he founded the Pete & Martysrestaurant group) had to leave Canada to find the funds he needed but nowhes back and ready to invest in transmedia projects that combine film, television, gaming, music and digital media.
Soltyscompany, TransMedia Entertainment International Group, plans to inject $125million per quarter over the next 12 quarters into transmedia projects inCanada, the U.S. And around the world.
We chattedafter his appearance on a panel at CDMN Canada 3.0 about his companysplans and the opportunities for Canadian entrepreneurs in the transmedia space.
Q Describe for me what your company does. A We invest in transmedia-related businesses. So, if a filmproducer comes to see me with a script and a business plan and productionbudget, I look at the film not only from the point of view of the filmaudience, but from a gaming audience, and for digital media potential. Im looking forancillary business lines to be part of the IP. Q What can you tell me about films or games out there that youve worked on? A Right now we havetwo dozen projects we are putting money into, starting in May. Were workingwith very famous producers and developers, and on our website (launching soon), youll be able to find out about all the projects. Q What kind of opportunities are out there for Canadian entrepreneurs to accessthe kind of capital your company is spreading around? A One of the reasons I come to events like this is tolet people know were there. When our website is up and running, you can easilyfind us. Im looking atpartnering with various government agencies, federal and provincial, to bringadditional capital and do a joint venture with them, and I expect that throughthose agencies, youll find out a lot more about TransMedia.
We have beenall word-of-mouth, and once one producer gets to meet us, there are 10 or 20producers who want to come, so we have no shortage of projects.
Ivejust in the last year said, Okay, Im ready to come back to Canada and bringsomewhere in the vicinity of $50 million to invest across transmedia-relatedopportunities. Previous Legal Action Concerning Marty Soltys InOntario Canada October 7 InMay the Ontario Superior Court refused to strike a franchiseesallegations of breaches of the duty of good faith against Glenn Miller, a manalleged to control the franchisor even though he was not an officer, directoror shareholder of the franchisor. As this case starkly demonstrates, peopleoperating a closely-held franchisor take greater personal risk because they areless likely to be protected by the corporate veil. ThePlaintiffs in WP (33 Sheppard) Gourmet Express Restaurant Corp. V. WPCanada Bistro & Express Co.inc. Wanted a Wolfgang Puck franchise andentered into agreements with the Canadian Wolfgang Puck licensor (WPC), which was owned and operated by Glenns son, Neil Miller, and Marty Soltys. The Plaintiffs alleged that Glenn was one of WPCsdirecting minds, although it appears he had no position with WPC. Glennhad been active in the Wolfgang Puck system. He originally purchased the CanadianWolfgang Puck licence from Wolfgang Puck Express Licensing LLC (WPEL) and transferred the licence to WPC. He continued to bethe primary contact with WPEL. He allegedly was a key financier behind WPC. Along with Neil, he also agreed to fund the construction of a turnkey WolfgangPuck operation for the Plaintiffs, although it was Neil and Soltys who made these representations to the Plaintiffs. Aftera year of construction delays, the Plaintiffs allegedly learned that WPC hadmisrepresented the amount of funding the Millers would provide. Glenn and Neil decided to get out of the restaurant business and withdrew theirfunding. Glenns decision started a chain of events that led to WPC losing theCanadian Wolfgang Puck licence making it impossible for WPC to give thePlaintiffs a Wolfgang Puck franchise. ThePlaintiffs sued eight defendants, including Glenn, alleging a number of causesof action. The Plaintiffs alleged that Glenn was a franchisor or franchisorsassociate as defined by the Arthur Wishart Act and had breached thecommon law, contractual or statutory duty of good faith. Glenn argued that hewas merely the financier of the Plaintiffs operation and not a franchisor orfranchisors associate. After all, he had not signed any contract with thePlaintiffs and apparently was not a director, officer or shareholder of WPC. Hebrought a motion asking the Court to strike the claims against him. TheCourt refused to do so, holding that Glenn could be a franchisors associate asdefined by the Arthur Wishart Act. The Court noted that a franchiseagreement includes any agreement in relation to a franchise and held that thefranchise agreement in this case must include the Millers agreement to fundthe franchise. The Court also held that [e]ither directly or in [his] capacityas the directing mind of WPC Glenn was a party to a franchise agreement. TheCourt focussed on the fact that only three people, including Glenn, wereactively involved in the franchisor and commented, When a franchisingcorporation is run by a few people, as opposed to many, the court may lookbehind the corporation to those additional parties who are franchisors orfranchisors associates. Given Glenns involvement in funding theconstruction, his history with the Wolfgang Puck franchise system, and thePlaintiffs allegation that Glenn was a directing mind of WPC, the Court couldnot find that it was obvious that Glenn was not a franchisors associatewithout a trial of the issue. TheCourt also stated that the duties of controlling individuals are heightenedwhere... The actions of the franchisor can only reflect the directions of asmall finite number of persons involved in the corporation, and particularlywhere those individuals step into the role of a franchisors associate, againupping the ante for people working for a closely-held franchisor. Asthis decision arose from a motion to strike pleadings, the evidence at trialmay show that Glenn was not sufficiently involved in the franchise relationshipto be a franchisors associate. The Courts comments, however, are consistentwith the increasing legislative and judicial protection of franchisees and theresulting increase in risk to franchisors. Asthe Court seems to find it easier to pierce the corporate veil in closely-heldfranchise systems to find individuals personally liable for breaches of theduty of good faith, those working in such franchise systems should take stepsto protect their assets. Other than the usual methods of doing so (i.E. Structuring personal affairs so that ones spouse owns the personal assets), one should also ensure that his or her role in the franchise system is clearlydocumented to avoid becoming tangled in a lawsuit that could lead to personalliability.
0 comments