Carnaby Feature Films PLC - ?

rockitup

Reaper wrote: »

Have you got any money back from any of your investments?

I think Spanish Trader needs to spend some time learning off Messrs Gekko and Buffett....

MovieMogul

Quite a few posts that shine a light on what Carnaby Films have been up to have been deleted...

Maybe the facts on this board were effecting their latest fund raising and they took action?

Shame on MoneySavingExpert for deleting posts in this way, they were there to warn prospective investors about this company.

Willinho

WOW, didn't realise my post could get this going again. Some great points made and the link which was posted looks frighteningly accurate. If you did not see it / read it here it is again.

deadline.com/2011/06/breaking-feds-bust-indie-film-scam/

Having had a review again and asked Carnaby numerous questions I can add the following.

Review of latest 'brochure' for Still Waters. Issues when read by investors

1) It needs to be made clearer that the 50,000 'A' shares which go to the directors gives them 51% voting rights and thus full control of the company

2) Does Carnaby truly comply with section 21 of the Financial Services & Markets Act 200 as is states on page 1

3) The 50,000 'A' shares I would raise my suspicions whether the directors physically pay for these shares which it states on page 19 in Management Incentives

4) Page 7 - Risk factors - point 7 states (in very small letters!!) 'Investors must be prepared to take a medium term view of their investment'. A medium term view to me is 3-7 years....not the 15 YEARS they are amortising the costs of the film / rights over

5) Page 12 in my opinion leads the investor to believe this is actually a 3-5 year investment, i.e. 6-12 months to make it + the film release / DVD & TV etc is about 18 months....however they then state 'television markets for the balance of its economic life which may continue for many years. They do not state how many years.

6) Page 13 - these directors being chairman / Commercial Director of so many companies surely leads to a conflict of interest. This is relevant whereby recently it was admitted that money received for the Last Drop has been loaned to other Carnaby companies.

7) Page 19 - And I quote 'After 3 years the directors intend to seek the view of shareholders regarding the provision of a means of realising their investment'. NO THEY DO NOT. THEY OWN 51% OF THE VOTING RIGHTS SO IF THEY CHOOSE TO NOT DISTRIBUTE AVAILABLE FUNDS THEY DO NOT HAVE TO.

Willinho

THE LAST DROP

For the past 2 months I have been trying to get answers to my questions. I am alarmed for a number of reasons:-

1) If they raised and spent £5 million for the last drop we need to understand where it was paid to. The actual cost of the film was £2.6 million as per the accounts. The other £2.4 million seems to have gone on 'other expenses' such as marketing etc. I would like to see a breakdown of this cost and who it got paid to. If you look at the balance sheets over the years you will see that a significant amount of money actually goes to other Carnaby companies. Conflict of interest ? Value for money ? Proof of work completed ? Review of cost versus other companies ?

2) Revenue for the last drop was posted as:-

2006 - £2,851,519
2007 - £ 216,059
2008 - £ 37,569
2009 - £ 9,150
2010 - £ 9,277

This totals over £3.1 million. Forget accounting policies, amortisation, admin expenses etc etc if we gave Carnaby £5 million which they spent but they received back £3.1 million any revenue from the film this should be in a separate bank account earning interest. The question is WHERE HAS THIS MONEY GONE ?

I haven't even bothered to look at 'Are You Ready For Love' yet as there is no point.

We need to do something as this needs to stop. A thought it that they get Film Council funding so we could always report it to them. I have already reported them to Watchdog so please do the same and lets do our best to get more people involved and see what we can do.

As for Heaven James comments........unbelievable !!

I have invested in a number of areas but this one just does not feel right, something is going on and we need answers. If they are doing wrong they need to be stopped.

Willinho

Also comment by Antrobus on this page looks spot on.

I expect that what Carnaby do is :-

*set up Film Co plc to make a particular film, and sell £x million's worth of shares in Film Co plc
* Film Co plc then pays Carnaby a commission for selling these shares, buys the film script from Carnaby, and pays Carnaby for the administration and management of the company
*Carnaby also extracts various fees and commisions from the revenues earned by the film made by Film Co plc before said revenues even find their way into Film Co plc

The net result is that, no matter what happens, Carnaby will make a profit on the venture. The most probable eventual outcome is that Film Co plc will eventually be liquidated, at which point Carnaby will buy the IP rights to the film from the liquidator for a nominal sum, and so pocket 100% of any future residual income.

From Carnaby's point of view it's simply a very cheap way of getting free money to fund a film.

Willinho

Thanks MM, really appreciate that. I will get on to them. I will be sending in a whole raft of questions to Carnaby so will you know how I get on and share any answers I receive.

Willinho

I have emailed them. Have you done it as well ? Lets see who else we can ge to do the same.

heaven_james

Mr Mogul quote


[Quite a few posts that shine a light on what Carnaby Films have been up to have been deleted...]

Well I have been away and I come back to see the usual suspects are back. I contacted carnaby with reference to some of the quotes above. And there response was that they have been made aware of the post on this forum.

And yes Mr. Mogul post were removed as they were totally wrong, and money saving legal team were contacted and agreed and then removed post
carnaby then stated

The reference made is neither a complete nor, in the circumstances, a fair summary of the relevant legislation. Because the company in question at the time was seeking to raise in excess of 2.5 million Euros or equivalent, certain of the offer documents issued by the Carnaby companies were required to be approved by the FSA as a prospectus in accordance with section 85 of FSMA and the Prospectus Rules issued by the FSA. In these circumstances, specific approval was therefore not required from a body approved or authorised by the FSA. This is the procedure that was followed by Carnaby.

In relation to Carnaby's fundraising for its next intended production, 'Still Waters', the offer document has been approved in accordance with section 21 of FSMA by hays Macintyre Corporate Finance Limited.

Movie Mogul’s post disparages Carnaby and is defamatory; the wrongful imputation of criminal behaviour, alone, justifies carnaby for a claim for damages.

And carnaby are now taking steps to legally to acquire the identity of Mr. Mogul


So Mr. Mogul looks like you are about to be exposed again and I say again as

1. You have been exposed for posting wrong info about the company and please don’t try and defend this as money saving would not remove it if there was not proof to prove you was wrong

2 now carnaby are now taking steps to pursue your real identity for damages

Good luck Mr. Mogul

Reaper

Heaven James you are remarkably good at trotting out the company line. A official company spokeman could not have done any better.

Are you not at all worried about the huge investments you have allegedly made and the 0% return every investor has made to date regardless of the success of the film?

As for threats of legal action I suspect the last thing Carnaby would want to do is to publicise the fact there are unhappy investors out there with a court case. I suspect this minor forum thread alone does [STRIKE]you[/STRIKE] them a lot of harm to [STRIKE]your[/STRIKE] their fund raising already.

Rollinghome

heaven_james wrote: »

2 now carnaby are now taking steps to pursue your real identity for damages

Good luck Mr. Mogul

Somehow I don't think so. But interesting that they think a discussion of their practices could be causing them damage.

I'm sure they would like to obtain his address in order to send some threatening letters but if they did then the best course would be to forward them to the press who would love the story: "Carnarby Films tries to silence MSE poster".

They say that no publicity is bad publicity but that's a discredited theory.

Carnarby Films used to send me their unsolicited rubbish asking me to "invest", presumably having obtained my details from a share register. Would I ever give an outfit like that my money? Of course not.