Marty Soltys Transmedia Entertainment International Group Con and Scam and preys on filmmakers/Gamers & Multimedia producers Toronto, Ontario
This piece of crap is nothing but a Con and Scam and preys on filmmakers/Gamers & Multimedia producers who are looking for financing on their project. His offices, which he claims are in various parts of the globe are just mail drops and his listed telephone number are all mobile number the 416 area code is listed on Rogers Wireless in Toronto. Soltys claims he has access to investor funds but that is a totally fraudulent claim. He has no creditability with the investors he claims to be part of and Soltys is totally bogus.
Below are extracts from emails from Soltys Gmail account with his references to his international office bases. None of these addresses have real assets in Solty name but are combined offices with other suspicious businesses.
Soltys company, Transmedia Entertainment International Group, does not exist as an asset and does not have a website, although Soltys does claim on Twitter that a website is coming soon. That was in May `12.
Martins WP Ventures Inc. is Soltys dump company account where he demands unexpecting clients deposit in Soltys account thousands of dollars for work fees to place the financing. Of course financing never materializes and Soltys will continue to milk clients for more work fees.
From: Martin Soltys <transmediaentertainmentcorp@gmail.com>
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.
Soltys claims to raise $20mil, $50mil, $125mil depending on which of Soltys comments you read on the internet. All of which is bogus because there is no evidence that Soltys has funded any of the 24 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)
Soltys fled Toronto, Ont and took residence in Los Angeles to avoid an Ontario Court legal action involving a franchisees licence for a restrauant to be built and had misrepresented the amount of funding. (Canadian Wolfgang Puck license from Wolfgang Puck Express Licensing LLC (WPEL))
Bogus Soltys Contacts:
CAN: 1.416.275.5153 USA: 1.310.310.2481
CAN/USA Fax: 1.866.256.0794
>>>
CANADA: Lombard Place, Financial District Toronto
1101-105 Adelaide Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5H 1P9
>>>
USA: Raleigh Studios Hollywood, 102-662 N. Van Ness Avenue,
Los Angeles, California 90004
USA: 207-201 Bicknell Ave. Santa Monica, CA 90405
UNITED KINGDOM: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
When it comes to accessing capital, Marty Soltys knows how tough it can be.
When he set out to raise $20 million to establish a fund he planned to call Friends of Film Canada, Soltys found the investment landscape here anything but friendly.
The already successful hospitality entrepreneur (he founded the Pete & Martys restaurant group) had to leave Canada to find the funds he needed but now hes back and ready to invest in transmedia projects that combine film, television, gaming, music and digital media.
Soltys company, TransMedia Entertainment International Group, plans to inject $125 million per quarter over the next 12 quarters into transmedia projects in Canada, the U.S. and around the world.
We chatted after his appearance on a panel at CDMN Canada 3.0 2012, about his companys plans 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 film producer comes to see me with a script and a business plan and production budget, I look at the film not only from the point of view of the film audience, but from a gaming audience, and for digital media potential.
Im looking for ancillary 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 have two dozen projects we are putting money into, starting in May.
Were working with 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 access the kind of capital your company is spreading around?
A One of the reasons I come to events like this is to let people know were there. When our website is up and running, you can easily find us.
Im looking at partnering with various government agencies, federal and provincial, to bring additional capital and do a joint venture with them, and I expect that through those agencies, youll find out a lot more about TransMedia.
We have been all word-of-mouth, and once one producer gets to meet us, there are 10 or 20 producers who want to come, so we have no shortage of projects.
Ive just in the last year said, Okay, Im ready to come back to Canada and bring somewhere in the vicinity of $50 million to invest across transmedia-related opportunities.
Previous Legal Action Concerning Marty Soltys In Ontario Canada
October 7 2010
In May 2010, the Ontario Superior Court refused to strike a franchisees allegations of breaches of the duty of good faith against Glenn Miller, a man alleged to control the franchisor even though he was not an officer, director or shareholder of the franchisor. As this case starkly demonstrates, people operating a closely-held franchisor take greater personal risk because they are less likely to be protected by the corporate veil.
The Plaintiffs in WP (33 Sheppard) Gourmet Express Restaurant Corp. v. WP Canada Bistro & Express Co. Inc. wanted a Wolfgang Puck franchise and entered 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 WPCs directing minds, although it appears he had no position with WPC.
Glenn had been active in the Wolfgang Puck system. He originally purchased the Canadian Wolfgang Puck licence from Wolfgang Puck Express Licensing LLC (WPEL) and transferred the licence to WPC. He continued to be the 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 Wolfgang Puck operation for the Plaintiffs, although it was Neil and Soltys who made these representations to the Plaintiffs.
After a year of construction delays, the Plaintiffs allegedly learned that WPC had misrepresented the amount of funding the Millers would provide. Glenn and Neil decided to get out of the restaurant business and withdrew their funding. Glenns decision started a chain of events that led to WPC losing the Canadian Wolfgang Puck licence making it impossible for WPC to give the Plaintiffs a Wolfgang Puck franchise.
The Plaintiffs sued eight defendants, including Glenn, alleging a number of causes of action. The Plaintiffs alleged that Glenn was a franchisor or franchisors associate as defined by the Arthur Wishart Act and had breached the common law, contractual or statutory duty of good faith. Glenn argued that he was merely the financier of the Plaintiffs operation and not a franchisor or franchisors associate. After all, he had not signed any contract with the Plaintiffs and apparently was not a director, officer or shareholder of WPC. He brought a motion asking the Court to strike the claims against him.
The Court refused to do so, holding that Glenn could be a franchisors associate as defined by the Arthur Wishart Act. The Court noted that a franchise agreement includes any agreement in relation to a franchise and held that the franchise agreement in this case must include the Millers agreement to fund the franchise. The Court also held that [e]ither directly or in [his] capacity as the directing mind of WPC Glenn was a party to a franchise agreement.
The Court focussed on the fact that only three people, including Glenn, were actively involved in the franchisor and commented, When a franchising corporation is run by a few people, as opposed to many, the court may look behind the corporation to those additional parties who are franchisors or franchisors associates. Given Glenns involvement in funding the construction, his history with the Wolfgang Puck franchise system, and the Plaintiffs allegation that Glenn was a directing mind of WPC, the Court could not find that it was obvious that Glenn was not a franchisors associate without a trial of the issue.
The Court also stated that the duties of controlling individuals are heightened where...the actions of the franchisor can only reflect the directions of a small finite number of persons involved in the corporation, and particularly where those individuals step into the role of a franchisors associate, again upping the ante for people working for a closely-held franchisor.
As this decision arose from a motion to strike pleadings, the evidence at trial may show that Glenn was not sufficiently involved in the franchise relationship to be a franchisors associate. The Courts comments, however, are consistent with the increasing legislative and judicial protection of franchisees and the resulting increase in risk to franchisors.
As the Court seems to find it easier to pierce the corporate veil in closely-held franchise systems to find individuals personally liable for breaches of the duty of good faith, those working in such franchise systems should take steps to 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 clearly documented to avoid becoming tangled in a lawsuit that could lead to personal liability.