Media Society is IndieVest Wade Bradley Jeremy Kopp deceitful, no integrity, no accountability Internet

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Three-Person FINRA Arbitration Panel Rules in Favor of Wade Bradley, Jeremy Kopp, IndieVest and Media Society

Los Angeles, July 27, 2015 – Media Society, whose members-only community of accredited individuals partner with its film studio’s community of highly experienced, successful feature film producers, today announced that a three-person FINRA arbitration panel recently ruled in its favor. 

The ruling, which was related to investments at IndieVest, ruled in favor of respondents Wade Bradley, Jeremy Kopp and IndieVest.  The panel also dismissed all claims against Media Society.  As part of the ruling, claimants were ordered to pay the arbitration hearing costs. 

“Although we are not surprised at the outcome of this matter, we are pleased to put it behind us so we can focus on more important issues such as the upcoming nationwide theatrical release of our latest film.” said Wade Bradley, Chief Executive Officer of Media Society. 

He further stated, “The unfounded claims, dating back to 2008/2009, are old news and do not have any impact on our current operations. We are proud of our accomplishments at Media Society and are very excited about our future.”

About Media Society

Media Society provides its member community the ability to partner with highly experienced, successful feature film producers and production companies utilizing its managed-risk strategy to finance, produce and distribute feature films.  

###

As made clear from the rebuttals below, Wade Bradley, Jeremy Kopp, and Media, Society, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") have initiated an action in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case Number BC547207 (the "Action"), due to allegedly false statements made by “takenbymatchstickmen,” “Scott,” “Dave” and “Investor.” 

Plaintiffs seeks to subpoena the records of Xcentric Ventures, LLC for contact information and any other messages that “Dave” – the author of the rebuttal posted on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 – has posted on Ripoff Report about Plaintiffs under this pseudonym or any other pseudonym to Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP at: 301 E. Fourth Street, Suite 3500, Great American Tower, Cincinnati, OH 45202.  Plaintiffs also seek to subpoena the records of Xcentric Ventures, LLC about the user preferences of “takenbymatchstickmen,” the original complaint’s author

Plaintiffs has served subpoenas on Xcentric Ventures, LLC, the company that owns and operates this website, to reveal the identity of “Dave” and to gain information about the user preferences selected by “takenbymatchstickmen.”  

Each of you may have a right to file and serve a response to the respective subpoena anonymously. If you intend to file and serve a response, please do so, or notify us of your intent to do so, on or before December 1, 2014, Whitney C. Gibson, Esq. via email (wcgibson@vorys.com) or facsimile (513-852-7825).

CASE # BC547207

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT “takenbymatchstickmen”: YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFFS Wade Bradley, Jeremy Kopp, and Media, Society, Inc. Consistent with the Legal Notices posted below, you have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on Plaintiffs. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online and Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web Site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association.

NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.

The name and address of the court is: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. The name, address, and telephone number of Plaintiffs' attorney is: Morgan E. Pietz, Esq., 3770 Highland Avenue, Suite 206, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; Tel: 310-424-5557.

CASE # BC547207

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT “takenbymatchstickmen”: YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFFS Wade Bradley, Jeremy Kopp, and Media, Society, Inc. Consistent with the Legal Notices posted below, you have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on Plaintiffs. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online and Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web Site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association.

NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. 

The name and address of the court is: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. The name, address, and telephone number of Plaintiffs' attorney is: Morgan. E. Pietz, Esq., 3770 Highland Avenue, Suite 206, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; Tel: 310-424-5557.

Please take notice that Wade Bradley, et al. ("Plaintiff") has initiated an action in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case Number BC547207 (the "Action"), due to allegedly false statements made by “takenbymatchstickmen,” “Scott,” “Dave” and “Investor.” In the Action, Plaintiff seeks to subpoena the records of Xcentric Ventures, LLC for contact information and any other messages that each of you have posted on Ripoff Report about Plaintiff, under those same pseudonyms listed in the prior rebuttal and also “Scott," or any other pseudonyms, to Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP at: 301 E. Fourth Street, Suite 3500, Great American Tower, Cincinnati, OH 45202.

Plaintiff has served a subpoena on Xcentric Ventures, LLC, the company that owns and operates this website, to reveal your identities.

You may have a right to file and serve a response to the subpoena anonymously. If you intend to file and serve a response, please do so, or notify us of your intent to do so, on or before August 1, 2014, Whitney C. Gibson, Esq. via email (wcgibson@vorys.com) or facsimile (513-852-7825)

Please take notice that Wade Bradley, et al. ("Plaintiff") has initiated an action in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case Number BC547207 (the "Action"), due to allegedly false statements made by “takenbymatchstickmen,” “Dave” and “Investor.” In the Action, Plaintiff seeks to subpoena the records of Xcentric Ventures, LLC for contact information and any other messages that each of you have posted on the website Ripoff Report, www.ripoffreport.com, under those pseudonyms, or any other pseudonyms, about Plaintiff, to Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP at: 301 E. Fourth Street, Suite 3500, Great American Tower, Cincinnati, OH 45202.

Plaintiff has served a subpoena on Xcentric Ventures, LLC, the company that owns and operates this website, to reveal your identities.

I am not surprised by all these endorsements and updates about Bradley and Knights of Badassdom. I wish you all as investors in that project success financial success - even hoping the website for the movie will return one day.

However, unless you are investors and shareholders in IndieVest, I'm wondering why you think your comments about a movie are relevant to this posting.

The merits of the original complaint that Bradley's efforts to embark on his own new and arguably competing venture called Media Society - on significantly deleterious terms to IndieVest shareholders - were viewed by that investor as suspect and disengenuous at face value.  He's entitled to his opinions.

Bradley's offer - tender at 10 cents on the dollar our shares and/or give him and Media Society more money - could clearly be perceived as irregular, self serving, and a potential conflict of interest as he lets one firm fail and expects another to rise from the ashes using an identical business model.

Bradley said IndieVest was not a viable entity going forward anyway,and if IndieVest shareholders wanted to pass on his "offer" then they faced a future of his "winding down IndieVest" and leaving those IndieVest shareholders with nothing. 

Pretty certain that's our future - a total loss of our investments, which were considerable.  It's always tough to see mismanagement result in that outcome but risk is risk, but be certain that those who declined Bradley's offer obviously don't share your "collective" confidence in his "talents." 

I have been an early investor and executive producer in Knights of Badassdom, and was extremely pleased to get the news that the film has been sold for North American distribution and is continuing on its path to a wide-screen release.  The independent film world is filled with countless films that never reach release.  Through my early involvement, I was able to see that the open, honest and intelligent decisions made by Wade Bradley and Jeremy Kopp, though difficult to make, have led us to a successful release opportunity.  

The challenges in this venture required  diificult business decisions.  Among them, an experienced executive producer was brought in to complete post-production and move the project to a significantly improved final cut.  A second crucial decision was recognizing that the business model needed to evolve, and throughout the process the investors were kept informed, resulting in myself and approximately 90 percent of the other investors continuing on to the newcompany. 

I understand the nature of investing in a start-up business, and know the necessity of having a skilled management team to give their all in an open, honest fashion.  Wade Bradley, Jeremy Kopp, and the rest of the team have professionally brought this venture to this point, and the upcoming release of KOB should be a springboard to continued success in the independent film world.

I too invested in Knights of Badassdom over 3 years ago and while the film’s delayed release was occasionally frustrating, I completely understand and fully supported the company’s decision to bring on a highly-successful producer to supervise the edit to completion.  The recent domestic distribution deal for the movie demonstrates conclusively that this strategy was best for the company, for the film, for shareholders, and most of all --- for the fans.

Wade and Jeremy kept all of us informed of the status of each step in the film’s development, from concept to distribution.   The production issues were fully disclosed to all investor, and I personally viewed several cuts of the film along the way.  Without reservation, I endorse the tough decisions made by Wade, Jeremy, and the Board of Directors to do what was necessary to protect shareholders and ultimately the finished film itself, including removing the original producers that were not getting the job done and replacing them with a new, highly experienced production team. 

The finished product that will be released in theatres is exceptional, and the post-production edits that have been the subject of much undue controversy were absolutely necessary.  We are all getting a better Knights of Badassdom.  While it has been a long road to get to this point with a number of challenges along the way, as a start-up veteran myself I could not have asked for a better team to bring this film to market.  I’m excited to see KOB in the theatre, and I can’t wait to see where this company takes us next.

As an investor in the Knights of Badassdom project I have to wholeheartedly disagree with the negative comments posted here. I have been an investor in the project since its inception and I can attest that both Wade Bradley and Jeremy Kopp have been nothing but completely transparent and upfront throughout the entire production process of KOB.

Without a doubt the delay has been frustrating, albeit completely understandable. Unfortunately tough decisions had to be made during the editing process in order to save this film. Some disgruntled investors have mentioned different “cuts”. These different cuts result from Wade and Jeremy bringing in a more reliable team to complete the editing as well as multiple test screenings by a professional company as a result of which recommended changes were made.

The business model that Wade has brought to this industry will catch fire. Even big-time filmmakers are starved for production financing and the market for alternative investments continues to grow. Traditionally film production has been nothing but an efficient way to lose capital as the major studies scramble the numbers and keep the rewards for themselves.

The recent sale of the KOB film is evidence that this fully transparent model for investing in film will undoubtedly have a huge impact on independent film. No new, transformative business venture is without setbacks, but I can assure you that I have never been in doubt of Wade’s and Jeremy’s honesty and integrity as they bring this financing model into the mainstream.

I wish this anonymous person making these posts against these people would show some of the same integrity they talk about and identify themselves.   Then we can directly respond in an appropriate manner to end these attempts to damage my investment and investments of others.

This is not all about Knights of Badassdom.

And everyone should quit bashing the first post - what he or she recounts about what Bradley and Kopp did is largely factual based on personal experience.

Agreed, investors in films face risk, but there's a huge element of irony here.

Bradley replies here individually and as CEO of IndieVest and Media Society. Both boasted (or promote now) a new and exciting business model that purports to mitigate risk.

IndieVest's track record offers no evidence of success.

Some claim open and easy communication with Bradley. That's not been the case for many others. Since its founding, IndieVest updates to investors were scarce at best, financial accountings were unavailable, and many calls went unreturned. Bradley has more than once terminated a phone call by simply hanging up.

What happened with Bradley, IndieVest and Media Society feels personally and professionally very wrong, on many other levels than simple investment risk.

As I read the "Rip Off Report" piece on Knights of Badassdom I was struck by the author's absolutely puerile statements concerning a very risky investment.  I truly have no idea what this alleged investor expected.  As an investor in a film all you can ask is that the film is shot, edited, finished and released.  Jeremy Kopp and Wade Bradley accomplished that with both St. John of Las Vegas and Knights of Badassdom.  I found both of these men to be forthright in keeping me informed of any production problems and, specifically in the case of Knights of Badassdom, post-production problems.  Now that Knights has a North American distributor I believe they have definitely accomplished all that can be expected of them as concerns this film.

Mr. Bradley correctly pointed out my error in stating FINRA's complaint involved his role as the CEO of Indievest, Inc.  

FINRA's complaint was filed against Mr. Bradley in his role as a principal of IndieVest Securities, a subsidiary of IndieVest Inc.  Because Bradley ran all the Indievest subsidiaries presumably one could perceive a violation in the context of operating one subsidiary, would only be perhaps perceived as mismanagement by the management of its parent company.

You all can be the judge of that, not me.

His reply to me contained the reply to FINRA as crafted by his "counsel" which appeared to be enough to resolve the issue with the usual "settlement" process.

But now he has attached to my comment his assertion that my post was malicious in intent, libelous and slanderous.

It was not.  This is still America, and there is still the power of free speech as granted by the Constitution.  If Mr. Bradley makes the statement as an implied threat of legal action, the posting I just saw pretty much says this story is all over anyway.   

This is great - a real dialogue!

“We haven’t failed, but successfully shown it doesn’t work” - eloquently said, but not by Bradley.  

This post began when Bradley contacted a handful of IndieVest, Inc. shareholders to solicit their tender of shares at a severe discount - unless an additional investment accompanied that tender - in a new venture he and Kopp had begun under a separate PPM - for Media Society.  The PPM also contained a "hold harmless" absolving him and Kopp for prior actions as officers and managers of IndieVest.  That latter provision was irregular at best - anyone out there who would disagree?

And per the original post, Bradley did say to many that Indievest, Inc. was no longer a viable entity and would be liquidated in an orderly fashion.

It is not clear how Bradley as IV's CEO - and serving in a similar role for MS - could make a partial offer to a select few investors, or proffer such an absolution of prior acts by IV officers, or avoid any payment to IV as an entity for its shares.  MS investors can try and sort that out if they care to; they're next in line for an uncertain future at best.

1. So yes, the scope of FINRA's complaint is only Bradley; he had withdrawn IndieVest Securities as a FINRA firm and also his own sffiliation, prior to their complaint.  IndieVest, Inc. was the parent of IV Securities, and Bradley was CEO of IndieVest Inc. and also the primary and supervisory principal of that entity.  Does the distinction matter?

2. I thank Bradley for the "cut and paste" reply to FINRA by his attorneys.  It is more common than not that these complaints are settled with the usual "neither deny or admit" language. Puny sanctions?  To be sure, but regulators always weigh the expense of further actions against additional expenditure of taxpayer dollars.  They can't even get JPChase to settle on that basis in the face of failed trades in excess of $6BB. 

Bigger fish to fry, or why chase after financial or other assets (an individual, IV or a securities subsidiary) that don't exist, or have no value or a remedy in bankruptcy?  The goal here was to let everyone see both sides of this complaint - a goal now accomplished.

3. Whether or not Bradley agrees with FINRA's report - it's clear they assert he violated FINRA rules and SEC rules while operating IndieVest Securities, and in connection with the financing of a film project. It's an illuminating read for sure - they did their job well.  Rather than turn this post into into already a lengthy read, those that are curious can simply go to FINRA's BrokerCheck - and query Bradley to learn more.

4. The first posting is accurate - in substance or otherwise, there is no difference between IV and MS - same players, same business model.

This posting contains no "allegations" rather an accounting in the interest of "transparency" - a term Bradley would relate to given that transparency was a promise he made to many, and one that was never delivered upon.

Finally - let's face facts - IV investors, and investors in the first film IV did, will see no returns and will lose their investment in IV.  Bradley affirmed the former, and absent a miracle, the first film investors will receive nothing either.  As for the Knights of Badassdom project and investor returns one can only guess.  Some Google inquiries to legitimate reports are a better way to learn more about that story.

As an investor in IndieVest and Knights of Badassdom, I am taken aback by the original post in this thread.  I, too, have had money invested in Knights of Badassdom since 2009.  I have also been invested in IndieVest since 2010.  Am I disappointed that I have not yet received a cash return on my investments?  Of course I am.  We all would like to have an immediate return on our investments, but sometimes it doesn’t work that way.

The one area where I certainly disagree with the comments made by the original poster (or maybe I should say imposter) is with regard to communications from the management team at IndieVest.  During the time that I have been invested in Knight’s and IndieVest they have been more than open in their communications.  They would speak with me anytime I called or promptly return my calls, if they were not available.  They took accountability for delays in the release of Knight’s and took actions to curtail the problems that were experienced.

I truly do not understand why the original poster in this thread, if they are an investor in Knight’s and IndieVest, has not sought legal recourse regarding their claims of fraud.  Why do they feel the need to hide their identity and make statements that put my investment at risk?

Mr. Scott,

Let me clarify your statements, which you already know are either false, misleading, slanderous and libelous.

• You are not an owner nor shareholder as your posting implies.

• FINRA did NOT allege or otherwise find that I committed any violations whatsoever   in my capacity as CEO of IndieVest, Inc.

• Additionally, FINRA did NOT allege or otherwise find that IndieVest, Inc. committed any violations whatsoever.

• Therefore, your statements about my conduct regarding Indievest, Inc. are patently false and were made with malicious intent.

• FINRA and myself agreed not to go to a hearing and instead, settle the matter – I did so, agreeing to a 30 day suspension and $7,500. fine (only due if I apply to become registered with a FINRA member) - without admitting or denying their findings.

To clear this matter completely – I have provided the Statement of Mitigating Circumstances that accompanied the settlement.

DOCUMENT BEGINS 

FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS

DEPARTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT,

Complainant, . v. WADE H. BRADLEY (CRD No. *******),

Respondent. Disciplinary Proceeding No. *************

Hearing Officer - MC

RESPONDENT’S STATEMENT OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Respondent WADE H. BRADLEY (“Respondent”) submits the following Statement of Mitigating Circumstances (“Mitigation Statement”)

in connection with Respondent’s Offer of Settlement (“the Offer”) in the abovecaptioned disciplinary proceeding: This Mitigation Statement is submitted by the Respondent. It does not constitute factual or legal findings by FINRA, nor does it reflect the views of FINRA, or its staff.

Respondent relied upon the advice of counsel, Greenberg Traurig and Reed Smith LLP, with regard to events described in the Offer. Based upon the advice of counsel to Respondent and former FINRA member IndieVest Securities, Inc., Respondent believed that the private offering (“the Offering”) of ownership units in Knights of Badassdom Production I, LLC (“KOB1”) was compliant with the terms of such Offering as well as applicable securities laws and regulations and FINRA’s rules.

In particular, Respondent believed, based upon the advice of counsel, that the minimum amount (“the Minimum”) of investment required to break escrow on the KOB1 offering had been met at the time escrow was broken, through a combination of subscriptions received from investors and a loan from IndieVest Pictures, Inc.

Moreover, the private placement memorandum (“PPM”) for the KOB1 offering stated, on its cover page, that the Minimum could be met “through a combination of the sale of units and the provision of production funds by or on behalf of manager.” The PPM also provided that “[t]he Manager may lend money to the Company at the Manager’s sole discretion” and that “[a]ny funds provided by or on behalf of the Manager . . .shall be treated as an interest free, non-recourse loan to the Company . . ..” Respondent, based upon the advice of counsel, understood this to mean that IndieVest Pictures, Inc., the manager of KOB1, could make a loan to KOB1 and that such a loan could be used to meet the Minimum. Respondent further believed, based upon advice of counsel, that all contingencies had been met with regard to the breaking of escrow and that no investors were entitled to return of their investments under the terms of the Offering.

In addition to his reliance upon counsel, Respondent’s belief in the propriety of breaking escrow was based upon the approval of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”), an affiliate of a major international bank, as the escrow agent for the offering. Deutsche Bank had agreed in the Subscription Escrow Agreement that it would hold investor funds until the Minimum was achieved or, if the Minimum was not reached in the applicable period, return the funds to investors. Deutsche Bank approved the breaking of escrow without any objection.

Moreover, Respondent believed, based upon the advice of counsel, that the “Amendment and Modification of Private Placement Memorandum” (“First Amendment”) and the “First Amendment to Subscription Agreement and Second Modification of Private Placement Memorandum” (“Second Amendment”) complied with the terms of the offering as well as applicable laws, regulations and FINRA rules.   A FINRA cycle examiner reviewed the Second Amendment. KOB1 received the signatures of nearly all of the investors on the Second Amendment. The terms of the offering required the approval of only a majority of the investors for the expansion of the offering period addressed in the Second Amendment.

Finally, Respondent believed, based upon the advice of counsel, that he had properly discharged any supervisory duties with regard to the Offering and that he had acted in compliance with the Written Supervisory Procedures of IndieVest Securities, Inc.

DOCUMENT ENDS

So Bradley claims he was a manager with integrity and kept IndieVest and - in particular - Knights of Badassdom investors - completely informed regarding the affairs of the company and the latest film project?  His rebuttal clearly lacks any basis in fact, or reflects perhaps that he and Kopp and a few others managed to issue themselves enough shares to get the Media Society imitative off the ground - sort of.

So - if all what Bradley has to say is true, then why did FINRA sanction Bradley on July 2013 for violations of NASD and FINRA rules concerning the raising of money from investors for the film?  If one reads the complaint he not only did NOT communicate with KoB investors, FINRA discovered other irregularities concerning his conduct as the CEO of IndieVest.

I prefer the cold hard facts FINRA uncovered over what Bradley and one other Media Society investor has to say.  

I have also had my money invested into Knights of Badassdom and IndieVest, though I’ve experienced a very different result than this negative posting by an unknown person that refused to sign their name and take responsibility for their accusations. 

The false allegations against Wade Bradley and Jeremy Kopp have absolutely no merit or truth.  They are individuals of the upmost integrity and have worked tirelessly to make everything they work on a success for every participant involved and especially the investors.  I fully support their efforts and have met nearly every other shareholder and they feel the same.   

I am saddened that someone would lie about others in such a manner as to only harm their reputation, without taking any responsibility if they actually had a real claim.  It is easier to settle an actual claim like this person suggests they have, simply by filing a legal complaint.  Yet this has never been done.

Wade and Jeremy and IndieVest have continually made every investor completely aware of the challenges they encountered with the film and the original production team that needed to be replaced, the transparency of their plans to remove these road-blocks, and their subsequent success in doing so and their achieving the films North American theatrical distribution (less than 400 out of ten thousand films annually receive theatrical distribution. 

As an equity investor in IndieVest then Media Society, I could not be happier with the tremendously executed plan to move away from an entity with no growth to substantial growth, in just over twelve months.  

Wade and his team of professionals are always available to any investor’s inquiry and I am very proud to have him lead the management team, as are the 88% of other IndieVest investors that voted with their dollars and equity to back their plan.

I personally know a significant number of the individuals that comprise the company’s shareholders and have never heard, nor met anyone who was not fully informed on a continual basis and wasn’t pleased with the results.  Something smells very fishy about this posting and it is the opposite of the experience we as shareholders continue to enjoy.

IW

Update:

IndieVest Pictures announced the North American theatrical and home entertainment distribution deal for KNIGHTS OF BADASSDOM. This announcement is currently in the public domain.

Since the original completely false anonymous posting occurred, our counsel has discovered that this and other anonymous postings which occurred around the web (film 'fan' blogs) were conducted by a person(s) who were potential competitors to our company and had never invested into any feature film projects with us.

The false and defamatory postings on the web have originated from anonymous sources and no identifiable person has EVER contacted us or anyone else with these claims (which is why the mainstream press never published these falsehoods).

Best regards,

Wade Bradley

CEO

Media Society

It is unfortunate that any business or person would ever have to answer to an individual that assumes an anonymous identity to slander and defame individuals and a company. 

Realistically, all this person would need to do (if they were actually who they purport to be) is come forward in person or in writing to discuss their alleged complaints directly with the company.  This has not occurred.

Instead, this person seems to believe that under the cover of night (or anonymously on the internet) they can hurl false and misleading claims and accusations. We take these patently false and misleading claims and accusations very seriously, and request that this person make themselves known to us so that we can appropriately respond in the correct forum. 

Regarding IndieVest Pictures feature film Knights of Badassdom, this compelling feature film project did incur schedule delays, as it was deemed necessary to make significant changes to the post-production producer personnel to fully
achieve the original vision of the movie. These changes were discussed throughout quarterly reports and other updates. Our investors agreed wholeheartedly that every change that occurred was in the best interest of the film, even though it
did indeed consume additional time. Nobody ever enjoys delays, though they are a factor at one point or another in everyones personal or professional life, and certainly the entertainment industry is not immune to the occurrence. The
film is now readying for its final mix and is on schedule to be released (by IndieVest Pictures) in the first half of 2013.

Regarding any stock investment in any company, the duty of management to shareholders is to drive the opportunity to its greatest achievement for the benefit of the shareholders. If, during the life of a company, it is deemed that any form of restructure is in order, then that is what management proposes, then executes. A super majority (more than 75%) not
only agreed with managements planning, but also chose to fund its execution.

Best regards,
Wade Bradley
CEO
Media Society